Calorie Burn? Which Number Do I Use?

buffynic

Like many people, I use a FitBit to track my heart rate, calorie burn, etc., but after a walk with my dog, I felt a bit skeptical about the amount of calories I really burned. I pulled out my decade old Polar FT7, put in new batteries and tested. The next day, FitBit reports 226 calories burned walking my dog, Polar 98. Today a walk in the god awful heat with 90% humidity for 74 minutes, FitBit 386, Polar 214.

So, when logging my calorie burn, which number do I use? Suggestions?

Thanks in advance,
Buffy

angelsja

Does the polar include your BMR? Fitbit gives you calories burn for the walk and the calories you burned being alive during your walk. Why not just sync your Fitbit to mfp then you don't have to manually log workouts?

buffynic

Thank you for your reply. I opted not to sync the Fitbit because I doubted its accuracy. For example, today it calculated a long walk at 388 calories burned while the polar calculated it at 268. Upon your mentioning it, I looked at a BMR which calculated my rate at 1326 which could explain why I'm not seeing much movement on the scale despite limiting my calories to 1200 day and exercising.

errollmaclean

The number on your scale. The only way to tell how accurate calorie burns truly are is by calibrating with what your weight does. If your weight is not doing what it is "supposed" to, you have a logging error. Either your food/exercise calorie burn or both are inaccurate (assuming no medical conditions are present). Start by getting a digital food scale if you don't have one already.

It's worth reading the posts stickied at the top of each forum. Full of great info and will cover basically all of the problems you might come across.

buffynic

Thank you for your response. I do have a digital scale and measure everything. I also make certain the foods that are already in the database reflect information on the labels of my foods. I do appreciate your suggestions. Next step is making sure there isn't a metabolic issue. I have noticed little differences in my waist and hip measurements despite that this week, the one pound I did lose previously, has found its way back to me

sijomial

A basic HRM is a dreadful choice for trying to estimate calories walking your dog!
It's a heartbeat counter, not a calorie counter.

Try the simple formula.....
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)

buffynic

Thank you! Appreciate the information

WinoGelato

buffynic wrote: »

Thank you for your reply. I opted not to sync the Fitbit because I doubted its accuracy. For example, today it calculated a long walk at 388 calories burned while the polar calculated it at 268. Upon your mentioning it, I looked at a BMR which calculated my rate at 1326 which could explain why I'm not seeing much movement on the scale despite limiting my calories to 1200 day and exercising.

FitBit is tracking the calories burned from the walk but also the burn just from being alive (the BMR). It’s a total activity tracker not just measuring exercise burns. The adjustments you see when MFP and FitBit are synced represent the difference in what MFP thought you would burn based on the stats and activity level you chose (excluding exercise) and what FitBit estimates that you actually burned. Bigger adjustments usually come from people underestimating their activity level (ie choosing Sedentary when they actually average 7000 or more steps per day ) and not trusting the numbers they see when the two are synced.

If you aren’t seeing progress in weight loss I would look first at your logging of your calories in as that’s usually the culprit. Are you logging everything consistently and accurately, ideally using a food scale?

buffynic

Thank you for your comments. I'm sorry I didn't see them until now. I did make some adjustments in my diet. Instead of looking to keep my total calories at 1,200/day, I am now keeping my carbs between 25-50 a day. I've only made this change 5 days ago, so still testing the waters. I can say that I feel less fatigue and less hungry this way. The extra fat is keeping me far more satiated. The information about syncing the FitBit to MFP is interesting. I've been ignoring my FitBit and looking to my old Polar and using that value for calorie burn instead because the FitBit is so inflated compared to it. I'll trying syncing it to see what that looks like. I do have a food scale and use it consistently. Again, much thanks for your input. Truly appreciate you taking the time.

cmriverside

crazyravr wrote: »

buffynic wrote: »

Like many people, I use a FitBit to track my heart rate, calorie burn, etc., but after a walk with my dog, I felt a bit skeptical about the amount of calories I really burned. I pulled out my decade old Polar FT7, put in new batteries and tested. The next day, FitBit reports 226 calories burned walking my dog, Polar 98. Today a walk in the god awful heat with 90% humidity for 74 minutes, FitBit 386, Polar 214.

