Fit bit is giving me 1427 exercise calories?!

124

Replies

  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    rainbowbow 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:
    1. 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?

    Only slightly. Like i said running is mechanically different than walking, but not by much. During walking, at least one of your feet will be in contact with the ground at any given time, and the length of time during each stride that each foot contacts the ground is greater. During running, the time each of your feet contacts the ground is minimal, and there is a period of time during each stride in which neither of your feet is in contact with the ground. People may also be more inclined to use arms to create greater force in running than in walking.

    So, running would have a higher afterburn (assuming you aren't cardiovascularly fit), and slightly higher burn just for the mechanics of running. But we're talking near negligible amounts here. This is especially when comparing walking to jogging to running to sprints.
  • BlueberryJoghurt
    BlueberryJoghurt Posts: 67 Member
    rainbowbow wrote: »
    rainbowbow 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:
    1. 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.

    You said that the calories burned for an excercise are not influenced by the HR/bpm but the distance covered and are thus the same for that distance no matter the way of traveling or the implicated HR. With the car as an example. (or I missunderstood something you said earlier)
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    rainbowbow wrote: »
    rainbowbow 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:
    1. 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.

    You said that the calories burned for an excercise are not influenced by the HR/bpm but the distance covered and are thus the same for that distance no matter the way of traveling or the implicated HR. With the car as an example. (or I missunderstood something you said earlier)

    I said for the same work and same distance the calories burned are the same regardless of time it took you to get there. (Or HR during the exercise)

    So let's say you walked 1 mile and it took you 20 minutes. And then you walked 1 mile and it took you 10 minutes. Regardless of intensity, how hard it felt, what your HR was, etc. You required the same amount of energy because you did the same amount of work.

    I said that running and walking require almost the same amount of work because of the mechanics of it.
  • Catsinsocks
    Catsinsocks Posts: 28 Member
    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.

    I run 11 min miles. ***cries into a donut***
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    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.

    I run 11 min miles. ***cries into a donut***

    :lol:
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    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.

    I run 11 min miles. ***cries into a donut***

    Are you 5'4" and 200 lbs?

    IF so, I apologize.
  • Catsinsocks
    Catsinsocks Posts: 28 Member
    No 5'5" and 135. Just verrrry slow. Luckily it doesn't matter how slow as long as I cover the same amount of distance :D

    Are you 5'4" and 200 lbs?

    IF so, I apologize.[/quote]

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    edited June 2017
    dodea48 wrote: »
    I understand you can meet triple your exercise goal if you attach the fitbit to your dog's collar

    But I don't have a dog... just 2 cats?
    dodea48 wrote: »
    actually running a mile and walking a mile do burn about the same calories for the same person --- the variable is time --- running a 10 minute mile and walking a 20 minute mile burn about the same calories -- one method is faster

    Actually, they don't

    http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn

    Also, Walking a 10 minute mile does burn measurably more calories than walking a 20 minute mile... because it's on the other side of the "crossover point"
  • cgrout78
    cgrout78 Posts: 1,628 Member
    there are people that can WALK 10 minute miles? I can't even RUN a 10 minute mile. If I get past 4mph i'm jogging, my legs must be too short.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    10 minute walk is Olympic pace, but yes. There are people who can do it.

    Me, 11:45 is pretty much as fast as I care to go sustained... 13 is much easier..

    There's a hippy trick to it.
  • cgrout78
    cgrout78 Posts: 1,628 Member
    that's so sad...people walk faster than I run. I think i'm going to just cry now.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    cgrout78 wrote: »
    that's so sad...people walk faster than I run. I think i'm going to just cry now.

    They walk faster than most people run. The world record pace is 8ish mph
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    cgrout78 wrote: »
    that's so sad...people walk faster than I run. I think i'm going to just cry now.

    I don't think it's sad at all! Some people are faster than you. You're faster than some people. Everyone who is out there doing miles is getting the health benefits of it (and, if you're the type of person who enjoys it, the joy of it). Don't let anyone else's time hide what you've accomplished.
  • cgrout78
    cgrout78 Posts: 1,628 Member
    i'm going to have to google it just to watch it now. that's crazy to me.
  • cgrout78
    cgrout78 Posts: 1,628 Member
    omg...that's the funniest looking thing ever. I'm trying to decide if that's harder on knees that running since it's so unnatural looking. Maybe it doesn't feel as uncomfortable as it looks
  • amandarawr06
    amandarawr06 Posts: 251 Member
    smantha32 wrote: »
    That's why I un-synced fitbit from MFP. It kept adding an insane amount of exercise calories I could "eat back". Just no.

    I had to do the same. It was way off and trying to tell me I had an extra several hundred or thousand calories left when I didn't.
  • Molly_234
    Molly_234 Posts: 89 Member
    savithny wrote: »
    Wait, it says 1425 remaining at 9:30 in the morning? Before you logged food?
    If that's the case, its working just like its supposed to. It didn't "add 1425 calories" from your steps, it added about 200 calories to reflect that you're not "sedentary" and will burn a few hundred calories more per day than someone who *is* sedentary.


    To be clear I've said multiple times that I have already had 1200 calories logged. I ate 1200 and have 1400 calories remaining.
  • Molly_234
    Molly_234 Posts: 89 Member
    edited June 2017
    5e0ffsuwquvm.png
    Here let me make this clear to every one lol.
    Thank you for all the replies. Total steps for the day was 8500 including stairs and bike riding. Does the heart rate add exercise calories?
  • Molly_234
    Molly_234 Posts: 89 Member
    This was yesterdays