Whats the most accurate way to track calories burned during walking?

weight3049

I walk a trail that isn't just flat it has slight hills etc, is there a watch or app that can track burned calories (more) accurately?

liftingbro

Best thing to do would have a heart rate monitor or a activity tracker with a heart rate monitor.
Nothing else really takes into account elevation changes very well. Maybe track Map My Walk app might be better than just tracking steps.

Machka9

I just go with 200 calories/hour.

Jennikitten

I agree that activity trackers with a heart rate monitor are more accurate

Jackie9003

I got confused too, I do the same walk to and from work, on caloriesburnedhq website it estimates a burn of 252 cals, map my walk gave me 247 cals, presumably as it uses a similar calculation method but my fitbit gave me 342 cals as it could monitor my heart rate.

sijomial

Heart rate monitors and walking is not a good match for calorie estimates!
Especially if someone happens not to be of average fitness levels their elevated HR will be misinterpreted as being in a higher aerobic zones compared to the actual physical effort and calories badly exaggerated.

A GPS tracker without HR may be better and personally I would seek to roughly correct what would probably be a gross calorie estimate down to a net calorie estimate as I would for any long duration but low intensity exercise as that creates a huge margin of error.

For no cost option a phone GPS app (there's many) would be fine and just make a rough estimate of your hourly metabolic rate to take away from the gross estimate.

spiriteagle99

If the difference is only a few calories, does it really matter? Go by the lowest estimate. I just enter my exercise by distance. If there are hills and I burn more calories, that's a bonus and makes up for any inaccuracies in my logging.

kshama2001

weight3049 wrote: »

I walk a trail that isn't just flat it has slight hills etc, is there a watch or app that can track burned calories (more) accurately?

I know that I do a 20 minute mile on flat, and that hills slow me down, so if a mile takes me 25 minutes, I might add 5 minutes of hiking to 20 minutes of walking. I'm just throwing out those numbers as an example, and am not sure that I would apply that logic to "slight hills."

maureenkhilde

I remember seeing the following on a post here in 2019. Was by someone with lots of posts, and much more knowledgeable than me.

There was a factor used for walking I think it was .31 X what your weight is. Then take that number and multiple it by how far you walked (miles). That would roughly give you a good estimate of calories burned. And the number was in the ballpark of what MFP showed as well.

The post listed number for walking, jogging, running, and riding a bike at moderate speed. I found it very helpful.

maureenkhilde

Here is another source that shows it a bit differently. Does not list every exercise but quite a few major ones. https://whatscookingamerica.net/Information/CalorieBurnChart.htm

PAV8888

Tbh, I find that my Fitbit's total calories burned are close enough and I do not log individual walks or hikes as exercise, just take the total calories for the day from my tracker.

I personally think the calculation below is as close as anything to being accurate.

(food) logging errors are more likely to have an effect on the apparent accuracy of the burns than a slight variation between calculations!

https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

If you long consistently (even if innacurately), you can adjust based on your results!

Lillymoo01

PAV8888 wrote: »

Tbh, I find that my Fitbit's total calories burned are close enough and I do not log individual walks or hikes as exercise, just take the total calories for the day from my tracker.

I personally think the calculation below is as close as anything to being accurate.

(food) logging errors are more likely to have an effect on the apparent accuracy of the burns than a slight variation between calculations!

https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

If you long consistently (even if innacurately), you can adjust based on your results!

I am another for just using my Fitbit. I used the online calculator you posted and assume this is additional calories burned whereas the Fitbit is total calories instead. If this is the case the figures from this mornings walk are pretty close.

threewins

weight3049 wrote: »

I walk a trail that isn't just flat it has slight hills etc, is there a watch or app that can track burned calories (more) accurately?

Most accurate? I'd have a heart rate monitor. Then you need to calibrate the hill climb and descent. You do that at the gym, using a treadmill which has both positive and negative incline. Try and match your heart rate on the trail with your heart rate on the treadmill. Your treadmill will give a burn rate. You then need to calibrate the treadmill. I use the CDC model at Wolfram Alpha.

It's a lot of work. Here's my suggestion:

How was the trail?

Pretty easy - add 10%
A bit hard - 20%
Difficult - 30%
A mean %kittens% - 40%
I was sweating buckets - 50%

PAV8888

[quote="PAV8888;c-44566951"If you long consistently (even if innacurately), you can adjust based on your actual results![/quote]

Fixed a couple of extra n's, and added an "actual"

mwlodare

AllTrails app incorporates elevation change

heybales

Ditto's to HRM NOT being the most accurate option.

It's a calculation formula - not a reading of calorie burn.
There are several assumptions and other other calcs in the formula (HRmax = 220-age)
Assumption of high BMI is poor fitness, low BMI is good fitness levels - opposite can easily be true.
High HR is harder effort.

And even if all that were used with actual known figures (VO2max, HRmax) - the range of steady-state aerobic exercise is best estimate only in the middle of the range.
Right above daily activity, and right below anaerobic - is the inflated calorie burn part of the formula.

So not only does a walk like you describe likely have the HR moving all over the place for elevation changes making it non-steady state effort, the other unknowns make it rather iffy.

That exrx site calc using the grade correctly is best option.
Use NET option if logging it directly into MFP and no activity tracker is synced in.
Use Gross if activity tracker like Fitbit synced in.

If this is a 15 min walk, no big deal.
If this is hour or more the difference could easily be 200 cal and up.

briscogun

My Apple Watch tracks HR and calories burned, and it also tracks change in elevation along the way.

NorthCascades

weight3049 wrote: »

I walk a trail that isn't just flat it has slight hills etc, is there a watch or app that can track burned calories (more) accurately?

Can you give us a sense of what this means? Do you know the heights of these hills above and beyond the first parts? Do you have a device that can measure cumulative elevation gain?

NorthCascades

maureenkhilde wrote: »

Here is another source that shows it a bit differently. Does not list every exercise but quite a few major ones. https://whatscookingamerica.net/Information/CalorieBurnChart.htm

maureenkhilde wrote: »

Here is another source that shows it a bit differently. Does not list every exercise but quite a few major ones. https://whatscookingamerica.net/Information/CalorieBurnChart.htm

The formula you gave in the post before this for walking is spot on. It's probably the most accurate you'll get outside a metabolic ward. 🙂

For the record though, the link doesn't work for cycling, it's pretty common. Bikes are machines that can coast which means forward motion for zero calories, let you use different gears, and have a big enough range of speeds that air resistance matters a lot. So it's hard to get it right.

The numbers they give don't check out. Riding on flat ground at 5.5 mph is listed as .029 x weight. Riding at 9.5 is listed at .045 x weight. Both per minute. So riding @9.5 is 1.5 times harder than @9.5. Air resists more the faster you move through it. Wave your hand and you don't feel it at all, but stick your hand out the window of a car on the freeway, and the air literally pushes your arm backwards. Anyway, if you do the math - what the air resistance is at both speeds, and the energy required to overcome the resistance - it's a hair under 3x more power and calories required.

That's why in races, people use heavier aero bikes instead of lighter ones, unless they're going up a mountain.