Hiking, with poles?
Options
CoachJen71
Posts: 1,200 Member
I have a Flex and have recently started hiking, which for me mostly means tripping up and downhill over rocks and roots, until I come to a boulder I need to haul myself over or slide down on.
Should I just let my Flex gauge my activity? I logged it on MFP once as "hiking with less than a 10lb load," and the calorie burn it tried to give me was astronomical, so I deleted it and went with what fitbit said, even though the steps, activity minutes, and burn were roughly along the same lines of what I get during a day of teaching. (With walking during breaks and recess thrown in.)
I feel like I am working and sweating far more on an uphill hike than pacing around a classroom. Would Fitbit only know the difference if I got a Charge HR? I want to feed my body appropriately for these 6-8 mile hikes, but don't want to fall into the "I worked out, so I can eat anything" trap. How do I know what I really burned so I can figure out how to not over or under eat?
Should I just let my Flex gauge my activity? I logged it on MFP once as "hiking with less than a 10lb load," and the calorie burn it tried to give me was astronomical, so I deleted it and went with what fitbit said, even though the steps, activity minutes, and burn were roughly along the same lines of what I get during a day of teaching. (With walking during breaks and recess thrown in.)
I feel like I am working and sweating far more on an uphill hike than pacing around a classroom. Would Fitbit only know the difference if I got a Charge HR? I want to feed my body appropriately for these 6-8 mile hikes, but don't want to fall into the "I worked out, so I can eat anything" trap. How do I know what I really burned so I can figure out how to not over or under eat?
0
Replies
-
I don't know for sure, but you probably want to log your hikes manually. The steps your Flex sees probably do not adequately capture the intensity of the exercise. However, do it in Fitbit, not MFP. I did an experiment. I tried logging a 1 hour, 3.5 mile "walk" in Fitbit, the same duration and distance but as a "hike" in Fitbit and then the the same again in MFP using the "hiking with less than a 10lb load". I got about 200 calories with the Fitbit walk, about 400 calories with the Fitbit hike and over 600 with the MFP. MFP is notorious for overestimating exercise calories.
I used the 1 hour, 3.5 mile walk because on most days I go for a either a 3 mile or a 4 mile walk that has a significant uphill first half (366 foot gain for the 4 mile walk) and I usually average around 3.5 miles per hour. So, I have a feel for how many calories my Charge HR gives me for that distance - about 650 for the 4 mile, a little under 500 for the 3 mile.0 -
I, too, log in exercise in Fitbit—never MFP. It'll take trial & error to find what works for you.0
-
Try the MapMyFitness calorie calculator for that hiking/rock climbing without a pack. I'd take an average of the three and use it. I have found MapMyFitness very helpful when I don't trust the other two apps.
http://www.mapmyfitness.com/improve/calorie_calculator/
I live near the Rockies and like to hike there and also live in a hilly neighborhood, my standard daily get myself moving involves elevation gains, I can feel the calories burning, so like to know how many so I have checked out all the options I can find.0 -
The claim of many hiking poles (and it's true) is the amount of weight it takes off the knees & feet.
Well, guess what Fitbit uses to determine how hard you are walking - impact of the steps.
So it will be less for that reason.
But it doesn't know if you are carrying extra weight, usually less for that reason.
It'll also be less because it doesn't know hills you are doing.
Uphill actually causes less impact with smaller steps so it appears easier walking - lower calorie burn for a longer time.
Downhill causes more impact with bigger steps usually so it appears harder walking- higher calorie burn, but it goes faster.
The odds those all balance out nicely - if they do - go buy lottery tickets.0 -
The odds those all balance out nicely - if they do - go buy lottery tickets.
The burn for that hike won't be 100% accurate, but I'm willing to bet that the entire week will balance out nicely.
The "path of least resistance" in this scenario is to trust your Fitbit for several weeks, then reevaluate your progress. If you lose as expected, problem solved.
I recognize that other people love crunching numbers & averaging burns from three different sources & stuff. But I personally find it needlessly exhausting. Toemaytoe, tuhmahtoe.0 -
I used MapMyWalk for a hilly hike because of the cool map feature and I was so bummed! It reduced my step count and calorie burn drastically because it didn't take elevation into account and wrote over all my good Fitbit data. Of course my BODY knew the difference but I do like seeing it on the app.0
-
Thanks, everyone! I've never tried logging exercise in Fitbit. I have just been logging it at MFP for a shorter duration to account for inflated exercise burns there.0
-
The claim of many hiking poles (and it's true) is the amount of weight it takes off the knees & feet.
Well, guess what Fitbit uses to determine how hard you are walking - impact of the steps.
So it will be less for that reason.
But it doesn't know if you are carrying extra weight, usually less for that reason.
It'll also be less because it doesn't know hills you are doing.
Uphill actually causes less impact with smaller steps so it appears easier walking - lower calorie burn for a longer time.
Downhill causes more impact with bigger steps usually so it appears harder walking- higher calorie burn, but it goes faster.
The odds those all balance out nicely - if they do - go buy lottery tickets.
I had wondered how the poles would affect things, both due to the change in arm movement and weight on my feet.
0 -
I used MapMyWalk for a hilly hike because of the cool map feature and I was so bummed! It reduced my step count and calorie burn drastically because it didn't take elevation into account and wrote over all my good Fitbit data. Of course my BODY knew the difference but I do like seeing it on the app.
Create your own custom workout, don't use the walking or running that is preset.
That way your steps and distance will be left, only calorie burn will be replaced.
But Fitbit doesn't take elevation in to account either. Read above, it actually gives opposite results of the effort put forth.0 -
I think with a pole, I use my arms more. I pull myself up with the pull or use the pole to brace me as I go down. It's a light pole but it does the trick. I can see it being helpful to the knees. I hate hiking without my walking stick.0
-
I do a lot of hiking, and use poles only if I'm climbing something (600-1200 feet per mile), or if the terrain is EXTREMELY difficult. (And around me there are LOTS of opportunities for climbing hikes like that) I find that I can do much more climbing with the poles because the work is not isolated to your legs . . . your arms get to get a workout, too. I would guess that the overall calorie burn is about the same with or without poles, but I'm not sure. I wonder, though, if FitBit accurately counts steps when using poles. Again - I would GUESS so, but I don't know.0
-
DaveAkeman wrote: »I wonder, though, if FitBit accurately counts steps when using poles. Again - I would GUESS so, but I don't know.
I, too, would guess so. Because Fitbit uses an accelerometer to count steps: http://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/How-does-my-tracker-count-stepsFitbit trackers use a 3-axis accelerometer to understand your motions. An accelerometer is a device that turns movement (acceleration) of a body into digital measurements (data) when attached to the body. By analyzing acceleration data, our trackers provide detailed information about frequency, duration, intensity, and patterns of movement.
Fitbit trackers have a finely tuned algorithm for step counting. The algorithm is designed to look for motion patterns most indicative of people walking. One condition for a motion pattern to be recognized as a step is the motion must be large enough. The algorithm implements this by setting a threshold. If a motion and its subsequent acceleration measurement data meet the threshold, the motion will be counted as a step. If that threshold is not met, the algorithm won’t count the motion as a step.
But really, the only way to gauge the accuracy is to trust your Fitbit for several weeks, then reevaluate your progress. And even if the data isn't 100% accurate, it still shows you trends.0 -
DaveAkeman wrote: »I do a lot of hiking, and use poles only if I'm climbing something (600-1200 feet per mile), or if the terrain is EXTREMELY difficult. (And around me there are LOTS of opportunities for climbing hikes like that) I find that I can do much more climbing with the poles because the work is not isolated to your legs . . . your arms get to get a workout, too. I would guess that the overall calorie burn is about the same with or without poles, but I'm not sure. I wonder, though, if FitBit accurately counts steps when using poles. Again - I would GUESS so, but I don't know.
Good point. Thinking about my last use of hiking poles, there was impact when the pole landed, but I wonder if impact of foot landing would be seen then by a wrist mounted unit?
Either way probably, at least 1 "step" or foot landing would be seen, but since wrist is isolated on the pole - would the other foot landing be seen?
Probably depends on how you use the poles.
Long flat stretches I alternated each pole hit with steps, not really absorbing that much impact.
On hills up and down sometimes, double pole landings were used and planted while both feet took a step or two.
And taking weight off the knees and feet by using the arms means you are still using the same amount of energy to propel yourself forward/up/down.
But how much is seen as impact would decide how long that stride appeared, and therefore how many calories was burned.
I'll have to dig out my records of my backpacking trip in early March, though the use of a 45 lb backpack that Fitbit wasn't aware of would throw those figures off badly. And Zip unit, so not on wrist anyway.
And I remember trip to RMNP outside Estes, and saw about 6-8 retired folks on the trail each day - this was just their daily workouts, had year passes. So 2-3 hrs was normal for them several times a week, just passing up as thin-air deprived folks.
Not sure how they could have reevaluated progress and decided if it was the workouts causing a difference, or other aspects of daily life - once you get too many factors, impossible to narrow down which one it is.
Looking at results works great if you eat the same amount daily and weekly routine is about the same, and is going to remain the same. Then you just eat more or less depending on which way it needs to go.
But many of us aren't blessed with such steady routines, nor eating the same amount daily if using Fitbit, that such math could possibly work out correctly. Hence the need to get as best an estimate as possible.
Which really, is the whole reason for using Fitbit in the first place - getting a better estimate.0
