Fit bit is giving me 1427 exercise calories?!
Options
Replies
-
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous. Your heart rate determines how many calories you burn, not the distance you've covered, just because a treadmill gives you more calories for going farther doesn't mean that's what causes you to burn more calories. If you wear a heart rate strap, it doesn't need to know how far you've gone, what you've done. It just needs to know your basic information, your height, weight, gender, etc. as well as your heart rate.
Heart rate determines calories burned.
No, metabolic efficiency determines calories burned.
You can't compare apples (a marathoner) to oranges (an unfit person) that just doesn't make sense.
You'd have to compare the SAME PERSON doing both. HR is an indicator of effort, yes, but that doesn't mean you burned more calories for the same amount of work. Read my example above for the logic behind that.
I would (for your own sake) understand that HR is not how one determines energy used.
If you want to get serious about determining calories burned you would need to know precisely your VO2 MAX.
Why would you not be able to compare different people?
But we'll go with that, if I am training today and I am feeling good, feeling fresh, go on a 5 mile run and my heart rate is 165 the whole time. I burn X amount of calories. Finish the run feeling decent, tired but not dead.
The next day, I am feeling a little sore and tired, so naturally my heart rate will be a bit higher as I am under recovered and don't run often. I go on another 5 mile run, and my heart rate is at 175 for the 5 miles this time. Finish the run, exhausted and pretty tired.
Same calorie burn? No.
Yes... The same calorie burn.
And so if I do that run now, and then take 6 months get a lot fitter and keep all the muscle mass I have, run the same 5 miles and my heart rate is at 150 the whole time, still burn the same amount of calories?
YES!!!!
It hasn't changed since you changed your profile picture and display name and you were presented with this information last week... and the week before.
So you and rainbowbow are saying different things. She said it's based on metabolic efficiency, and you're saying its just based off the distance covered.
No, we're saying the same thing. I was pointing out that you can't compare apples to oranges.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous. Your heart rate determines how many calories you burn, not the distance you've covered, just because a treadmill gives you more calories for going farther doesn't mean that's what causes you to burn more calories. If you wear a heart rate strap, it doesn't need to know how far you've gone, what you've done. It just needs to know your basic information, your height, weight, gender, etc. as well as your heart rate.
Heart rate determines calories burned.
No, metabolic efficiency determines calories burned.
You can't compare apples (a marathoner) to oranges (an unfit person) that just doesn't make sense.
You'd have to compare the SAME PERSON doing both. HR is an indicator of effort, yes, but that doesn't mean you burned more calories for the same amount of work. Read my example above for the logic behind that.
I would (for your own sake) understand that HR is not how one determines energy used. If you want to get serious about determining calories burned you would need to know precisely your VO2 MAX.
Why would you not be able to compare different people?
But we'll go with that, if I am training today and I am feeling good, feeling fresh, go on a 5 mile run and my heart rate is 165 the whole time. I burn X amount of calories. Finish the run feeling decent, tired but not dead.
The next day, I am feeling a little sore and tired, so naturally my heart rate will be a bit higher as I am under recovered and don't run often. I go on another 5 mile run, and my heart rate is at 175 for the 5 miles this time. Finish the run, exhausted and pretty tired.
Same calorie burn? No.
Yes... The same calorie burn.
And so if I do that run now, and then take 6 months get a lot fitter and keep all the muscle mass I have, run the same 5 miles and my heart rate is at 150 the whole time, still burn the same amount of calories?
YES!!!!
It hasn't changed since you changed your profile picture and display name and you were presented with this information last week... and the week before.
So you and rainbowbow are saying different things. She said it's based on metabolic efficiency, and you're saying its just based off the distance covered.
No, we're saying the same thing. I was pointing out that you can't compare apples to oranges.
You said it's based off metabolic efficiency. He just said if I became more metabolically efficient, I'd burn the same amount of calories.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous. Your heart rate determines how many calories you burn, not the distance you've covered, just because a treadmill gives you more calories for going farther doesn't mean that's what causes you to burn more calories. If you wear a heart rate strap, it doesn't need to know how far you've gone, what you've done. It just needs to know your basic information, your height, weight, gender, etc. as well as your heart rate.
Heart rate determines calories burned.
No, metabolic efficiency determines calories burned.
You can't compare apples (a marathoner) to oranges (an unfit person) that just doesn't make sense.
You'd have to compare the SAME PERSON doing both. HR is an indicator of effort, yes, but that doesn't mean you burned more calories for the same amount of work. Read my example above for the logic behind that.
I would (for your own sake) understand that HR is not how one determines energy used. If you want to get serious about determining calories burned you would need to know precisely your VO2 MAX.
Why would you not be able to compare different people?
But we'll go with that, if I am training today and I am feeling good, feeling fresh, go on a 5 mile run and my heart rate is 165 the whole time. I burn X amount of calories. Finish the run feeling decent, tired but not dead.
The next day, I am feeling a little sore and tired, so naturally my heart rate will be a bit higher as I am under recovered and don't run often. I go on another 5 mile run, and my heart rate is at 175 for the 5 miles this time. Finish the run, exhausted and pretty tired.
Same calorie burn? No.
I don't know how else to say that it takes the same amount of work regardless of heart rate....
For now i'll focus on the presumption that you think HR determines calories burned. It does not.
Read more here:
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_vo2_estimation.pdf
Measuring oxygen consumption is the only way to accurately determine calories burned. This is generally done in a clinical setting with a v02 MAX test, or an RMR test which measures how much carbon dioxide you exhale.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650235/
Heart rate is *related* to VO2 max, but is NOT totally correlated as heart rate make take time to recover while you're sitting on your butt doing nothing. This is why HRMs are so innacurate for weight lifting and other non-steady state exercises. Heart rate is especially inaccurate in determining calories burned in fit individuals, when working out at low-intensity, working in intervals or non-steady states, etc.
Regardless, think about the analogy i made earlier. Calories burned in the same metabolically efficient individual will be the same for distance regardless of time.
edit: I forgot, HRMs are also innacurate in determining calories burned when using a lot of upper body movements.
When your heart rate is higher, oxygen consumption is increased, meaning an increase in calories burned.
When your heart rate is lower, oxygen consumption is decreased, meaning a decrease in calories burned.
Nothing in either of those mentioned anything about the more "work"/"distance" covered, leads to more calories burned which is what you are arguing.
And yes, I know how metabolic assessments work, I used to perform them.0 -
3 Hypothetical runners all 200 lbs
1. Marathoner 5'10 runs 6 minute mile for reps
2. Regular fit guy 5'7 runs 9 minute mile
3. Bag o donuts 5'4 runs 11 minute mile
Predicted calorie burn for 1 mile=150 calories. +/- 10%
1 burns 138 calories in 6 minutes
2 burns 152 calories in 9 minutes
3 burns 147 calories in 11 minutes
So, metabolic efficiency means that 1 burns more calories per half hour than 2 and 2 burns more per half hour than 3.
But the burn per mile is consistent to within the margin of error of the estimate.
The improvements in efficiency lead to higher calorie burn per hour... which is exactly the opposite of what your theory.... higher heart rate=higher calorie burn.. would suggest.
http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
There's the link again.
0 -
But with the afterburn effect, you'll burn more calories running the mile than walking it, even though the actual steps themselves burn the same amount of calories.
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/health-fitness/exercise/why-running-a-mile-burns-more-calories-than-walking0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous. Your heart rate determines how many calories you burn, not the distance you've covered, just because a treadmill gives you more calories for going farther doesn't mean that's what causes you to burn more calories. If you wear a heart rate strap, it doesn't need to know how far you've gone, what you've done. It just needs to know your basic information, your height, weight, gender, etc. as well as your heart rate.
Heart rate determines calories burned.
No, metabolic efficiency determines calories burned.
You can't compare apples (a marathoner) to oranges (an unfit person) that just doesn't make sense.
You'd have to compare the SAME PERSON doing both. HR is an indicator of effort, yes, but that doesn't mean you burned more calories for the same amount of work. Read my example above for the logic behind that.
I would (for your own sake) understand that HR is not how one determines energy used. If you want to get serious about determining calories burned you would need to know precisely your VO2 MAX.
Why would you not be able to compare different people?
But we'll go with that, if I am training today and I am feeling good, feeling fresh, go on a 5 mile run and my heart rate is 165 the whole time. I burn X amount of calories. Finish the run feeling decent, tired but not dead.
The next day, I am feeling a little sore and tired, so naturally my heart rate will be a bit higher as I am under recovered and don't run often. I go on another 5 mile run, and my heart rate is at 175 for the 5 miles this time. Finish the run, exhausted and pretty tired.
Same calorie burn? No.
I don't know how else to say that it takes the same amount of work regardless of heart rate....
For now i'll focus on the presumption that you think HR determines calories burned. It does not.
Read more here:
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_vo2_estimation.pdf
Measuring oxygen consumption is the only way to accurately determine calories burned. This is generally done in a clinical setting with a v02 MAX test, or an RMR test which measures how much carbon dioxide you exhale.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650235/
Heart rate is *related* to VO2 max, but is NOT totally correlated as heart rate make take time to recover while you're sitting on your butt doing nothing. This is why HRMs are so innacurate for weight lifting and other non-steady state exercises. Heart rate is especially inaccurate in determining calories burned in fit individuals, when working out at low-intensity, working in intervals or non-steady states, etc.
Regardless, think about the analogy i made earlier. Calories burned in the same metabolically efficient individual will be the same for distance regardless of time.
edit: I forgot, HRMs are also innacurate in determining calories burned when using a lot of upper body movements.
When your heart rate is higher, oxygen consumption is increased, meaning an increase in calories burned.
When your heart rate is lower, oxygen consumption is decreased, meaning a decrease in calories burned.
Nothing in either of those mentioned anything about the more "work"/"distance" covered, leads to more calories burned which is what you are arguing.
And yes, I know how metabolic assessments work, I used to perform them.
I would go ahead and re-read those articles i posted if that's your take away.
Listen, I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to convince you of the facts. It isn't related to OP and her problem. Please do some further research on the matter. You can start here:
http://running.competitor.com/2015/03/training/many-calories-running-burn_123951
It echoes exactly what i said earlier. Running is mechanically different than walking and that in and of itself burns more calories, but not by much. The more metabolically efficient you are the less it takes for you to recover and the lower afterburn you have, but on the flip side the more efficient you are the more exercise you can do before coming to exhaustion. It's all a toss up.
If the same fit person were to do the same amount of work (like travelling x distance) the energy burned would assuredly be the same.0 -
Two points.
1st if you have a typical car -which uses gas as its fuel source- then you must drive it faster in order to complete X distance in 10 minutes instead of 20. You'll use more gas per mile. If you're exerting more effort, you'll burn more calories per minute.
2nd - there is consideration for what happens in the time difference? If you walk X distance in 10 minutes instead of 20, what are you doing in your 'saved' 10 minutes? Whatever that is, you're using energy to do it. That burns calories also.rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same. Edit: Imagine you're driving a car 10 miles. You drive at 60 MPH and complete this in 10 minutes. Then you drive at 30 miles per hour and complete it in 20 minutes. Do you need more energy to go 10 minutes at 60 or 20 minutes at 30? The answer is it takes the same amount of energy to do the work regardless of speed.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
0 -
But with the afterburn effect, you'll burn more calories running the mile than walking it, even though the actual steps themselves burn the same amount of calories.
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/health-fitness/exercise/why-running-a-mile-burns-more-calories-than-walking
Actually, running burns more calories inherently and has a higher afterburn.
However, afterburn has a cap depending on what your activity is(somewhere in the 20-30 minute range). So whether you run for 2 miles or 6 miles you'll get the same afterburn.
Different activities have different afterburn.
Running
Walking
Strength training heavy(1-5 rep)
Strength training light(8-12 rep)
Etc.0 -
StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Two points.
1st if you have a typical car -which uses gas as its fuel source- then you must drive it faster in order to complete X distance in 10 minutes instead of 20. You'll use more gas per mile.
2nd - there is consideration for what happens in the time difference? If you walk X distance in 10 minutes instead of 20, what are you doing in your 'saved' 10 minutes? Whatever that is, you're using energy to do it. That burns calories also.rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same. Edit: Imagine you're driving a car 10 miles. You drive at 60 MPH and complete this in 10 minutes. Then you drive at 30 miles per hour and complete it in 20 minutes. Do you need more energy to go 10 minutes at 60 or 20 minutes at 30? The answer is it takes the same amount of energy to do the work regardless of speed.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
To the first point, no it doesn't that's my point. You use the same amount of energy to go the same distance, regardless of time.
To the second, yes, of course. And depending on the intensity of the exercise, or your physical fitness, you will burn additional calories in after-burn.
My initial point was that regardless, doing the same amount of work requires the same amount of energy, regardless of time.
Here's some info:
https://www.mansfieldct.org/Schools/MMS/staff/hand/work=fxd.htm- "
- Work = Force x Distance
- Which of the following will result in more work? Running straight up hill, or taking a zigzag path up the hill?
- The work will be the same for both paths. The direct path requires more force, but less distance, while the zigzag path requires less force but more distance.
- Work = Mass * Gravity * Height
- The equation above shows how to calculate the work done. As you can see, your work will be the same – no matter which path you take - because your mass doesn’t change during the trip. Gravity doesn’t change. The final height is the same. Therefore, work is the same.
- Energy is defined as the ability to do work. If you can measure how much work an object does, or how much heat is exchanged, you can determine the amount of energy that is in a system. "
1 -
@rainbowbow Im really just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing of HR not having as much impact as I thought and I read through the first research paper about Vo2max you posted.
But as far as I understand it, it just states that vo2max is the most accurate method, which is repeated in the paper Ill link but (afaiu) HR is still a better method of estimating than just applying raw templates on an individual. Like any formula that would suggest that 2 people get the same result for the same excercise, with different activity/health/HR levels?
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf0 -
BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »@rainbowbow Im really just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing of HR not having as much impact as I thought and I read through the first research paper about Vo2max you posted.
But as far as I understand it, it just states that vo2max is the most accurate method, which is repeated in the paper Ill link but (afaiu) HR is still a better method of estimating than just applying raw templates on an individual. Like any formula that would suggest that 2 people get the same result for the same excercise, with different activity/health/HR levels?
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf
Yes, i'm certainly not saying HR is *complete* trash, simply that it has it's limitations. If you're trying to estimate calories burned, using a heart rate monitor can be helpful. But only if you're:- Performing steady state cardiorespiratory activity: this means no intervals, no low-intensity exercise like walking, no heavy weight lifting, nothing where heart rate is known to be an inaccurate correlation with vo2 max.
I would also mention that like i said, if you're very physically fit or very physically unfit its likely your HRM will estimate calories burned inaccurately. This is why it's suggested that HRM's are much much better if you've had them calibrated with your accurate vo2 max. Some Polar products and Garmin products (that i know of anyway) have the option to input your vo2 max so that it can more accurately estimate calories burned. Again though, like i said it's only really accurate with the above scenerio.2 -
BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »@rainbowbow Im really just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing of HR not having as much impact as I thought and I read through the first research paper about Vo2max you posted.
But as far as I understand it, it just states that vo2max is the most accurate method, which is repeated in the paper Ill link but (afaiu) HR is still a better method of estimating than just applying raw templates on an individual. Like any formula that would suggest that 2 people get the same result for the same excercise, with different activity/health/HR levels?
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf
HR is great for estimating, if you already know what your HR burn is for a given activity family..
Lets say you run 1 mile in 8 minutes at 160 bpm. your calorie burn for 8 minutes is 136 calories.
You do jazzercise for 16 minutes at 160 bpm. A reasonable estimated calorie burn for jazzercise is 270 calories.
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »
No, metabolic efficiency determines calories burned.
You can't compare apples (a marathoner) to oranges (an unfit person) that just doesn't make sense.
You'd have to compare the SAME PERSON doing both. HR is an indicator of effort, yes, but that doesn't mean you burned more calories for the same amount of work. Read my example above for the logic behind that.
I would (for your own sake) understand that HR is not how one determines energy used. If you want to get serious about determining calories burned you would need to know precisely your VO2 MAX.
I've tracked calories burned on my HRM for a 3 mile run vs a 3 mile brisk walk. The run burns more calories, every single time. Not a lot, only 50 or so, but it's always more for me, when I run. But I think that using a 100 cal per mile is a good general rule-of-thumb.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »@rainbowbow Im really just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing of HR not having as much impact as I thought and I read through the first research paper about Vo2max you posted.
But as far as I understand it, it just states that vo2max is the most accurate method, which is repeated in the paper Ill link but (afaiu) HR is still a better method of estimating than just applying raw templates on an individual. Like any formula that would suggest that 2 people get the same result for the same excercise, with different activity/health/HR levels?
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf
Yes, i'm certainly not saying HR is *complete* trash, simply that it has it's limitations. If you're trying to estimate calories burned, using a heart rate monitor can be helpful. But only if you're:- Performing steady state cardiorespiratory activity: this means no intervals, no low-intensity exercise like walking, no heavy weight lifting, nothing where heart rate is known to be an inaccurate correlation with vo2 max.
I would also mention that like i said, if you're very physically fit or very physically unfit its likely your HRM will estimate calories burned inaccurately. This is why it's suggested that HRM's are much much better if you've had them calibrated with your accurate vo2 max. Some Polar products and Garmin products (that i know of anyway) have the option to input your vo2 max so that it can more accurately estimate calories burned. Again though, like i said it's only really accurate with the above scenerio.
But this contradicts your earlier statement that calories burned regardless of HR will be the same for any given distance walked? And the axample made of a good and bad day.
My actual real life example would be, Im taking a walk on every day off. Always the same distance but depending on my shape on that day and the weather conditions, Ill walk slower/faster. Today was quite hot and thus it actually felt a bit harder to keep up my pace and my HR was averaging 130bpm instead of the usual 120bpm, time it took me for the walk almost the same.
So the calories burned would be the same or as the assumption of the hr device suggests, todays walk burned more cals?
Edit: refering to HR as I cannot track vo2max but considering its correlation - as for talking about the walk considering that you stated the corelation for a walk is innacurate, would the burn then be different for a run?0 -
BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »@rainbowbow Im really just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing of HR not having as much impact as I thought and I read through the first research paper about Vo2max you posted.
But as far as I understand it, it just states that vo2max is the most accurate method, which is repeated in the paper Ill link but (afaiu) HR is still a better method of estimating than just applying raw templates on an individual. Like any formula that would suggest that 2 people get the same result for the same excercise, with different activity/health/HR levels?
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf
Yes, i'm certainly not saying HR is *complete* trash, simply that it has it's limitations. If you're trying to estimate calories burned, using a heart rate monitor can be helpful. But only if you're:- Performing steady state cardiorespiratory activity: this means no intervals, no low-intensity exercise like walking, no heavy weight lifting, nothing where heart rate is known to be an inaccurate correlation with vo2 max.
I would also mention that like i said, if you're very physically fit or very physically unfit its likely your HRM will estimate calories burned inaccurately. This is why it's suggested that HRM's are much much better if you've had them calibrated with your accurate vo2 max. Some Polar products and Garmin products (that i know of anyway) have the option to input your vo2 max so that it can more accurately estimate calories burned. Again though, like i said it's only really accurate with the above scenerio.
But this contradicts your earlier statement that calories burned regardless of HR will be the same for any given distance walked? And the axample made of a good and bad day.
My actual real life example would be, Im taking a walk on every day off. Always the same distance but depending on my shape on that day and the weather conditions, Ill walk slower/faster. Today was quite hot and thus it actually felt a bit harder to keep up my pace and my HR was averaging 130bpm instead of the usual 120bpm, time it took me for the walk almost the same.
So the calories burned would be the same or as the assumption of the hr device suggests, todays walk burned more cals?
calories would be the same. Although, like i said, HRMs are notoriously innacurate for low-intensity activity (like walking).
Can you comment further on how that contradicts anything? I dont understand your first statement.0 -
BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »@rainbowbow Im really just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing of HR not having as much impact as I thought and I read through the first research paper about Vo2max you posted.
But as far as I understand it, it just states that vo2max is the most accurate method, which is repeated in the paper Ill link but (afaiu) HR is still a better method of estimating than just applying raw templates on an individual. Like any formula that would suggest that 2 people get the same result for the same excercise, with different activity/health/HR levels?
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf
Yes, i'm certainly not saying HR is *complete* trash, simply that it has it's limitations. If you're trying to estimate calories burned, using a heart rate monitor can be helpful. But only if you're:- Performing steady state cardiorespiratory activity: this means no intervals, no low-intensity exercise like walking, no heavy weight lifting, nothing where heart rate is known to be an inaccurate correlation with vo2 max.
I would also mention that like i said, if you're very physically fit or very physically unfit its likely your HRM will estimate calories burned inaccurately. This is why it's suggested that HRM's are much much better if you've had them calibrated with your accurate vo2 max. Some Polar products and Garmin products (that i know of anyway) have the option to input your vo2 max so that it can more accurately estimate calories burned. Again though, like i said it's only really accurate with the above scenerio.
But this contradicts your earlier statement that calories burned regardless of HR will be the same for any given distance walked? And the axample made of a good and bad day.
My actual real life example would be, Im taking a walk on every day off. Always the same distance but depending on my shape on that day and the weather conditions, Ill walk slower/faster. Today was quite hot and thus it actually felt a bit harder to keep up my pace and my HR was averaging 130bpm instead of the usual 120bpm, time it took me for the walk almost the same.
So the calories burned would be the same or as the assumption of the hr device suggests, todays walk burned more cals?
Edit: refering to HR as I cannot track vo2max but considering its correlation - as for talking about the walk considering that you stated the corelation for a walk is innacurate, would the burn then be different for a run?
You don't burn more calories when you're hot. It's more uncomfortable, but discomfort doesn't use more biomechanical effort.
4 -
Goal is 1210 calories and I've gotten 8300 steps. I am 5'2 amd 145 pounds. I have mfp set to sedentary since I work in an office. I ride my bike about 10 mins back and fourth to work everyday. My calorie adjustment is 1427 just from 8300 steps. There's no way that I should have over 2000 calories with a 1lb a week goal. I would be gaining weight?! ( I have my goal set to 1200 a day because I often go over on the weekends by going out to eat or drink)
Have you logged any food? If you haven't logged any food, it would make sense that it would say 1427 remaining which would only be an adjustment of a couple hundred calories to reflect the fact that you're doing a bit more than being sedentary.0 -
BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »@rainbowbow Im really just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing of HR not having as much impact as I thought and I read through the first research paper about Vo2max you posted.
But as far as I understand it, it just states that vo2max is the most accurate method, which is repeated in the paper Ill link but (afaiu) HR is still a better method of estimating than just applying raw templates on an individual. Like any formula that would suggest that 2 people get the same result for the same excercise, with different activity/health/HR levels?
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf
Yes, i'm certainly not saying HR is *complete* trash, simply that it has it's limitations. If you're trying to estimate calories burned, using a heart rate monitor can be helpful. But only if you're:- Performing steady state cardiorespiratory activity: this means no intervals, no low-intensity exercise like walking, no heavy weight lifting, nothing where heart rate is known to be an inaccurate correlation with vo2 max.
I would also mention that like i said, if you're very physically fit or very physically unfit its likely your HRM will estimate calories burned inaccurately. This is why it's suggested that HRM's are much much better if you've had them calibrated with your accurate vo2 max. Some Polar products and Garmin products (that i know of anyway) have the option to input your vo2 max so that it can more accurately estimate calories burned. Again though, like i said it's only really accurate with the above scenerio.
But this contradicts your earlier statement that calories burned regardless of HR will be the same for any given distance walked? And the axample made of a good and bad day.
My actual real life example would be, Im taking a walk on every day off. Always the same distance but depending on my shape on that day and the weather conditions, Ill walk slower/faster. Today was quite hot and thus it actually felt a bit harder to keep up my pace and my HR was averaging 130bpm instead of the usual 120bpm, time it took me for the walk almost the same.
So the calories burned would be the same or as the assumption of the hr device suggests, todays walk burned more cals?
Edit: refering to HR as I cannot track vo2max but considering its correlation - as for talking about the walk considering that you stated the corelation for a walk is innacurate, would the burn then be different for a run?
You might get a small, but not statistically significant increase in burn and afterburn. But it would be just that... not statistically significant....0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
yes and no...depends on the type of fitbit you have. If you have an HR you'll get more calories back for having a higher heart rate.
Yep, especially with the bike ride to and from work.0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
@RAD_Fitness
Sorry but that is utter nonsense - please educate yourself because you are spreading misinformation that will confuse people.
I've seen three people all producing the same power output (that's a true measure of energy) on exercise bikes with HRs of 130, 150 and 180 bpm.
HR is a proxy for oxygen uptake but actual HR (min, max and exercise HR) is enormously variable from person to person. Some of it due to different stroke volume and pumping efficiency.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions