How to accurately determine how many Calories you REALLY burned
mikeCFNI
Posts: 9 Member
Exercise Pro Tip: Your FitBit and other Smart devices do a terrible job of determining how many Calories (kcal) you are burning on your Cardiocentric workouts (running, rowing, biking, HIIT, etc.)
These devices are good for rough estimates, but if you're constantly close to your CICO equillibrium, then it could be the difference between gain and loss. However they do a stellar job tracking heart rates.
Read More Here: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/24/fitness-trackers-out-of-step-when-measuring-calories-research-shows
So here is the most accurate way to determine how many calories you are burning on that run. Straight from the Journal of Sports Sciences, this equation requires a few inputs on your end: Age, Current Weight (kg), Duration of Workout (min), and your average Heart Rate. Feel free to copy and paste this somewhere for easy access later. There are three basic parts to this equation. Energy Expenditure per Minute, Total Energy Expenditure, and finally converting Energy Expended into kcal
Energy Expenditure per Minute = 1 * (-55.0969+.6309 * [Average Heart Rate] + .1988 * [Weight] + .2017 * [Age]) + (1-1) * (-20.4022 + .4472 * [Average Heart Rate] - .1262 * [Weight] + .074 * [Age])
Total Energy Expended = Energy Expenditure per Minute * Duration of Workout
Covert to Calories = Total Energy Expended * .239006
You should be able to copy the equation into google, and replace the bracketed information with your information. The great thing about this equation is that it is based off of you, and how hard you worked. Its not about how fast you go, or how long you run, its about how much effort you put into that 20 min pre-work run this morning.
Stay Healthy,
-Friendly Neighborhood Couch Potato
Edit: I forgot to mention, if you are female, you need to replace the first "1" with a "0" and change (1-1) to (1-0).
These devices are good for rough estimates, but if you're constantly close to your CICO equillibrium, then it could be the difference between gain and loss. However they do a stellar job tracking heart rates.
Read More Here: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/24/fitness-trackers-out-of-step-when-measuring-calories-research-shows
So here is the most accurate way to determine how many calories you are burning on that run. Straight from the Journal of Sports Sciences, this equation requires a few inputs on your end: Age, Current Weight (kg), Duration of Workout (min), and your average Heart Rate. Feel free to copy and paste this somewhere for easy access later. There are three basic parts to this equation. Energy Expenditure per Minute, Total Energy Expenditure, and finally converting Energy Expended into kcal
Energy Expenditure per Minute = 1 * (-55.0969+.6309 * [Average Heart Rate] + .1988 * [Weight] + .2017 * [Age]) + (1-1) * (-20.4022 + .4472 * [Average Heart Rate] - .1262 * [Weight] + .074 * [Age])
Total Energy Expended = Energy Expenditure per Minute * Duration of Workout
Covert to Calories = Total Energy Expended * .239006
You should be able to copy the equation into google, and replace the bracketed information with your information. The great thing about this equation is that it is based off of you, and how hard you worked. Its not about how fast you go, or how long you run, its about how much effort you put into that 20 min pre-work run this morning.
Stay Healthy,
-Friendly Neighborhood Couch Potato
Edit: I forgot to mention, if you are female, you need to replace the first "1" with a "0" and change (1-1) to (1-0).
1
Replies
-
As an example, I will post my 22 minute morning run:
1 * (-55.0969+.6309 * 151 + .1988 * 87.54 + .2017 * 20) + (1-1) * (-20.4022 + .4472 * 151 - .1262 * 87.54 + .074 * 20) = 61.605 kJoules per minute
61.605* 22 = 1355.33 kJoules expended during my workout
1355.33* .239006 = 323.93 Calories Burned
1 -
running is actually really easy to calculate accurately with a much more simple formula4
-
TavistockToad wrote: »running is actually really easy to calculate accurately with a much more simple formula
Oh cool, do you mind sharing it? Does it only work for running or does it work for other exercises too?0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »running is actually really easy to calculate accurately with a much more simple formula
Oh cool, do you mind sharing it? Does it only work for running or does it work for other exercises too?
bodyweight in lbs x 0.63 x distance in miles
walking is the same equation but x 0.3.2 -
My Garmin fenix 5x does a great job in calculating calories burned compared to any other device I have used. I wish it didn't because it gives me way less that the others.
It also does a good job at 24/7 calories burned based on 24/7 heart rate monitoring.
Also, that link seems old. Those devices came out years ago and technology has improved since then.2 -
OldAssDude wrote: »My Garmin fenix 5x does a great job in calculating calories burned compared to any other device I have used. I wish it didn't because it gives me way less that the others.
It also does a good job at 24/7 calories burned based on 24/7 heart rate monitoring.
Also, that link seems old. Those devices came out years ago and technology has improved since then.
my Garmin is always within 50ish cals of the calculation i posted as well. i love my Garmin! :bigsmile:0 -
I tried that long formula with an average HR of 150 ... then I had to adjust my average HR down to about 100 to get an accurate number.
I don't know what my average HR is, but when I'm cycling, it's always over 100.0 -
OldAssDude wrote: »My Garmin fenix 5x does a great job in calculating calories burned compared to any other device I have used. I wish it didn't because it gives me way less that the others.
It also does a good job at 24/7 calories burned based on 24/7 heart rate monitoring.
Also, that link seems old. Those devices came out years ago and technology has improved since then.
I'm not trying to bash the technology, just giving people another, accurate, way to calculate calorie burn. If your device works good for you that's fantastic.0 -
LOL!
Think you need to look at your equation again! Basically The first bit of the equation is for male and the second bit female i.e.
Energy Expenditure per Minute = 1 * (-55.0969+.6309 * [Average Heart Rate] + .1988 * [Weight] + .2017 * [Age]) + (1-1) * (-20.4022 + .4472 * [Average Heart Rate] - .1262 * [Weight] + .074 * [Age])
Is the same as saying for a male
Energy Expenditure per Minute = (-55.0969+.6309 * [Average Heart Rate] + .1988 * [Weight] + .2017 * [Age])
and for a female
Energy Expenditure per Minute = (-20.4022 + .4472 * [Average Heart Rate] - .1262 * [Weight] + .074 * [Age])
It is also wildly inaccurate for a female, I just plugged in my lunchtime walk (Average heart rate = 78; weight 75KG and age 47 giving me a total calorie burn of 109.93!!! If the -.1262 is replaced with +.1262 I would get a calorie burn of 354.97 which is close to my FitBit so maybe there is a flaw in the equation!
If I was a male my calorie burn would have been 239.5
@TavistockToad Using your calculation for a walk my calorie burn is half what my FitBit says!! 165*0.3*3.368 = 166.7!!!
My FitBit gives it at 344... think I'll stick with that
Better get back to work now!!
0 -
OldAssDude wrote: »My Garmin fenix 5x does a great job in calculating calories burned compared to any other device I have used. I wish it didn't because it gives me way less that the others.
My 920xt its pretty accurate when I compare the .63 per mile equation, I got depressed when I put a power meter on my bike and my calories per km almost dropped by half.....
1 -
Thoughts on a chest strap? I'm not fancy enough yet for a wrist based HR monitor (LOVE my Garmin 920XT) but I'm sure to wear my chest strap when doing cardio. Anything else doesn't get tracked; I just consider it daily movement.0
-
@TavistockToad Using your calculation for a walk my calorie burn is half what my FitBit says!! 165*0.3*3.368 = 166.7!!!
ok...1 -
TavistockToad wrote: »body weight in lbs x 0.63 x distance in miles
walking is the same equation but x 0.3.
Does speed and incline decline of the terrain factor into the calculation? I would think fitness trackers, apps and treadmill machines would use a simple formula.
2 -
DoubleUbea wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »body weight in lbs x 0.63 x distance in miles
walking is the same equation but x 0.3.
Does speed and incline decline of the terrain factor into the calculation? I would think fitness trackers, apps and treadmill machines would use a simple formula.
not enough to factor in, unless you're doing serious hills or running on sand perhaps1 -
How many calories do I burn trying to figure out if that ridiculous formula is worth figuring out?13
-
-
with shell or without?3
-
-
TavistockToad wrote: »
Lol!!!
How sad am I actually working it out.... It was the bit about replacing the 1 with a 0 that made me look more closely!!!
Still I'm a bit freaked out that my FitBit may be more than doubling my burn... although I don't think it is cos I've always lost at the expected rate using it... If only I could get my calories in under control the FitBit seems to look after the CO well enough!0 -
This makes me feel better - it appears my Treadmill is actually capturing a good number.0
-
@TavistockToad Using your calculation for a walk my calorie burn is half what my FitBit says!! 165*0.3*3.368 = 166.7!!!
My FitBit gives it at 344... think I'll stick with that
Better get back to work now!!
I usually go with a rough estimate of 180-200 cal/hour if I'm walking a minimum of 5 km/hour. Definitely not over 200 calories.
TavistockToad's formula gives me about 150.
1 -
I just take the number my power meter gives me.0
-
TavistockToad wrote: »
Lol!!!
How sad am I actually working it out.... It was the bit about replacing the 1 with a 0 that made me look more closely!!!
Still I'm a bit freaked out that my FitBit may be more than doubling my burn... although I don't think it is cos I've always lost at the expected rate using it... If only I could get my calories in under control the FitBit seems to look after the CO well enough!
Your FitBit counts your BMR in with the activity, so it's activity calories + the calories you would have burned anyway. That's why it looks higher.2 -
Huh. Yesterday's 7k works out to 384 cals based on the manual calculation (140*.36*distance in miles which is 4.36). My garmin says 542 (I used heart monitor). Now, this was hills repeat but quite a variance.
My last 5k run math says 289 cals but Garmin (non hr monitor) says 364 cals.
This is why i don't want to eat exercise calories!
Those are brought in via fitbit. 0 -
Huh. Yesterday's 7k works out to 384 cals based on the manual calculation (140*.36*distance in miles which is 4.36). My garmin says 542 (I used heart monitor). Now, this was hills repeat but quite a variance.
My last 5k run math says 289 cals but Garmin (non hr monitor) says 364 cals.
This is why i don't want to eat exercise calories! Those are brought in via fitbit.
Eat the lower number and its not going to be 'too many'?2 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Eat the lower number and its not going to be 'too many'?
i'd have to do the math each time which won't happen. but i guess i could leave the "walking" cals and eat back the runs only....
I have a bit of a mental block on eating more. I am forcing myself but so far only managed to eat back a small portion :P as my entries show. Yesterday i ALMOST went to 1550 on cals in but then cut the snack to keep it under 1500 :P (baseline is 1350 or maybe it should be 1400...)
Anyway that's a personal battle I am struggling with.0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Eat the lower number and its not going to be 'too many'?
i'd have to do the math each time which won't happen. but i guess i could leave the "walking" cals and eat back the runs only....
I have a bit of a mental block on eating more. I am forcing myself but so far only managed to eat back a small portion :P as my entries show. Yesterday i ALMOST went to 1550 on cals in but then cut the snack to keep it under 1500 :P (baseline is 1350 or maybe it should be 1400...)
Anyway that's a personal battle I am struggling with.
Start with eating about 50% of the extra. You don't want to underfuel your activity. After a few weeks reevaluate and increase or lower that amount based on your results.1 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Eat the lower number and its not going to be 'too many'?
i'd have to do the math each time which won't happen. but i guess i could leave the "walking" cals and eat back the runs only....
I have a bit of a mental block on eating more. I am forcing myself but so far only managed to eat back a small portion :P as my entries show. Yesterday i ALMOST went to 1550 on cals in but then cut the snack to keep it under 1500 :P (baseline is 1350 or maybe it should be 1400...)
Anyway that's a personal battle I am struggling with.
10 seconds after each run or walk is hardly a lot of time?
Instead of adding snacks maybe just increase the calories in your main meals on days you are running? You seem to find it amusing, but under eating can seriously damage your health if you do it for any length of time.3 -
TavistockToad wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Eat the lower number and its not going to be 'too many'?
i'd have to do the math each time which won't happen. but i guess i could leave the "walking" cals and eat back the runs only....
I have a bit of a mental block on eating more. I am forcing myself but so far only managed to eat back a small portion :P as my entries show. Yesterday i ALMOST went to 1550 on cals in but then cut the snack to keep it under 1500 :P (baseline is 1350 or maybe it should be 1400...)
Anyway that's a personal battle I am struggling with.
10 seconds after each run or walk is hardly a lot of time?
Instead of adding snacks maybe just increase the calories in your main meals on days you are running? You seem to find it amusing, but under eating can seriously damage your health if you do it for any length of time.
I don't find it amusing at all.
I have read the posts on why eating enough is important, why fueling is important and why slow loss as you near the goal is important. like i said, "that's a personal battle I am struggling with." but actively trying to address in baby steps. I've increased my base calorie intake in general (not a ton but it's a first step) and I did eat more than base yesterday but not as much more as I should. But I was unable to bring myself to eat over 1500. i'll keep trying to do better today.
You are right and I don't even need to recalculate each run cuz it's based on mileage and I only have 2 maybe 3 different distances I run and on a schedule so I can calculate for that and just plan for that into run day meals (and do the calculation for longer runs but those should be predictable as well).
my walks are sprinkled into various parts of the day. but on non run days I could start with 25% of what it gives me (or 25-50%). run days eat the lower burn number.
3
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