Fit bit is giving me 1427 exercise calories?!
Replies
-
BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »@rainbowbow Im really just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing of HR not having as much impact as I thought and I read through the first research paper about Vo2max you posted.
But as far as I understand it, it just states that vo2max is the most accurate method, which is repeated in the paper Ill link but (afaiu) HR is still a better method of estimating than just applying raw templates on an individual. Like any formula that would suggest that 2 people get the same result for the same excercise, with different activity/health/HR levels?
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf
Yes, i'm certainly not saying HR is *complete* trash, simply that it has it's limitations. If you're trying to estimate calories burned, using a heart rate monitor can be helpful. But only if you're:- Performing steady state cardiorespiratory activity: this means no intervals, no low-intensity exercise like walking, no heavy weight lifting, nothing where heart rate is known to be an inaccurate correlation with vo2 max.
I would also mention that like i said, if you're very physically fit or very physically unfit its likely your HRM will estimate calories burned inaccurately. This is why it's suggested that HRM's are much much better if you've had them calibrated with your accurate vo2 max. Some Polar products and Garmin products (that i know of anyway) have the option to input your vo2 max so that it can more accurately estimate calories burned. Again though, like i said it's only really accurate with the above scenerio.
But this contradicts your earlier statement that calories burned regardless of HR will be the same for any given distance walked? And the axample made of a good and bad day.
My actual real life example would be, Im taking a walk on every day off. Always the same distance but depending on my shape on that day and the weather conditions, Ill walk slower/faster. Today was quite hot and thus it actually felt a bit harder to keep up my pace and my HR was averaging 130bpm instead of the usual 120bpm, time it took me for the walk almost the same.
So the calories burned would be the same or as the assumption of the hr device suggests, todays walk burned more cals?
Edit: refering to HR as I cannot track vo2max but considering its correlation - as for talking about the walk considering that you stated the corelation for a walk is innacurate, would the burn then be different for a run?
Only slightly. Like i said running is mechanically different than walking, but not by much. During walking, at least one of your feet will be in contact with the ground at any given time, and the length of time during each stride that each foot contacts the ground is greater. During running, the time each of your feet contacts the ground is minimal, and there is a period of time during each stride in which neither of your feet is in contact with the ground. People may also be more inclined to use arms to create greater force in running than in walking.
So, running would have a higher afterburn (assuming you aren't cardiovascularly fit), and slightly higher burn just for the mechanics of running. But we're talking near negligible amounts here. This is especially when comparing walking to jogging to running to sprints.1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »@rainbowbow Im really just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing of HR not having as much impact as I thought and I read through the first research paper about Vo2max you posted.
But as far as I understand it, it just states that vo2max is the most accurate method, which is repeated in the paper Ill link but (afaiu) HR is still a better method of estimating than just applying raw templates on an individual. Like any formula that would suggest that 2 people get the same result for the same excercise, with different activity/health/HR levels?
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf
Yes, i'm certainly not saying HR is *complete* trash, simply that it has it's limitations. If you're trying to estimate calories burned, using a heart rate monitor can be helpful. But only if you're:- Performing steady state cardiorespiratory activity: this means no intervals, no low-intensity exercise like walking, no heavy weight lifting, nothing where heart rate is known to be an inaccurate correlation with vo2 max.
I would also mention that like i said, if you're very physically fit or very physically unfit its likely your HRM will estimate calories burned inaccurately. This is why it's suggested that HRM's are much much better if you've had them calibrated with your accurate vo2 max. Some Polar products and Garmin products (that i know of anyway) have the option to input your vo2 max so that it can more accurately estimate calories burned. Again though, like i said it's only really accurate with the above scenerio.
But this contradicts your earlier statement that calories burned regardless of HR will be the same for any given distance walked? And the axample made of a good and bad day.
My actual real life example would be, Im taking a walk on every day off. Always the same distance but depending on my shape on that day and the weather conditions, Ill walk slower/faster. Today was quite hot and thus it actually felt a bit harder to keep up my pace and my HR was averaging 130bpm instead of the usual 120bpm, time it took me for the walk almost the same.
So the calories burned would be the same or as the assumption of the hr device suggests, todays walk burned more cals?
calories would be the same. Although, like i said, HRMs are notoriously innacurate for low-intensity activity (like walking).
Can you comment further on how that contradicts anything? I dont understand your first statement.
You said that the calories burned for an excercise are not influenced by the HR/bpm but the distance covered and are thus the same for that distance no matter the way of traveling or the implicated HR. With the car as an example. (or I missunderstood something you said earlier)0 -
BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »BlueberryJoghurt wrote: »@rainbowbow Im really just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing of HR not having as much impact as I thought and I read through the first research paper about Vo2max you posted.
But as far as I understand it, it just states that vo2max is the most accurate method, which is repeated in the paper Ill link but (afaiu) HR is still a better method of estimating than just applying raw templates on an individual. Like any formula that would suggest that 2 people get the same result for the same excercise, with different activity/health/HR levels?
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf
Yes, i'm certainly not saying HR is *complete* trash, simply that it has it's limitations. If you're trying to estimate calories burned, using a heart rate monitor can be helpful. But only if you're:- Performing steady state cardiorespiratory activity: this means no intervals, no low-intensity exercise like walking, no heavy weight lifting, nothing where heart rate is known to be an inaccurate correlation with vo2 max.
I would also mention that like i said, if you're very physically fit or very physically unfit its likely your HRM will estimate calories burned inaccurately. This is why it's suggested that HRM's are much much better if you've had them calibrated with your accurate vo2 max. Some Polar products and Garmin products (that i know of anyway) have the option to input your vo2 max so that it can more accurately estimate calories burned. Again though, like i said it's only really accurate with the above scenerio.
But this contradicts your earlier statement that calories burned regardless of HR will be the same for any given distance walked? And the axample made of a good and bad day.
My actual real life example would be, Im taking a walk on every day off. Always the same distance but depending on my shape on that day and the weather conditions, Ill walk slower/faster. Today was quite hot and thus it actually felt a bit harder to keep up my pace and my HR was averaging 130bpm instead of the usual 120bpm, time it took me for the walk almost the same.
So the calories burned would be the same or as the assumption of the hr device suggests, todays walk burned more cals?
calories would be the same. Although, like i said, HRMs are notoriously innacurate for low-intensity activity (like walking).
Can you comment further on how that contradicts anything? I dont understand your first statement.
You said that the calories burned for an excercise are not influenced by the HR/bpm but the distance covered and are thus the same for that distance no matter the way of traveling or the implicated HR. With the car as an example. (or I missunderstood something you said earlier)
I said for the same work and same distance the calories burned are the same regardless of time it took you to get there. (Or HR during the exercise)
So let's say you walked 1 mile and it took you 20 minutes. And then you walked 1 mile and it took you 10 minutes. Regardless of intensity, how hard it felt, what your HR was, etc. You required the same amount of energy because you did the same amount of work.
I said that running and walking require almost the same amount of work because of the mechanics of it.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »3 Hypothetical runners all 200 lbs
1. Marathoner 5'10 runs 6 minute mile for reps
2. Regular fit guy 5'7 runs 9 minute mile
3. Bag o donuts 5'4 runs 11 minute mile
Predicted calorie burn for 1 mile=150 calories. +/- 10%
1 burns 138 calories in 6 minutes
2 burns 152 calories in 9 minutes
3 burns 147 calories in 11 minutes
So, metabolic efficiency means that 1 burns more calories per half hour than 2 and 2 burns more per half hour than 3.
But the burn per mile is consistent to within the margin of error of the estimate.
The improvements in efficiency lead to higher calorie burn per hour... which is exactly the opposite of what your theory.... higher heart rate=higher calorie burn.. would suggest.
http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
There's the link again.
I run 11 min miles. ***cries into a donut***
3 -
Catsinsocks wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »3 Hypothetical runners all 200 lbs
1. Marathoner 5'10 runs 6 minute mile for reps
2. Regular fit guy 5'7 runs 9 minute mile
3. Bag o donuts 5'4 runs 11 minute mile
Predicted calorie burn for 1 mile=150 calories. +/- 10%
1 burns 138 calories in 6 minutes
2 burns 152 calories in 9 minutes
3 burns 147 calories in 11 minutes
So, metabolic efficiency means that 1 burns more calories per half hour than 2 and 2 burns more per half hour than 3.
But the burn per mile is consistent to within the margin of error of the estimate.
The improvements in efficiency lead to higher calorie burn per hour... which is exactly the opposite of what your theory.... higher heart rate=higher calorie burn.. would suggest.
http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
There's the link again.
I run 11 min miles. ***cries into a donut***
0 -
Catsinsocks wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »3 Hypothetical runners all 200 lbs
1. Marathoner 5'10 runs 6 minute mile for reps
2. Regular fit guy 5'7 runs 9 minute mile
3. Bag o donuts 5'4 runs 11 minute mile
Predicted calorie burn for 1 mile=150 calories. +/- 10%
1 burns 138 calories in 6 minutes
2 burns 152 calories in 9 minutes
3 burns 147 calories in 11 minutes
So, metabolic efficiency means that 1 burns more calories per half hour than 2 and 2 burns more per half hour than 3.
But the burn per mile is consistent to within the margin of error of the estimate.
The improvements in efficiency lead to higher calorie burn per hour... which is exactly the opposite of what your theory.... higher heart rate=higher calorie burn.. would suggest.
http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
There's the link again.
I run 11 min miles. ***cries into a donut***
Are you 5'4" and 200 lbs?
IF so, I apologize.0 -
No 5'5" and 135. Just verrrry slow. Luckily it doesn't matter how slow as long as I cover the same amount of distance
Are you 5'4" and 200 lbs?
IF so, I apologize.[/quote]
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
I understand you can meet triple your exercise goal if you attach the fitbit to your dog's collar
But I don't have a dog... just 2 cats?actually running a mile and walking a mile do burn about the same calories for the same person --- the variable is time --- running a 10 minute mile and walking a 20 minute mile burn about the same calories -- one method is faster
Actually, they don't
http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
Also, Walking a 10 minute mile does burn measurably more calories than walking a 20 minute mile... because it's on the other side of the "crossover point"
0 -
there are people that can WALK 10 minute miles? I can't even RUN a 10 minute mile. If I get past 4mph i'm jogging, my legs must be too short.3
-
10 minute walk is Olympic pace, but yes. There are people who can do it.
Me, 11:45 is pretty much as fast as I care to go sustained... 13 is much easier..
There's a hippy trick to it.0 -
that's so sad...people walk faster than I run. I think i'm going to just cry now.4
-
-
that's so sad...people walk faster than I run. I think i'm going to just cry now.
I don't think it's sad at all! Some people are faster than you. You're faster than some people. Everyone who is out there doing miles is getting the health benefits of it (and, if you're the type of person who enjoys it, the joy of it). Don't let anyone else's time hide what you've accomplished.1 -
i'm going to have to google it just to watch it now. that's crazy to me.2
-
-
omg...that's the funniest looking thing ever. I'm trying to decide if that's harder on knees that running since it's so unnatural looking. Maybe it doesn't feel as uncomfortable as it looks
0 -
-
Wait, it says 1425 remaining at 9:30 in the morning? Before you logged food?
If that's the case, its working just like its supposed to. It didn't "add 1425 calories" from your steps, it added about 200 calories to reflect that you're not "sedentary" and will burn a few hundred calories more per day than someone who *is* sedentary.
To be clear I've said multiple times that I have already had 1200 calories logged. I ate 1200 and have 1400 calories remaining.0 -
Here let me make this clear to every one lol.
Thank you for all the replies. Total steps for the day was 8500 including stairs and bike riding. Does the heart rate add exercise calories?0 -
This was yesterdays0
-
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.
I agree when you do the steps really fast your doing them to where it's burning the fat. But if you just do them here and there, then you won't burn as bad.
0 -
Best advice? DITCH Fitbit. It sucks. Garmin vivofit is the best!!!! Never have to charge it. It never has issues!!1
-
Thank you for all the replies. Total steps for the day was 8500 including stairs and bike riding. Does the heart rate add exercise calories?
Bike riding won't add steps, though. Stairs will burn more calories than steps that don't involve elevation gain.
All that said, 20 minutes of cycling (since you said 10 minutes each way to work) and a few hundred of the steps being on stairs shouldn't put you up to a 1400 calorie adjustment on 8500 steps. I'd expect 300-400 over sedentary for the 8500 steps. The rest doesn't sound like it should add up to 1000 cals. So, something is wrong.
Did you check that your height, weight, age and stride length were entered correctly on both your FitBit and MFP accounts?
FWIW, at that activity level, I wouldn't expect you to gain on 2000 calories. I just wouldn't expect you to lose. Your maintenance at that activity level is probably slightly over 2000.0 -
UPDATE: So I checked yesterday's log for the 3rd time today and it finally adjusted to what seems like a normal calorie adjustment. Now it says I have 732 calories adjusted from the exercise. So there must have been a delay or something wrong with the sync. 732 still sounds high to me but if it's correct then that's awesome since I did bad this past weekend! I'm just going to stick to my normal calorie goal.0
-
I've had a fit bit charge 2 since mid April, I eat back 25% of the adjustment now and lose on average 1.5 pounds a week.
A couple times a week I will eat 50%.
20 pounds lost so far!1 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »Thank you for all the replies. Total steps for the day was 8500 including stairs and bike riding. Does the heart rate add exercise calories?
Bike riding won't add steps, though. Stairs will burn more calories than steps that don't involve elevation gain.
All that said, 20 minutes of cycling (since you said 10 minutes each way to work) and a few hundred of the steps being on stairs shouldn't put you up to a 1400 calorie adjustment on 8500 steps. I'd expect 300-400 over sedentary for the 8500 steps. The rest doesn't sound like it should add up to 1000 cals. So, something is wrong.
Did you check that your height, weight, age and stride length were entered correctly on both your FitBit and MFP accounts?
FWIW, at that activity level, I wouldn't expect you to gain on 2000 calories. I just wouldn't expect you to lose. Your maintenance at that activity level is probably slightly over 2000.
I've seen some huge over estimations for cycling calories here...someone with a bike ride of 30 min and burned 1000 cal, so it wouldn't surprise me if the 1400 is what MFP reported (I actually asked that question because I burn only a shade over 1000 on a 3.5hr bike ride)0 -
MFP always gives me more calories than fitbit does. I do not pay attention to either one though. Unless my daily calories is about 1200 calories, there is no way I can even eat half of what mfp or fitbit gives me and still lose weight. I do like to see how many calories I have burned each day, but I do not sync until I am about to go to bed and have already logged my calories for the day.StaciMarie1974 wrote: »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.0 -
UPDATE: So I checked yesterday's log for the 3rd time today and it finally adjusted to what seems like a normal calorie adjustment. Now it says I have 732 calories adjusted from the exercise. So there must have been a delay or something wrong with the sync. 732 still sounds high to me but if it's correct then that's awesome since I did bad this past weekend! I'm just going to stick to my normal calorie goal.
That's from your fitbit doing the negative calorie adjustment. I'm not sure if it just assumes that for instance, if you do a lot of activity in the morning, that you will continue with the same level of activity throughout the day, so it gives you an elevated calorie count.
Mine used to do that as well. It would say a specific number, for instance 2,000 calorie burn and then would reduce to a more reasonable 1,500 calorie burn by the next morning.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions