Long slow walks giving crazy high calorie burn?
blonditz
Posts: 83 Member
Anyone else find that long slower paced walks are giving crazy high calorie burns?
Examples...
1 hour 16 minutes 5300 steps average HR 97 410 calories
2 hours 14 minutes 11500 steps average HR 102 794 calories (I know this was about 5 miles)
These are not overly hard walks, they're walking with a friend, only slight shortness of breath and able to carry on a conversation. I'm 32, 5'3" and 170 lbs, resting HR in the mid 50's. I have a Fitbit Charge 2. I've had it since April, so it's not still settling in.
Examples...
1 hour 16 minutes 5300 steps average HR 97 410 calories
2 hours 14 minutes 11500 steps average HR 102 794 calories (I know this was about 5 miles)
These are not overly hard walks, they're walking with a friend, only slight shortness of breath and able to carry on a conversation. I'm 32, 5'3" and 170 lbs, resting HR in the mid 50's. I have a Fitbit Charge 2. I've had it since April, so it's not still settling in.
0
Replies
-
Yes! I have watched my bars and heart rate lately. 70-100 cals burned for a 15 minute block w/ a heart rate of 140-190bpm for walking up and down my hall while reading my phone! I overwrite that craziness with a 3mph walk during that time. Shouldn't have to log a walk, but what are ya gonna do?
Editing to say that I am 5'2.5", 120ish, and have an original Charge HR, which I bought because I thought it would give me a more accurate burn during exercise. LOL0 -
Check on a calorie calculator and see what you should be burning for walks of various speeds, and see how 1 min of each speed stacks against your Fitbit exercise reports.1
-
HR-based calorie burn is only valid for the aerobic exercise zone with steady-state HR the same for 2-4 min.
The farther you get away from that middle range - the less accurate that estimate of calories is. So like approaching anaerobic, even if steady-state, starts getting less accurate.
You are likely discovering the fact the lower end (approaching below the exercise zone) is also inaccurate more than the big middle range is.
You are on average just above the starting point of 90 being that flex-point, so just barely above it has more inaccuracy.
This is the case where step-based formula, with correct stride length - would be more accurate.
As @CoachJen71 mentions - if you have the distance and time, manually logging that on Fitbit and letting it estimate the calories based on pace would be better.
0 -
Heybales, does it matter if I log my walks on FB or from mfp, which is what I have been doing?0
-
Fitbit's use of the public METS database they both use allows for more accuracy.
MFP translates using a common average factor so that weight can be used.
Fitbit leaves in original format and uses your BMR.
Guess how many people with same weight actually have the same BMR.0 -
Yes, but recall that Fitbit thinks I am 4ft tall instead of almost 5'3” to offset the extra 300 cals it kept giving me each day. Is mfp then the better choice for me?
(I figured out the 300 cal discrepancy by noticing that I maintained on 1200 net, lost at 900 net, and gained 1.5lbs in 3 wks when I ate mfps recommended maintenance cals.)0 -
Oh my yes.1
-
So I guess the best route is to pay attention to the distance and override it later? I usually don't know the distance, but there's no reason I can't sync before and after and subtract the miles.
For the above 5 mile walk that would give me 404 calories rather than 794. Reasonable?0 -
Or to make it simple (don't have to sync beforehand) leave the data and override the calorie burn to half?0
-
Or is there a setting to make miles show up under the log for a particular exercise? I shows miles on my main dashboard. But an auto recorded walk just shows start time, minutes, steps, HR, and calories0
-
Every logged Activity, like where you got the stats for calorie burn during the workout - shows distance.
So it's already there, just look around for it.
Keep the original Activity Record there - no need to delete it.
Merely log a new activity using same start time and duration, the given distance, and let MFP estimate calories.
Assuming half could be bad news sometimes.0 -
When I was 135lbs, I wore a chest strap and HRM to measure my casual walks with the dog. A 15 minute walk with the pup averaged 70 calories. Now that I'm 75lbs heavier, I use 75 calories/15 minutes as a "best guess" scenario for my walks.0
-
Oh crap this is my first day with Fitbit.. And I'm hearing all this talk of inaccuracy, it sounds like a lot of faffing to record what you are doing if it's not doing it for you??0
-
kisseskimbers wrote: »Oh crap this is my first day with Fitbit.. And I'm hearing all this talk of inaccuracy, it sounds like a lot of faffing to record what you are doing if it's not doing it for you??
It doesn't happen to everyone. Lots of people find it works fine for them. Let it get to know you for a couple of weeks, weigh and log your food carefully, and see what effect it has on your weight in about a month. Use something like trendweight.com to keep an eye on changes.2 -
kisseskimbers wrote: »Oh crap this is my first day with Fitbit.. And I'm hearing all this talk of inaccuracy, it sounds like a lot of faffing to record what you are doing if it's not doing it for you??
It is doing it for you, depending on device - possibly automatically too.
The problem is the odds of you being exactly average that formulas are built on for good estimates of calorie burn - is highly unlikely - wide bell curve at this level.
So either don't complain when burns seem higher than you'd expect, or accept the fact that is entirely possible and log manually to correct it until the device knows you better after a couple weeks.
And reread this topic as still some things it's not appropriate for regarding calorie burn.2 -
Can't figure out how to delete my post. I realize the info was incorrect. Sorry for the flag.0
-
It requires a bit of troubleshooting to determine if there is actually an issue or things are correct but just not what someone thinks it should be.
In this case the issue is Fitbit's using HR-based calorie burn for an activity that really should be estimated using formula for better accuracy.
Fitbit is merely passing on to MFP a high daily calorie burn containing that inflated walking calorie burn.
It's doing the math right with what it's been given to work with - it has no idea Fitbit is overestimating.
If you are noting a different effect between LoseIt and MFP - then you have a different issue going on.
And frankly it wouldn't be the first time someone thought MFP was in error - but it was actually the other site.
The fact you see Fitbit and LoseIt close probably means you are having a syncing issue with MFP, or rather a replacing issue.
If you want help to figure it out, might start a new thread, and actually give the stats from the Fitbit Adjustment that MFP creates - calories given, time given, MFP expected calories, adjustment amount, deficit, ect.0
This discussion has been closed.