What is the best way to estimate calories burned walking? Fitbit, MFP, MMW, etc?
Options
Verity1111
Posts: 3,309 Member
I checked on MFP the calories burned and it seemed a little low, then MMW (MapMyWalk) seemed a tiny bit high and so I checked my FitBit and it said double MFP! I am 192ish pounds and 5'4" 26 years old and very out of shape. My resting HR lately is about 64BPM and my average during my walk was 135BPM (according to my FitBit which usually matches my Drs readings) went as high as 165bpm. I walked for 79 minutes around 3.5 miles (I think this includes stoplights so we can say 70 minutes). MFP estimated I'd burn a bit over 300 like 330-350 calories. MapMyWalk estimated I think 460 calories (might include my height since my stride is short) and FitBit estimates 758 calories with an average burn of 10 calories per minute. Which do you think is more accurate? Somewhere between MFP and MMW or somewhere between MMW and FitBit? Not sure if it matters but I have 8 screws a plate and a wire in my leg so it does take a bit more energy than it used to and I'm not sure how HR factors in but help? I don't want to over or underestimate too much because my net calorie goal is 1200.
0
Replies
-
0.3*bodyweight in lbs per mile, so c60 Cal's per mile.
That gives you c210 calories.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »0.3*bodyweight in lbs per mile, so c60 Cal's per mile.
That gives you c210 calories.
That seems incredibly off. It doesn't take into account height or fitness level. You should think of height because a short person 5'0" needs to put a lot more energy in than say someone who is 6'0".1 -
A 5' person probably weighs less than a 6' person and requires less energy to move, though. And fitness level probably doesn't have much to do with it.
Lifting weights doesn't burn a lot of calories, but it can wipe you out pretty quickly. Riding a bike for a few hours at a moderate pace can burn thousands of calories and leave you feeling pretty fresh. How difficult something feels isn't a very reliable way to gauge how many calories you've burned, unfortunately.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »A 5' person probably weighs less than a 6' person and requires less energy to move, though. And fitness level probably doesn't have much to do with it.
Lifting weights doesn't burn a lot of calories, but it can wipe you out pretty quickly. Riding a bike for a few hours at a moderate pace can burn thousands of calories and leave you feeling pretty fresh. How difficult something feels isn't a very reliable way to gauge how many calories you've burned, unfortunately.
There was a scientific study done. If a 5'0" 200lbs person walks 3 miles at the same pace as someone 6'0" and 200lbs the 5'0" person burns more. Now I have 200 330 450 and 760 are all different estimates lol and HR I was told is involved somehow and height. I just dont know what to think. Lol.0 -
Found this but Im confused http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/how-height-affects-calorie-burning This too http://www.livescience.com/35159-walking-calories-burned-equation-101111.html0
-
If your goal is to lose weight, it's probably a good idea to go with the lowest figure. Walking is a great thing, but not a huge calorie burn activity.1
-
Ok this helped too if anyone has a similar Q or wonders: (old MFP post) But still didnt tell me which to use but it was good to understand lol
Calories burned are measured indirectly as a function of oxygen consumption. Heart rate is an indicator of oxygen consumption in that when you need more oxygen to your muscles and other cells, your heartrate goes up to deliver that oxygen where it needs to be. If the caloric need is high (ie you're burning lots of calories to perform the required task) then oxygen demand is high. If oxygen demand is high, then heartrate goes up. Since you can't measure your oxygen consumption or caloric need directly, you can measure your heart rate and get a decently accurate idea of what's going on. And there's no two ways about it, the most accurate way to actually accomplish this is with a heart rate monitor.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »If your goal is to lose weight, it's probably a good idea to go with the lowest figure. Walking is a great thing, but not a huge calorie burn activity.
True but Ill be undereating if I underestimate thats why Im trying to not do either under or over. I eat 1200 so if I estimate 200 and eat it back but I burned 450 I will be eating about 800cal per day net. Idk just wish I knew surely. I might go with Map My Walk or somewhere between there and MFP just to be safe not 200 but not 700 either. Although Im sure my HR is accurate idk if my oxygen consumption is high. I do have trouble breathing but I need a VO2 test to be sure. I should call my school lol they do them there.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »Calories burned are measured indirectly as a function of oxygen consumption. Heart rate is an indicator of oxygen consumption in that when you need more oxygen to your muscles and other cells, your heartrate goes up to deliver that oxygen where it needs to be.
This is true, but please know it's only half the story. Drinking caffeine will cause your HR to go up, but it doesn't make you burn more calories than normal. Being stressed out will make your HR go up, it's part of the "fight or flight" response. Dehydration will also raise your HR but not your calorie burn. Sickness can also raise your HR, that's why a sudden rise in your resting heart rate can often tell you when you're getting a cold or a flu.
Most HRMs don't and can't know why your heart rate is up or down. This is one of the major downsides to using an HRM to estimate calories.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Calories burned are measured indirectly as a function of oxygen consumption. Heart rate is an indicator of oxygen consumption in that when you need more oxygen to your muscles and other cells, your heartrate goes up to deliver that oxygen where it needs to be.
This is true, but please know it's only half the story. Drinking caffeine will cause your HR to go up, but it doesn't make you burn more calories than normal. Being stressed out will make your HR go up, it's part of the "fight or flight" response. Dehydration will also raise your HR but not your calorie burn. Sickness can also raise your HR, that's why a sudden rise in your resting heart rate can often tell you when you're getting a cold or a flu.
Most HRMs don't and can't know why your heart rate is up or down. This is one of the major downsides to using an HRM to estimate calories.
Very insightful. and it makes sense. that's why I'm not going with the 700 lol I dont 100% trust it. I mean it IS possible I could burn that seeing as I breathe like a dying animal when I even walk room to room but Im not risking it until I am more comfortable with my FitBit (it's only about a month old). I think my HR or in out oxygen level was fairly accurate at the time because my resting hr stayed the same and it did seem to go up only with my speed but there are plenty of reasons it could be off and 300 extra calories is a big deal. I figure 400 is right in the middle so if I go over by 100 or 200 its meh Ill be at 1400 net at most and this way if its more I wont be eating 800 net calories Ill at least be at 1000 even if I underestimated my burn. Thank you for the guidance and HR reminders. It does help..
1 -
Verity1111 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »0.3*bodyweight in lbs per mile, so c60 Cal's per mile.
That gives you c210 calories.
That seems incredibly off. It doesn't take into account height or fitness level. You should think of height because a short person 5'0" needs to put a lot more energy in than say someone who is 6'0".
The key points are your body mass and the distance you travelled. Height and fitness levels are immaterial.
Walking doesn't burn a huge amount of energy.
Fwiw your HR based measurements are confusing the issue. HR isn't a reliable proxy for calorie expenditure at low levels of intensity.2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »0.3*bodyweight in lbs per mile, so c60 Cal's per mile.
That gives you c210 calories.
That seems incredibly off. It doesn't take into account height or fitness level. You should think of height because a short person 5'0" needs to put a lot more energy in than say someone who is 6'0".
The key points are your body mass and the distance you travelled. Height and fitness levels are immaterial.
Walking doesn't burn a huge amount of energy.
Fwiw your HR based measurements are confusing the issue. HR isn't a reliable proxy for calorie expenditure at low levels of intensity.
That's not true. Neither of that is actually. 200 is too low because I used to log a .8mile walk at 100+cal and it always ended up accurate (based on weight loss). That's why I ended up going with 400 because I figure 3.5 / .8 = 4.25 and multiple that times my old log for .8 miles and its about 400 (a bit over). Plus height is 100% a factor. There were scientific studies done to prove it. One specific one had people who were of healthy weight a 5'0" person burned .44 cal per second vs someone 6'0" who burned .37 cal. The 6'0" would be heavier but has longer legs so has to move less. The 5'0" takes more steps and burns more, especially if they are the same weight. I've read multiple studies that insist height effects the cal burned walking. Also, HR is a factor because it relates to oxygen consumption unless you're sick or something as the last person said. HR may not be 100% accurate on it's own but it can in some cases give a correct estimate. It's just impossible to know when it's right and when it's stress illness or other factors.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »I've read multiple studies that insist height effects the cal burned walking.
I'd be interested to read those.Also, HR is a factor because it relates to oxygen consumption unless you're sick or something as the last person said. HR may not be 100% accurate on it's own but it can in some cases give a correct estimate. It's just impossible to know when it's right and when it's stress illness or other factors.
It's useful to understand what relationship HR has with energy consumption, and how you might be able to use it as a proxy. Your other post and about whether a reduced RHR indicates an improved level of fitness gives an indication of some of the factors that apply.1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »I've read multiple studies that insist height effects the cal burned walking.
I'd be interested to read those.Also, HR is a factor because it relates to oxygen consumption unless you're sick or something as the last person said. HR may not be 100% accurate on it's own but it can in some cases give a correct estimate. It's just impossible to know when it's right and when it's stress illness or other factors.
It's useful to understand what relationship HR has with energy consumption, and how you might be able to use it as a proxy. Your other post and about whether a reduced RHR indicates an improved level of fitness gives an indication of some of the factors that apply.
yeah I have no idea about HR lol thats why Im ignoring my Fitbit for now. Im not trying to be rude I just personally believe height and HR as well as speed do contribute so I went a bit between MFP and MMW in the end.0 -
I accidentally deleted the study link heres the article about it https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/tcob-efw110410.php
"Finally, the four scientists plotted the walkers' heights against their minimum energy expenditure and they were amazed when they got a straight line with a gradient of almost -1. The walkers' energy costs were inversely proportional to their heights, with tall people walking more economically than short/smaller people because they have longer strides and have to take fewer steps to cover the same distance." the link to the study is at the end1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »I've read multiple studies that insist height effects the cal burned walking.
I'd be interested to read those.Also, HR is a factor because it relates to oxygen consumption unless you're sick or something as the last person said. HR may not be 100% accurate on it's own but it can in some cases give a correct estimate. It's just impossible to know when it's right and when it's stress illness or other factors.
It's useful to understand what relationship HR has with energy consumption, and how you might be able to use it as a proxy. Your other post and about whether a reduced RHR indicates an improved level of fitness gives an indication of some of the factors that apply.
Another article.
http://www.livescience.com/35159-walking-calories-burned-equation-101111.html
Science Daily
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160315104648.htm
(last year)
"The new equation achieves greater accuracy by better incorporating the influence of body size, and by specifically incorporating the influence of height on gait mechanics. Specifically:
Bigger people burn fewer calories on a per pound basis of their body weight to walk at a given speed or to cover a fixed distance;
The older standardized equations don't account for size differences well, assuming roughly that one size fits all."1 -
-
Verity1111 wrote: »I accidentally deleted the study link heres the article about it https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/tcob-efw110410.php
"Finally, the four scientists plotted the walkers' heights against their minimum energy expenditure and they were amazed when they got a straight line with a gradient of almost -1. The walkers' energy costs were inversely proportional to their heights, with tall people walking more economically than short/smaller people because they have longer strides and have to take fewer steps to cover the same distance." the link to the study is at the end
Thank you.
Based on that you could amend my answer above, 210 calories, to somewhere between 210 and 240. That's not a desperately material difference in the grand scheme of things.1 -
I guess my walking calories at 200 calories an hour.
MFP gives me about 190 calories per hour.
Close enough. 1 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions