Exercise - hockey question on duration

JaredIonin

Hi,

There is an ice hockey exercise preloaded (which I assume is just as good for roller hockey).

However, as anyone who has ever watched or played hockey knows you are not out on the ice/rink the entire time. So assume a 50 minute game, you might only be out there for 20 minutes.

So my question is, does the duration listed assume time active or does it assume the duration of a standard game, already accounting for the time people spend on the bench when shifts are occurring?

Retroguy2000

It would be time on the ice, which I'm sure includes combos of sprints, gliding and standing.

I just tested it for myself, and that seems right. There are multiple entries for skating too btw, that you can check out. The ice hockey one is slightly higher calories total than low intensity or regular skating, which makes sense because of the sprinting and extra upper body movements in a game compared to just ice or inline skating along a path for fitness and recreation.

mtaratoot

According to the Compendium of Physical Activities, ice hockey is an 8.0 MET activity and competitive ice hockey is a 10.0 MET activity. Field hockey is 7.8 MET. Running at 11.5 minutes per mile is a 10.0 MET activity, and running 12 minutes per mile is 8.3 MET.

A MET is a metabolic equivalent - the ratio of the work metabolic rate to the resting metabolic rate. One MET is defined as 1 kcal/kg/hour and is roughly equivalent to the energy cost of sitting quietly. A MET also is defined as oxygen uptake in ml/kg/min with one MET equal to the oxygen cost of sitting quietly, equivalent to 3.5 ml/kg/min.

I used one of several MET calculators for someone my weight to estimate a calorie burn from an hour of hockey and an hour of running at 12 minutes per mile. The results were 541 calories for hockey and 561 for running. With that in mind, I think you should only count your ACTIVE minutes.

Retroguy2000

@mtaratoot Total calories or additional calories? Since MFP already bakes in RMR * [1.2 or 1.4 or 1.6 etc. based on users selected general activity level] as assumed calorie burn per hour. If total calories, you should subtract just over 1 MET, call it 1 MET to keep it simple, to get the amount you should add here manually.

mtaratoot

Retroguy2000 wrote: »

@mtaratoot Total calories or additional calories? Since MFP already bakes in RMR * [1.2 or 1.4 or 1.6 etc. based on users selected general activity level] as assumed calorie burn per hour. If total calories, you should subtract just over 1 MET, call it 1 MET to keep it simple, to get the amount you should add here manually.

When I did some calculations on how MFP actually accounts for exercise, you'd just use the published MET values. You can do the experiment yourself. Log (and then delete) an hour of running, then manually calculate the calorie burn. What I found was that you do not have to subtract anything from the published MET values when you log your activity.

Let me know your results. If they differ from mine, I might try again.

Retroguy2000

mtaratoot wrote: »

Retroguy2000 wrote: »

@mtaratoot Total calories or additional calories? Since MFP already bakes in RMR * [1.2 or 1.4 or 1.6 etc. based on users selected general activity level] as assumed calorie burn per hour. If total calories, you should subtract just over 1 MET, call it 1 MET to keep it simple, to get the amount you should add here manually.

When I did some calculations on how MFP actually accounts for exercise, you'd just use the published MET values. You can do the experiment yourself. Log (and then delete) an hour of running, then manually calculate the calorie burn. What I found was that you do not have to subtract anything from the published MET values when you log your activity.

Let me know your results. If they differ from mine, I might try again.

It looked like you were proposing using an outside source of MET values to come up with a calorie estimate, and then entering that. In that case, you'd have to subtract at least one MET.

I just tested it in MFP by changing my default activity from Sedentary to Very Active. At Sedentary my maintenance goal averages to 100 calories per hour. At Very Active it averages to 144. In both cases adding 60 minutes of inline skating with MFP's estimate was 703 additional calories. That's not right. It may be that the MFP exercise database subtracts out RMR from the estimate, but it should subtract out the entire average per hour as dictated by the activity level, i.e. RMR * 1.25 or 1.4 or 1.6 or whatever it amounts to. Or to be more technical, it's higher than that, since about 8 hours are close to RMR while sleeping, so your average calories burned per hour is higher during the rest of the day than while sleeping.

mtaratoot

Clearly neither of us is privy to what happens in the background. I can only make decisions based on the data I see. We are seeing the same data.

Best thing is to use a method, then use your own personal experience over several weeks to fine tune it. We might even agree on that!

Main thing is - keep playing hockey! It's fun for you. Fun is hard to buy at any cost. It does your body good. Keep it up, find a way to log it, then pay attention to see whether or not you need to change how you log it.

I did a "strength training workout" today. I was actively picking things up and putting them down maybe a half hour of a 90-minute workout. My device confirms that. MFP still calls it 90 minutes. I think the calorie estimate is probably right at about 2.7 per minute. I think it does good with running and walking as well, but that also may be the accuracy of my Garmin device more than MFP since the device just dumps, I think, active calories to MFP.

Bottom line: STICK TO IT!