How to accurately determine how many Calories you REALLY burned
Replies
-
TavistockToad wrote: »Eat the lower number and its not going to be 'too many'?
i'd have to do the math each time which won't happen. but i guess i could leave the "walking" cals and eat back the runs only....
It would only take about 2 minutes to setup an excel file that would do the calculations for you... all you'd have to do is provide the workout data.
FWIW.
1 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Eat the lower number and its not going to be 'too many'?
i'd have to do the math each time which won't happen. but i guess i could leave the "walking" cals and eat back the runs only....
It would only take about 2 minutes to setup an excel file that would do the calculations for you... all you'd have to do is provide the workout data.
FWIW.
i did the math for most of my runs and saved the info for easy reference. can recalculate later on as needed if i loose a few or more pds.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Those are just the formula's from a Polar funded study that you can use when you don't have a valid VO2max estimate to use. I'm sure they have a more "private" version they use now.
Link on this page to the study, and easier way to use the formula.
ETA - on steady state aerobic workouts, same HR for 2-4 min. Useless for for intervals, lifting, ect.
www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm
Since there is no VO2max on that formula you gave it makes a lot of assumptions - so it is hardly "the most accurate way".
Several of the activity trackers do actually attempt to what some HRM's have done for years, to use a separate formula to estimate VO2max first.
Polar not surprising had that too - not published study though. On the nicer models.
But they attempted to get a good resting HR, just as most trackers attempt to do.
They would attempt with HRV to estimate a HRmax, which most trackers just use 220-age is their downfall.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16168867
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-003-0988-y
That and some other stats and you are on your way to getting a decent estimate of VO2max for avg person, and then even your public formula if used could be better estimate. Since activity trackers, like Garmin used to ask for the info from user input, can see what your workout time/frequency is, this method can be useful too.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2287267
For the right workouts - and that's the problem with activity trackers. Depends on the workout.
If using better step-based calorie burn, if distance is decently correct, don't know incline.
If using HR-based calorie burn, if HR is read correctly, doesn't know type of workout if formula is decent estimate for.
Fitbit on a few recent models stopped using HR-based calorie burn when you select you are doing a Weights workout - they use the database rate of burn, which is much better estimate if your workout matches what that means.
The flaw with that study you linked - they didn't have the devices on the person for about 2 weeks for it to fine tune for the resting HR, exercise time & frequency. That could have lead to a better estimate of calories burned.
Their study to me is as bad as jumping on an elliptical, not entering a weight, and thinking the calorie burn has any basis in reality.
They didn't understand what they were testing frankly, and how they work. From what I can tell.4 -
The equations seem very off to me. Yes I'm a big girl, but saying that I keep my average heart rate at 100 for an hour would burn 718 calories. For my hour long martial arts class, I def have spikes and average at least 100 over the whole hour. My Fitbit gives me about 400 calories. Granted, I don't have a heart rate monitoring Fitbit. Based on the deficit I get using the numbers from Fitbit (I eat back about 75%), it's relatively accurate. There are fluctuations because I'm a lady with lady bits that mask weight loss sometimes and some days I'm more or less hungry and will eat back more or less if the exercise calories. However, I shoot for 2 pounds per week and according to Libra, with data for three months, my average is 2.2 pounds per week. Just throwing this out there.
As an aside, there are workouts where I can't wear my Fitbit because it doesn't fit well under my boxing gloves. Is there a general consensus on whether or not heart rate monitors work well and if so, which one gives relatively accurate read outs?0 -
As an aside, there are workouts where I can't wear my Fitbit because it doesn't fit well under my boxing gloves. Is there a general consensus on whether or not heart rate monitors work well and if so, which one gives relatively accurate read outs?
That study link in OP seemed to indicate decent read accuracy ability on the wrist tracker devices.
But that ability also seems to be variable, YMMV, especially if it's bouncing around boxing. Then again, perhaps the glove holds it in place pretty tight. Then again, perhaps that doesn't help.0 -
Am I the only one that can't get the formula to work? It always ends up with something in the realm of 20+ cals per minute burned. Um, no.
Today's run (4.14 miles in 36 minutes at 173lbs) -
Generally accepted approximation #1: 414 cals
Generally accepted approximation #2: 465 cals
Garmin HRM: 465 cals
MFP: 515 cals
Crazy formula from this thread: 747 cals
I don't assert that my garmin is 100% right 100% of the time. Heck, it might not even be 80% right 80% of the time. But it's hard to beat the accuracy-to-ease/convenience of use ratio.1 -
0
-
Thanks for the link - it's enlightening to use different tools for comparison. That calculator showed 354 calories expended for my treadmill run yesterday, Garmin gave me 318. Using the Runnersworld formula (wt x 0.63 x distance) gave me 256.0 -
Tried it with my stats from a one hour cycling FTP test using a power meter (about as accurate as you can get outside of a sports science lab).
True net calories = 767
Formula calculated cals with my VO2 max = 960 (I wish!)
Formula calculated cals without VO2 max = 1022 (I would be applying for my racing license)
Not impressed with the so called accuracy.0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »
Lol!!!
How sad am I actually working it out.... It was the bit about replacing the 1 with a 0 that made me look more closely!!!
Still I'm a bit freaked out that my FitBit may be more than doubling my burn... although I don't think it is cos I've always lost at the expected rate using it... If only I could get my calories in under control the FitBit seems to look after the CO well enough!
I may be remembering incorrectly so I don't remember which devices/formulas do which, but some devices/formulas include your BMR in the exercise calorie estimate, and some don't. Possible something like that is behind the double/half issue?
All this stuff is just approximations anyway - consistency is more important than actual accuracy in real-life practice, as we'll adjust our intake based on results, eventually, right?
0 -
My calculations give me a glass of wine per hour of walking.
Seriously, if you are in a km country here is the equation with the conversion.
Walking calorie equation.
(Weight in lbs x 0.3) x distance in miles=cal burn
(W in lbs x 0.3)x (distance in km x 0.621) = cal burn.
Running use weight x 0.63
.621 converts km to mile.
Cheers, h.0 -
DoubleUbea wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »body weight in lbs x 0.63 x distance in miles
walking is the same equation but x 0.3.
Does speed and incline decline of the terrain factor into the calculation? I would think fitness trackers, apps and treadmill machines would use a simple formula.
Change in elevation only matters if you take a one-way trip ending a someplace different from your start point. If you end up where you started, your net elevation change is zero.
0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »DoubleUbea wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »body weight in lbs x 0.63 x distance in miles
walking is the same equation but x 0.3.
Does speed and incline decline of the terrain factor into the calculation? I would think fitness trackers, apps and treadmill machines would use a simple formula.
Change in elevation only matters if you take a one-way trip ending a someplace different from your start point. If you end up where you started, your net elevation change is zero.
Well, that's not quite accurate either.
They don't cancel each other out, just as a head/tail wind or up/down hill on a bike does not either.
Going at more than a minimal/easy downhill walking/running has been found to burn 20-25% of the rate going uphill at same incline and pace.
Of course, usually you go faster going down but most cannot make up the difference, especially walking, enough you'll still burn more going up than you would going down - so it's not a wash.
https://www.physiology.org/doi/10.1152/japplphysiol.01177.2001
If you are talking about a couple 2% inclines on a 15 min walk - then sure it's immaterial in the scheme of things.
But it's not a wash either.2 -
TavistockToad wrote: »bodyweight in lbs x 0.63 x distance in miles
walking is the same equation but x 0.3.
At what speed does walking become running?
1 -
DoubleUbea wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »bodyweight in lbs x 0.63 x distance in miles
walking is the same equation but x 0.3.
At what speed does walking become running?
Gait determines if you're walking or running.
One foot always on the ground, walking. Both feet off the ground, running.2 -
TavistockToad wrote: »DoubleUbea wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »bodyweight in lbs x 0.63 x distance in miles
walking is the same equation but x 0.3.
At what speed does walking become running?
Gait determines if you're walking or running.
One foot always on the ground, walking. Both feet off the ground, running.
Seconded.0 -
DoubleUbea wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »bodyweight in lbs x 0.63 x distance in miles
walking is the same equation but x 0.3.
At what speed does walking become running?
Some people speed walk, some people run very slowly.0 -
I’ll take my chances. I suck at math.0
-
TavistockToad wrote: »DoubleUbea wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »bodyweight in lbs x 0.63 x distance in miles
walking is the same equation but x 0.3.
At what speed does walking become running?
Gait determines if you're walking or running.
One foot always on the ground, walking. Both feet off the ground, running.
This. Though if you really want a specific answer, go with something like 4.5 mph. It's right around this speed that walking becomes tough from a biomechanical standpoint and it actually becomes easier to use a running gait. Also, at this speed you'll actually burn more calories using a walking gait than you would using a running gait.
Source is the same Runner's World article that put forth the 0.63 and 0.31 approximations for calorie burns during walking/running.2 -
Am I the only one that can't get the formula to work? It always ends up with something in the realm of 20+ cals per minute burned. Um, no.
Today's run (4.14 miles in 36 minutes at 173lbs) -
Generally accepted approximation #1: 414 cals
Generally accepted approximation #2: 465 cals
Garmin HRM: 465 cals
MFP: 515 cals
Crazy formula from this thread: 747 cals
I don't assert that my garmin is 100% right 100% of the time. Heck, it might not even be 80% right 80% of the time. But it's hard to beat the accuracy-to-ease/convenience of use ratio.
i think you missed a step in the formula for this threat - 173lb*4.14*.36 = 258cal0 -
nvm
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 429 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions