Quality vs. Quantity of Calories Burned

Options
2»

Replies

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    jacqQ2017 wrote: »
    brandigyrl81 wrote: »
    Well y'all. I feel like I've pretty much been wasting my time, now that it's been revealed that I haven't been burning that many calories. All this time I'm thinking I'm really working hard out in this heat, only to find that I'm burning only about 300-400 calories.


    At least it all makes sense now as to why my weight is slowly creeping up.

    If it makes you feel any better, I think I'm having the same problem with my fitbit. Using the calculator here suggests my fitbit over estimated my walk today by about 200cals, although the calc doesn't know how many hills I walked up, it's unlikely that it would add that much more.

    Perhaps I need to unlink my fitbit, I thought it was going to make my calorie tracking more efficient, not less...

    On the plus side, now we know, we have a chance at better progress!

    For walks where distance-based calorie burn would be better (even running frankly) - on Fitbit go and manually log the workout.

    Put in miles and time - accept the calorie burn. It'll be pretty right on. Tad lower than reality because indeed it doesn't know hills.

    You can leave the Activity Record there that has the distance, HR, step info - that's just a snapshot of the stats for that chunk of time. Still a good review of info, you can add temp to the notes.
    But it gives you the start time and duration to use for your manual Workout Record - which will overwrite the daily stats with better info.

    Fitbit uses replacement method, not add-on method, for calories and distance and steps.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    @brandigyrl81

    Manually log Weights on Fitbit, as well as advice above to manually log the walk.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,735 Member
    Options
    OP, you've gotten some great advice and support above, with which I agree - as someone who used to be about your weight, and active besides, the new numbers seem much more plausible.

    Knowledge leads to improved progress, so I think you should feel really good about figuring this stuff out. Unlike some we see here, who - sadly - reject unwelcome but correct new information, you're taking the info on board. In that, you're on a successful path.

    In addition, I'm thinking the article below might be helpful background information for you, as you think about whether and when to trust HRM-based estimates for exercise, and when it may be important to cross-check them by other methods. It's pretty old now, but it's still useful and informative:

    https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

    I'm far from the expert the writer is, so the following are just my amateur beliefs: There have been some improvements since then in the wrist-based sensors, so that they're more reliable IMO for a wider range of exercises (though still not perfect for everything). There have been changes in ancillary features available, especially in the higher-end devices, so some of the brand/model/feature info in the article is outdated. But the basic information, about the things that make heart rate a relatively better or worse predictor of calorie burn - that's pretty much still golden.

    Best wishes!
  • brandigyrl81
    brandigyrl81 Posts: 128 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    OP, you've gotten some great advice and support above, with which I agree - as someone who used to be about your weight, and active besides, the new numbers seem much more plausible.

    Knowledge leads to improved progress, so I think you should feel really good about figuring this stuff out. Unlike some we see here, who - sadly - reject unwelcome but correct new information, you're taking the info on board. In that, you're on a successful path.

    In addition, I'm thinking the article below might be helpful background information for you, as you think about whether and when to trust HRM-based estimates for exercise, and when it may be important to cross-check them by other methods. It's pretty old now, but it's still useful and informative:

    https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

    I'm far from the expert the writer is, so the following are just my amateur beliefs: There have been some improvements since then in the wrist-based sensors, so that they're more reliable IMO for a wider range of exercises (though still not perfect for everything). There have been changes in ancillary features available, especially in the higher-end devices, so some of the brand/model/feature info in the article is outdated. But the basic information, about the things that make heart rate a relatively better or worse predictor of calorie burn - that's pretty much still golden.

    Best wishes!

    Thank you for your reassurance. I will definitely check out the link you suggested.
  • Hanibanani2020
    Hanibanani2020 Posts: 523 Member
    Options
    I don’t even burn that in a 4ml run (average about 600 give or take for incline). How are you getting that amount burnt?
  • Hanibanani2020
    Hanibanani2020 Posts: 523 Member
    Options
    Oh edit to see your Fitbit is a lying you know what. I get map my walk and map my run. It’s more accurate imho and considers incline.
  • Dogmom1978
    Dogmom1978 Posts: 1,580 Member
    Options
    I use Gaia gps for my walks so I know how long they are. I also enter the time at 2.0 mph even though I know I’m walking faster than that. And I shave off overall time just to be on the safe side (I take dogs out but they stop to sniff stuff, so my walk is 110 min, but I enter it as 90 min). I would rather underestimate and be happily surprised on weigh in day.
  • bmeadows380
    bmeadows380 Posts: 2,981 Member
    Options
    But even if you aren't burning as much as your fitbit was telling you, your absolutely right in that it's still activity and a very good activity from a health perspective and will help until you can get back to your normal routine!

    I personally have always just logged using MFP's activity database and counting about 75% of it. Some things I have to estimate big time - such as moving 30 lb cinderblocks for an hour - but the walking entries seem pretty accurate for me. I use a cheap fitness tracker that has a GPS mode to get my mileage and time, and then figure the calorie burn depending on how fast I was walking. Usually I'm around 3.3 mph, so I'll see what the calories were for 3.0 then for 3.5 and work out the math to get a number for my 3.3.
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,686 Member
    Options
    You aren't wasting your time. Walking is a good healthy exercise that strengthens muscles, heart and lungs. It will improve your overall health. It just doesn't burn a lot of calories unless you do it for a long time or do a lot of hills.
  • ALZ14
    ALZ14 Posts: 202 Member
    Options
    brandigyrl81 wrote: »
    Height: 5'2
    Weight: 186
    Age: 38 BUT...I'm currently on some medication (cancer survivor) that puts me in a menopausal state

    I do use a Heart Rate Monitor

    I’m 5’3 and 182 and 39 years old, so very similar stats minus the medication. I wear an Apple Watch (Series 3) and I just got back from a 3.1 mile walk pushing a stroller with a 30 pound toddler and I burned an estimated 350 calories. The only time I’ve burned 1,000 calories in a day is when I got 20,000 steps (4 mile walk plus mowing the lawn plus general activity).

    I think your monitor is way off. No monitor is perfect, but that doesn’t sound right at all.

Categories