So, when logging my calorie burn, which number do I use? Suggestions?

Thanks in advance,
Buffy

Neither one. Dont count walking unless you out for miles and miles or hours and hours.

I disagree here.

I use walking as exercise - always have. I give myself 300 calories per hour. It works for me.

To the original poster: Use common sense, and try it with one calorie count or the other; or even just use the halfway between the two. Keep good records and adjust in a month based on your results

WinoGelato

crazyravr wrote: »

buffynic wrote: »

Like many people, I use a FitBit to track my heart rate, calorie burn, etc., but after a walk with my dog, I felt a bit skeptical about the amount of calories I really burned. I pulled out my decade old Polar FT7, put in new batteries and tested. The next day, FitBit reports 226 calories burned walking my dog, Polar 98. Today a walk in the god awful heat with 90% humidity for 74 minutes, FitBit 386, Polar 214.

So, when logging my calorie burn, which number do I use? Suggestions?

Thanks in advance,
Buffy

Neither one. Dont count walking unless you out for miles and miles or hours and hours.

That's not what a FitBit is meant for though. It's a total activity tracker - it measures your calorie burn from all activity - your BMR plus daily activity plus exercise. The adjustments to MFP are a reconciliation of what MFP thought you would burn in a day (NEAT) based on your stats and activity level - and what FitBit says you actually burned. Doesn't matter whether it's a short walk, or a long distance hike - if you burn more calories than MFP originally estimated you shouldn't disregard it automatically simply because it wasn't strenuous exercise.

@buffynic - just try syncing FitBit to MFP and trusting the numbers for a period of time - eating back at least 50% of them. Trying to overanalyze them and compare numbers from different devices/systems is not usually very helpful.

WinoGelato

crazyravr wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

crazyravr wrote: »

buffynic wrote: »

Like many people, I use a FitBit to track my heart rate, calorie burn, etc., but after a walk with my dog, I felt a bit skeptical about the amount of calories I really burned. I pulled out my decade old Polar FT7, put in new batteries and tested. The next day, FitBit reports 226 calories burned walking my dog, Polar 98. Today a walk in the god awful heat with 90% humidity for 74 minutes, FitBit 386, Polar 214.

So, when logging my calorie burn, which number do I use? Suggestions?

Thanks in advance,
Buffy

Neither one. Dont count walking unless you out for miles and miles or hours and hours.

That's not what a FitBit is meant for though. It's a total activity tracker - it measures your calorie burn from all activity - your BMR plus daily activity plus exercise. The adjustments to MFP are a reconciliation of what MFP thought you would burn in a day (NEAT) based on your stats and activity level - and what FitBit says you actually burned. Doesn't matter whether it's a short walk, or a long distance hike - if you burn more calories than MFP originally estimated you shouldn't disregard it automatically simply because it wasn't strenuous exercise.

@buffynic - just try syncing FitBit to MFP and trusting the numbers for a period of time - eating back at least 50% of them. Trying to overanalyze them and compare numbers from different devices/systems is not usually very helpful.

Yeap, I know what they do. But then ppl tend to eat back those calories, here from walking, and then some. Within couple of weeks they come on complaining that the weight isnt budging or they are gaining. Many people get these useful tools and completely dont understand how to use it.
Also, why should the OP automatically eat those back?

Because that’s how the system is designed to work? Your statement of people not understanding how the tools work is ironic if you are automatically dismissing adjustments simply because it was from walking or from FitBit.

Walking is my primary form of exercise, before I had a FitBit I logged and ate back the exercise cals and after getting a FitBit I was getting bigger adjustments than I expected - came to realize that even with a desk job, that I wasn’t sedentary. I changed the activity level and I kept eating back the adjustments from FitBit and still lost the weight I set out to lose, in the time frame I wanted, and have maintained for several years now.