Same steps - wildly different Calories allowed

Options
AKTipsyCat
AKTipsyCat Posts: 240 Member
edited December 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
Anyone know how I could possibly rack up 10,437 steps one day and get a 258 calorie adjustment, when the day before I got 10,456 steps in and they gave me a 1,357 calorie adjustment??? It wasn't like I ran the steps one day and sauntered the other... one day I racked up all those steps just doing property checks and working (the day with the higher allotment), so they were spread out through out the day, the next day I actually walked half of them doing a walk around a local city park, and the rest were incidental as I walked around my day (the day with the WAY lower allotment.

Replies

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    It's not the steps that truly give calories - it's the distance those steps cause, or are calculated to have caused actually.

    What's the distance compare between them?

    Also - if the serious stepping times kicked in the HRM-based calorie burn - that would be inflated.
    Distance-based much more accurate.

    Which device account is syncing this to MFP - you failed to mention?
  • AKTipsyCat
    AKTipsyCat Posts: 240 Member
    I'm using a fitbit Alta. I guess I just find it weird - I would have though my calorie # would have been hire for the day I actually took a walk around the park, vs. walking along my properties, at a slower pace and through out the day. I may have taken a few extra stairs... and I can see a difference of a couple of hundred calories... but 1000 made me wonder if something was wrong with the MFP calculations... or if it was always just wildly inconsistent.
  • kmfeig87
    kmfeig87 Posts: 1,990 Member
    The day with the park walk and the lower calorie burn, did you spend a lot of time sitting? Could be that just being up and moving around burned more calories or was calculated as more calories as you had a higher heart rate? Maybe?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Now that you can look back at the whole day - you can compare distance.
    Again - that's what actually matters.

    You'll have to look on Fitbit for that info though.

    It may be the stride length is incorrect too.
    Ever walked a known distance at 2 mph (mid daily pace - not grocery store shuffle, not exercise pace - but in the middle) and confirmed the Fitbit saw the right distance?

    If it's off - then it's ability to dynamically adjust to faster or slower paces will be impaired - which matters for lots of steps.
  • AKTipsyCat
    AKTipsyCat Posts: 240 Member
    I ended up geeking out and noticing sudden spikes in calorie allotments the last few weeks by dumping the numbers into a spreadsheet- and DOH. My crazy high days were days I did Hot Yoga. I guess I won’t be manually entering that exercise as well. And whoa, 1000 calories for 90 minutes of hot yoga? I’m not even good yet and end up sitting through a fourth of the class. My regular yoga sessions don’t even register as a blip so I manually will continue to enter those.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Good catch - workouts where HR elevates enough that HR-based calorie burn is used can sometimes be the best estimate outside other available measurement methods.

    But it's only decent best for steady-state aerobic, same HR for 2-4 min blocks.
    So the heat elevating HR isn't a valid estimate for non-aerobic activity like yoga.

    Even a walk in hot temps would be better estimated by distance and time and manually entered, not by HR which could be elevated by the heat, but also barely in the aerobic range where inflated burn is normal.

    Nice that Fitbit allows downloading that. Thanks a lot MFP!
  • AKTipsyCat
    AKTipsyCat Posts: 240 Member
    I wouldn't say that Hot Yoga is non Aerobic... At least the version I'm doing... We go through a series of 26 poses in 90 minutes and it's slow but constant movement throughout the time. My stretchy class and Gentle class, I agree - not aerobic, but my Hot 26 class is definitely aerobic. I also wonder why MFP classifies yoga as aerobic and not as a strength training exercise, which I think is more what it is??
  • Keto_Vampire
    Keto_Vampire Posts: 1,670 Member
    Yeah, if you are using a fitness tracker, those kcal burn discrepancies despite roughly hitting the same step count each day are almost always accountable via NEAT; mostly in the form of how many hours standing vs. sitting/laying down each day. This is blatantly obvious in my tracking due to an erratic work-life schedule...work day hitting only 12-13k steps but standing 16 hours during the day can out burn an off day of 17k steps (much from exercise) & hitting weights for a solid hour but only standing for maybe 6-8 hours/day (3 hours of exercise/activity compensated with relaxing/laying down too much on the laptop)
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    AKTipsyCat wrote: »
    I wouldn't say that Hot Yoga is non Aerobic... At least the version I'm doing... We go through a series of 26 poses in 90 minutes and it's slow but constant movement throughout the time. My stretchy class and Gentle class, I agree - not aerobic, but my Hot 26 class is definitely aerobic. I also wonder why MFP classifies yoga as aerobic and not as a strength training exercise, which I think is more what it is??

    All exercises for purpose of calorie count fall under general database - even strength training.

    Aerobic in the sense I used it is merely a type of exercise - anaerobic, aerobic, below aerobic.
    It's not a comment on how useful it is, but rather the effect on the body's aerobic system, and if in a range that causes improvements beyond merely using it.
    Walking at casual pace usually does not enter that range for instance, at least after someone has done it a few times. Usually talking HR generally above 110 for extended time.
    Now, walk hills or really fast pace, and you can keep it up there.

    Hot yoga obtains a HR higher than the effort would require if not in a hot room - therefore the HR is not elevated because of the level of effort - but because of need to cool by pumping blood faster.
    The aerobic level doesn't have to do with slow constant movement or high HR, but rather what it requires of the aerobic system in general.
    Like if the breathing rate doesn't go up to match the elevated HR - the effort is not in what I was calling Aerobic level, as opposed to daily or anaerobic level.

    Confusing too is that the whole exercise range is divided into multiple zones one of which is Aerobic - that's not what I was referring to either.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories