Fit bit is giving me 1427 exercise calories?!
Options
Replies
-
I'd make sure my Fitbit had accurate height/weight/gender/age info. Fitbit estimates your calorie burn based on your movements, so if it has your info wrong, then it would be going off an erroneous BMR and that could affect what Fitbit thinks you have burned during the day.
1 -
Note also that one detail about how MFP relays Fitbit's info, is that MFP assumes you will be sedentary/active/whatever-you-selected for the rest of the day. So if you ARE highly active in the morning, some of that adjustment will go away as the day moves on. And overnight.
Example... Assume my bmr is 50/hour. And based on my activity level setting, MFP expects me to burn 1800 per day. Which works out to 75/hr.
I wake up at 6am. I sync. Fitbit tells MFP that I've burned 300 so far. (BMR) MFP says I am behind schedule, I should be at 450 so its a -150 adjustment.
Maybe I eat a snack and then go for a 10k run which takes me about 70 minutes and burns 630 calories. I shower, get ready for work so I'm moving around the house. As of 8am Fitbit says I have now burned 1000 calories. MFP expected 600 by 8am, so now its +400.
I don't do much movement thru my commute/lunch/workday. At 6pm Fitbit says I have burned a total of 1650. MFP expected 1350, so now my adjustment drops to +300.
Grocery shopping and whatnot after work, and I walk the dogs. At 9pm I'm ready for bed and Fitbit says I have burned 1850. Now the adjustment is +275. Keep in mind that MFP expects me to still burn 75/hr until midnight but I'm going to bed. I will only burn a tad over BMR. So tomorrow when I sync Fitbit will show my prior day total as 2015. and the adjustment changes to +215.
That is how they work together. MFP always taking Fitbit's data for what you've burned so far, then estimating how much more you will burn.5 -
rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.0 -
If it was giving you 1427 extra calories you'd have 2627 calories remaining - minus any calories you actually ate today. Are you saying you've eaten your 1200 calories and still have 1427 remaining???0
-
RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same. Edit: Imagine you're driving a car 10 miles. You drive at 60 MPH and complete this in 10 minutes. Then you drive at 30 miles per hour and complete it in 20 minutes. Do you need more energy to go 10 minutes at 60 or 20 minutes at 30? The answer is it takes the same amount of energy to do the work regardless of speed.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
5 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
NOPE, a 200 lb fit man running a mile in 7 minutes burns very nearly the same calories as a 200 lb less fit man running a mile in 10 minutes. Even if HR for 1 is 150 and HR for 2 is 175
There are some minor increases based on cadence, but they're truly minor, unless you're walking 4.5-6 mph.
http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn4 -
rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous. Your heart rate determines how many calories you burn, not the distance you've covered, just because a treadmill gives you more calories for going farther doesn't mean that's what causes you to burn more calories. If you wear a heart rate strap, it doesn't need to know how far you've gone, what you've done. It just needs to know your basic information, your height, weight, gender, etc. as well as your heart rate.
Heart rate determines calories burned.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous.
Nope, that's science.
0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous.
Nope, that's science.
Find something that says regardless of heart rate, your body will burn the equivalent amount of calories at a given distance.
That's like saying running 4 x 400m sprints and running a mile, you burn the same amount of calories. It's crazy the false information that gets passed around and people believe it to be true.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous. Your heart rate determines how many calories you burn, not the distance you've covered, just because a treadmill gives you more calories for going farther doesn't mean that's what causes you to burn more calories. If you wear a heart rate strap, it doesn't need to know how far you've gone, what you've done. It just needs to know your basic information, your height, weight, gender, etc. as well as your heart rate.
Heart rate determines calories burned.
No, metabolic efficiency determines calories burned.
You can't compare apples (a marathoner) to oranges (an unfit person) that just doesn't make sense.
You'd have to compare the SAME PERSON doing both. HR is an indicator of effort, yes, but that doesn't mean you burned more calories for the same amount of work. Read my example above for the logic behind that.
I would (for your own sake) understand that HR is not how one determines energy used.
If you want to get serious about determining calories burned you would need to know precisely your VO2 MAX. 5 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous.
Nope, that's science.
Find something that says regardless of heart rate, your body will burn the equivalent amount of calories at a given distance.
That's like saying running 4 x 400m sprints and running a mile, you burn the same amount of calories. It's crazy the false information that gets passed around and people believe it to be true.
The only one spreading misinformation right now is you.
I'll link to more information for you since you still don't think it's true. Sec.1 -
SingRunTing wrote: »I'm 5'3 and when I was at 145, I ate close to 2000 calories to lose weight. Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.
Make sure you have the same goal settings in MFP and Fitbit. Then try eating half of what Fitbit gives you and see what happens for at least 3 weeks.
Do not just ignore your Fitbit calories. Losing weight too fast isn't good for you! You're being somewhat aggressive already aiming for 1lb a week at your weight (I was doing .5lbs a week). Losing too quickly will cause you to lose a higher percentage of muscle than losing slowly.
All of this.
And I agree that OP needs to provide more information including...
1. How long have you had your FitBit and how long have you had it synced with MFP?
2. Do you have negative calorie adjustments enabled?
3. In the example provided where you said that it gave you 1427 cals from 8300 steps, is that the adjustment, or is that the total amount of calories you have remaining, suggesting that the adjustment is around 210 calories?
4. What does FitBit say that your total calories burned is - on average, for the last week, month, etc.
In general with posts like this, especially from new users of the FitBit/MFP combination - I think a lot of the issue comes from not really understanding what FitBit is measuring and how it syncs with MFP. FitBit isn't just measuring your exercise burn, it is providing an estimate of your total calorie burn all day long. And MFP has an estimate in mind, based on the info you provided during set up. If you entered stats and an activity level of sedentary, and MFP calculates your NEAT burn to be 1700 for example, but then you are actually more active than that and burning more calories than MFP expected, then you would see a larger adjustment in order to "true up" the two numbers.
For what it's worth, I'm 5'2, started about 153, and have an office job. I lost my weight eating 1600-1900 cals and now maintaining around 118 lbs with a TDEE of 2200.
It's possible that you have something set up incorrectly in one system or the other - but it's also possible that you burn more calories than you think and that it is possible for you to lose weight eating more calories than you were expecting.1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous. Your heart rate determines how many calories you burn, not the distance you've covered, just because a treadmill gives you more calories for going farther doesn't mean that's what causes you to burn more calories. If you wear a heart rate strap, it doesn't need to know how far you've gone, what you've done. It just needs to know your basic information, your height, weight, gender, etc. as well as your heart rate.
Heart rate determines calories burned.
No, metabolic efficiency determines calories burned.
You can't compare apples (a marathoner) to oranges (an unfit person) that just doesn't make sense.
You'd have to compare the SAME PERSON doing both. HR is an indicator of effort, yes, but that doesn't mean you burned more calories for the same amount of work. Read my example above for the logic behind that.
I would (for your own sake) understand that HR is not how one determines energy used. If you want to get serious about determining calories burned you would need to know precisely your VO2 MAX.
Why would you not be able to compare different people?
But we'll go with that, if I am training today and I am feeling good, feeling fresh, go on a 5 mile run and my heart rate is 165 the whole time. I burn X amount of calories. Finish the run feeling decent, tired but not dead.
The next day, I am feeling a little sore and tired, so naturally my heart rate will be a bit higher as I am under recovered and don't run often. I go on another 5 mile run, and my heart rate is at 175 for the 5 miles this time. Finish the run, exhausted and pretty tired.
Same calorie burn? No.0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous.
Nope, that's science.
Find something that says regardless of heart rate, your body will burn the equivalent amount of calories at a given distance.
That's like saying running 4 x 400m sprints and running a mile, you burn the same amount of calories. It's crazy the false information that gets passed around and people believe it to be true.
It is crazy, especially since you didn't read the source you've already been given.
0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous. Your heart rate determines how many calories you burn, not the distance you've covered, just because a treadmill gives you more calories for going farther doesn't mean that's what causes you to burn more calories. If you wear a heart rate strap, it doesn't need to know how far you've gone, what you've done. It just needs to know your basic information, your height, weight, gender, etc. as well as your heart rate.
Heart rate determines calories burned.
No, metabolic efficiency determines calories burned.
You can't compare apples (a marathoner) to oranges (an unfit person) that just doesn't make sense.
You'd have to compare the SAME PERSON doing both. HR is an indicator of effort, yes, but that doesn't mean you burned more calories for the same amount of work. Read my example above for the logic behind that.
I would (for your own sake) understand that HR is not how one determines energy used. If you want to get serious about determining calories burned you would need to know precisely your VO2 MAX.
Why would you not be able to compare different people?
But we'll go with that, if I am training today and I am feeling good, feeling fresh, go on a 5 mile run and my heart rate is 165 the whole time. I burn X amount of calories. Finish the run feeling decent, tired but not dead.
The next day, I am feeling a little sore and tired, so naturally my heart rate will be a bit higher as I am under recovered and don't run often. I go on another 5 mile run, and my heart rate is at 175 for the 5 miles this time. Finish the run, exhausted and pretty tired.
Same calorie burn? No.
Yes... The same calorie burn.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous. Your heart rate determines how many calories you burn, not the distance you've covered, just because a treadmill gives you more calories for going farther doesn't mean that's what causes you to burn more calories. If you wear a heart rate strap, it doesn't need to know how far you've gone, what you've done. It just needs to know your basic information, your height, weight, gender, etc. as well as your heart rate.
Heart rate determines calories burned.
I would (for your own sake) understand that HR is not how one determines energy used. If you want to get serious about determining calories burned you would need to know precisely your VO2 MAX.
Right, and heart rate follows oxygen consumption.
0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous. Your heart rate determines how many calories you burn, not the distance you've covered, just because a treadmill gives you more calories for going farther doesn't mean that's what causes you to burn more calories. If you wear a heart rate strap, it doesn't need to know how far you've gone, what you've done. It just needs to know your basic information, your height, weight, gender, etc. as well as your heart rate.
Heart rate determines calories burned.
No, metabolic efficiency determines calories burned.
You can't compare apples (a marathoner) to oranges (an unfit person) that just doesn't make sense.
You'd have to compare the SAME PERSON doing both. HR is an indicator of effort, yes, but that doesn't mean you burned more calories for the same amount of work. Read my example above for the logic behind that.
I would (for your own sake) understand that HR is not how one determines energy used. If you want to get serious about determining calories burned you would need to know precisely your VO2 MAX.
Why would you not be able to compare different people?
But we'll go with that, if I am training today and I am feeling good, feeling fresh, go on a 5 mile run and my heart rate is 165 the whole time. I burn X amount of calories. Finish the run feeling decent, tired but not dead.
The next day, I am feeling a little sore and tired, so naturally my heart rate will be a bit higher as I am under recovered and don't run often. I go on another 5 mile run, and my heart rate is at 175 for the 5 miles this time. Finish the run, exhausted and pretty tired.
Same calorie burn? No.
Yes... The same calorie burn.
And so if I do that run now, and then take 6 months get a lot fitter and keep all the muscle mass I have, run the same 5 miles and my heart rate is at 150 the whole time, still burn the same amount of calories?0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous. Your heart rate determines how many calories you burn, not the distance you've covered, just because a treadmill gives you more calories for going farther doesn't mean that's what causes you to burn more calories. If you wear a heart rate strap, it doesn't need to know how far you've gone, what you've done. It just needs to know your basic information, your height, weight, gender, etc. as well as your heart rate.
Heart rate determines calories burned.
No, metabolic efficiency determines calories burned.
You can't compare apples (a marathoner) to oranges (an unfit person) that just doesn't make sense.
You'd have to compare the SAME PERSON doing both. HR is an indicator of effort, yes, but that doesn't mean you burned more calories for the same amount of work. Read my example above for the logic behind that.
I would (for your own sake) understand that HR is not how one determines energy used. If you want to get serious about determining calories burned you would need to know precisely your VO2 MAX.
Why would you not be able to compare different people?
But we'll go with that, if I am training today and I am feeling good, feeling fresh, go on a 5 mile run and my heart rate is 165 the whole time. I burn X amount of calories. Finish the run feeling decent, tired but not dead.
The next day, I am feeling a little sore and tired, so naturally my heart rate will be a bit higher as I am under recovered and don't run often. I go on another 5 mile run, and my heart rate is at 175 for the 5 miles this time. Finish the run, exhausted and pretty tired.
Same calorie burn? No.
Yes... The same calorie burn.
And so if I do that run now, and then take 6 months get a lot fitter and keep all the muscle mass I have, run the same 5 miles and my heart rate is at 150 the whole time, still burn the same amount of calories?
YES!!!!
It hasn't changed since you changed your profile picture and display name and you were presented with this information last week... and the week before.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous. Your heart rate determines how many calories you burn, not the distance you've covered, just because a treadmill gives you more calories for going farther doesn't mean that's what causes you to burn more calories. If you wear a heart rate strap, it doesn't need to know how far you've gone, what you've done. It just needs to know your basic information, your height, weight, gender, etc. as well as your heart rate.
Heart rate determines calories burned.
No, metabolic efficiency determines calories burned.
You can't compare apples (a marathoner) to oranges (an unfit person) that just doesn't make sense.
You'd have to compare the SAME PERSON doing both. HR is an indicator of effort, yes, but that doesn't mean you burned more calories for the same amount of work. Read my example above for the logic behind that.
I would (for your own sake) understand that HR is not how one determines energy used. If you want to get serious about determining calories burned you would need to know precisely your VO2 MAX.
Why would you not be able to compare different people?
But we'll go with that, if I am training today and I am feeling good, feeling fresh, go on a 5 mile run and my heart rate is 165 the whole time. I burn X amount of calories. Finish the run feeling decent, tired but not dead.
The next day, I am feeling a little sore and tired, so naturally my heart rate will be a bit higher as I am under recovered and don't run often. I go on another 5 mile run, and my heart rate is at 175 for the 5 miles this time. Finish the run, exhausted and pretty tired.
Same calorie burn? No.
Yes... The same calorie burn.
And so if I do that run now, and then take 6 months get a lot fitter and keep all the muscle mass I have, run the same 5 miles and my heart rate is at 150 the whole time, still burn the same amount of calories?
YES!!!!
It hasn't changed since you changed your profile picture and display name and you were presented with this information last week... and the week before.
So you and rainbowbow are saying different things. She said it's based on metabolic efficiency, and you're saying its just based off the distance covered.0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I mostly eat back my fitbit calories and am still losing 1kg a week.
Fitbit works on intensity of the steps, not just how many steps you've done. So if you did 8k steps really quickly you will burn more calories than if you slow ambled them across the whole day.
that's not true. you burn the same amount of calories for the same distance regardless of how fast you got there.
That's untrue. How many calories you burn is based off your heart rate.
Nope, heart rate is only an indicator of work being done.
Think about it this way, you weigh x and you go x distance. Regardless of the variable of time, the amount of energy required for both is the same.
Now running is mechanically different than walking, that in and of itself will require more energy, but not by much.
So if you and I are the exact same person for examples sake. Same gender, lean mass, fat mass, weight, everything. You're super fit, marathon runner, and I'm just a regular guy that trains a couple times a week. We go out on a run together, keeping the same pace. My heart rate is hanging out at 170-175 the entire time and yours is staying at 145-150 the entire time, we burn the same amount of calories in a 5 mile run? That's ridiculous. Your heart rate determines how many calories you burn, not the distance you've covered, just because a treadmill gives you more calories for going farther doesn't mean that's what causes you to burn more calories. If you wear a heart rate strap, it doesn't need to know how far you've gone, what you've done. It just needs to know your basic information, your height, weight, gender, etc. as well as your heart rate.
Heart rate determines calories burned.
No, metabolic efficiency determines calories burned.
You can't compare apples (a marathoner) to oranges (an unfit person) that just doesn't make sense.
You'd have to compare the SAME PERSON doing both. HR is an indicator of effort, yes, but that doesn't mean you burned more calories for the same amount of work. Read my example above for the logic behind that.
I would (for your own sake) understand that HR is not how one determines energy used. If you want to get serious about determining calories burned you would need to know precisely your VO2 MAX.
Why would you not be able to compare different people?
But we'll go with that, if I am training today and I am feeling good, feeling fresh, go on a 5 mile run and my heart rate is 165 the whole time. I burn X amount of calories. Finish the run feeling decent, tired but not dead.
The next day, I am feeling a little sore and tired, so naturally my heart rate will be a bit higher as I am under recovered and don't run often. I go on another 5 mile run, and my heart rate is at 175 for the 5 miles this time. Finish the run, exhausted and pretty tired.
Same calorie burn? No.
I don't know how else to say that it takes the same amount of work regardless of heart rate....
For now i'll focus on the presumption that you think HR determines calories burned. It does not.
Read more here:
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_vo2_estimation.pdf
Measuring oxygen consumption is the only way to accurately determine calories burned. This is generally done in a clinical setting with a v02 MAX test, or an RMR test which measures how much carbon dioxide you exhale.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650235/
Heart rate is *related* to VO2 max, but is NOT totally correlated as heart rate make take time to recover while you're sitting on your butt doing nothing. This is why HRMs are so innacurate for weight lifting and other non-steady state exercises. Heart rate is especially inaccurate in determining calories burned in fit individuals, when working out at low-intensity, working in intervals or non-steady states, etc.
Regardless, think about the analogy i made earlier. Calories burned in the same metabolically efficient individual will be the same for distance regardless of time.
edit: I forgot, HRMs are also innacurate in determining calories burned when using a lot of upper body movements.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions