What is the best way to estimate calories burned walking? Fitbit, MFP, MMW, etc?

AnnPT77

Verity1111 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

Verity1111 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

0.3*bodyweight in lbs per mile, so c60 Cal's per mile.

That gives you c210 calories.

That seems incredibly off. It doesn't take into account height or fitness level. You should think of height because a short person 5'0" needs to put a lot more energy in than say someone who is 6'0".

The key points are your body mass and the distance you travelled. Height and fitness levels are immaterial.

Walking doesn't burn a huge amount of energy.

Fwiw your HR based measurements are confusing the issue. HR isn't a reliable proxy for calorie expenditure at low levels of intensity.

That's not true. Neither of that is actually. 200 is too low because I used to log a .8mile walk at 100+cal and it always ended up accurate (based on weight loss). That's why I ended up going with 400 because I figure 3.5 / .8 = 4.25 and multiple that times my old log for .8 miles and its about 400 (a bit over). Plus height is 100% a factor. There were scientific studies done to prove it. One specific one had people who were of healthy weight a 5'0" person burned .44 cal per second vs someone 6'0" who burned .37 cal. The 6'0" would be heavier but has longer legs so has to move less. The 5'0" takes more steps and burns more, especially if they are the same weight. I've read multiple studies that insist height effects the cal burned walking. Also, HR is a factor because it relates to oxygen consumption unless you're sick or something as the last person said. HR may not be 100% accurate on it's own but it can in some cases give a correct estimate. It's just impossible to know when it's right and when it's stress illness or other factors.

That's your answer, IMO, embedded in your own comments.

Just pick one - I'd pick the low one, but medium is probably OK. High is almost certainly overstated.

Stick with that estimate, then monitor your weight loss. If you're getting too-low net calories, you should see it fairly quickly in your weight-loss rate, especially if you've been monitoring your eating/exercise long enough to understand the typical scale-readings impact of time of month, and that sort of thing. If your weight loss isn't unhealthily rapid (and you're not suddenly fatigues/lethargic), your net calories are not probably unhealthily low.

I agree with others who say that your unusual HR rise with exercise means it's more likely that your HRM is over-estimating your calorie consumption.

heybales

Verity1111 wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

Verity1111 wrote: »

jennybearlv wrote: »

Verity1111 wrote: »

I checked on MFP the calories burned and it seemed a little low, then MMW (MapMyWalk) seemed a tiny bit high and so I checked my FitBit and it said double MFP! I am 192ish pounds and 5'4" 26 years old and very out of shape. My resting HR lately is about 64BPM and my average during my walk was 135BPM (according to my FitBit which usually matches my Drs readings) went as high as 165bpm. I walked for 79 minutes around 3.5 miles (I think this includes stoplights so we can say 70 minutes). MFP estimated I'd burn a bit over 300 like 330-350 calories. MapMyWalk estimated I think 460 calories (might include my height since my stride is short) and FitBit estimates 758 calories with an average burn of 10 calories per minute. Which do you think is more accurate? Somewhere between MFP and MMW or somewhere between MMW and FitBit? Not sure if it matters but I have 8 screws a plate and a wire in my leg so it does take a bit more energy than it used to and I'm not sure how HR factors in but help? I don't want to over or underestimate too much because my net calorie goal is 1200.

The Fitbit number sounds really high if I compare it to my recent activities using my Garmin with a chest strap HRM. I'm 5'3", so super close to you in height, but weigh 220. A recent run/walk activity was 72 minutes, 4.42 miles, and Garmin has me burning 655 calories. Unless Garmin is way underestimating on my end, which is also possible, I should be burning more calories for my activity than you are for yours because I am much heavier and was moving a little faster. I am also at 5000', which should raise my heart rate a little more too, assuming you are lower, though I'm not sure by how much. I had an elevation gain of only 58', so if your route was very hilly that could make a difference, and also make MFP's calculations unrealistic. I doubt MFP accounts for the challenge of hills.

My streets weren't so much hilly as awful lol sloped broken up sidewalks but Im in the city. I might ask my dr to take let me see a cardiologist because my HR spikes very easy and very high which I think is why my FitBit estimates super high. My HR went over 160 and I was only walking 3mph

The Fitbit has a not always so accurate HRM.

I'd confirm that high reading next time doing just 3 mph.
A count at the neck should be easy to see if you are really going to hit 40 beats in 15 sec. That's racing.

For many that see inaccuracy, it seems to actually stop going up as high as the HR really is, sometimes topping out at some low number when the HR is much higher.

You may be getting artificial double readings on a lot of your beats - if that is the reason, you may notice it on manual check too.

You ever walked a known distance (HS track) to confirm Fitbit got it right?

And walking stride length should be set to average daily pace, not your intense exercise walk.

You don't want super accurate for your maybe 1 hr daily, and all the other majority of walking you do daily being inflated distance because it's actually slower pace.

So the exercise walk should read a tad short for distance (though 3mph is close to daily pace probably), and therefore calorie burn.

No my hrm was right. This happens anytime I exercise. My hr when I use a stationary bike hits 185bpm very easily. I don't trust the calories burned on Fitbit it said 760+ I went with 400 but my hr is always right. When I go to Dr visits and when I was sick in the hospital I tested it.

Testing at lower HR is NOT the same as testing at higher rate.

As I mentioned - the accuracy for most is fine when at lower HR - it's when it goes up people have a potential issue.

Have you tested it at the higher rate?

If you have a HR that really rockets up that fast - you probably have a different reason besides actual effort of the workout causing it.

Unless you have just been starting out and still in poor fitness shape. But that early effect usually subsides by week 3 of regular cardio aerobic exercise.
Unless all workouts are at max effort almost.

heybales

sijomial wrote: »

These are just some of the reasons using HR to estimate your walking calories is a bad idea....

"That makes sense I guess that since I'm very out of shape my hr might spike"
"See your hr went to the 150s running. My rhr is 64 and I went into the 160s walking"
"My hr when I use a stationary bike hits 185bpm very easily."

You clearly have a high exercise HR - that does not mean you burn more calories than someone identical to your size/height/weight who happens to have an average or even low HR.
It's also going to badly skew your estimates for other forms of cardio such as your stationary bike of course, power would be better if your bike records power output.

OP - that is great test - as most stationary bikes seem to display watts for the workout. Watts can be converted to calories, add in base BMR - and you have a better figure for what Fitbit or database would be showing.

That way if the HRM is actually accurate and HR is really that high for some reason - you can figure out a calorie burn rate for several levels of HR shown.

But I've never heard of anyone saying their Fitbit saw accurate HR going that high.

Verity1111

NorthCascades wrote: »

Verity1111 wrote: »

No my hrm works perfect. It matches my Dr's and the hospitals when I was in.

Were you huffing and puffing at 160 bpm when the doctors checked yours at the hospital? Or were you sitting in a chair relaxing? Exercise is where Fitbits have the most trouble with accuracy as HRMs.

Both. I've also check it myself and compared to to what I get after exercising. It's always been accurate.

Verity1111

sijomial wrote: »

These are just some of the reasons using HR to estimate your walking calories is a bad idea....

"That makes sense I guess that since I'm very out of shape my hr might spike"
"See your hr went to the 150s running. My rhr is 64 and I went into the 160s walking"
"My hr when I use a stationary bike hits 185bpm very easily."

You clearly have a high exercise HR - that does not mean you burn more calories than someone identical to your size/height/weight who happens to have an average or even low HR.
It's also going to badly skew your estimates for other forms of cardio such as your stationary bike of course, power would be better if your bike records power output.

Not everyone burns exactly the same when exercising even if they weigh the same or throughout the day. That's why vo2 testing exists. I logged that I burned about 650 per hr from Zumba and it was accurate based on my weight loss. Yet people said it was too high for my height and weight but I lost even more than estimated. A walk to our neighborhood jewel I'd log 100Cal each way which is 0.8 miles and I lost more than estimated. So I think I'll just go with my instinct.