I run on a track using the band with GPS off and my last run was 3.21 miles (actually only 3 miles but the bands off a little without the GPS) and it burned 278 calories. I've used the band for running since it came out and these results are pretty consistent I run at a 9-1/2 minute per mile pace and don't vary it throughout the run. Heart rate can be all over the place at times but averages out at around 150. My resting is below 50. Calories burned are based on the heart rate information so maybe check to see what your averages are for the run and see how off they are. I get some in the 300 range which is way off but the average comes out pretty good for me.
I've thought that the calorie count is off as well. I'd like to get details on how the calorie count is determined. I've heard the band uses the heart rate, but there must be more to the algorithm.
Yes, that's what is bugging me. There doesn't seem to be a 'standard' way of calculating calories.Having played with the settings, I'm pretty sure that HR is not the sole determinant for calories. One way to check is to do a run or walk three ways:
(1) Tell the Band it's a run
(2) Tell the Band it's an exercise
(3) Leave the Band in default mode
Check the calories (unfortunately you have to eyeball in case #3) and you'll see that (1) gives the highest number, even though in all three cases your HR was not only the same, but so was your whole-body movement (e.g,. accelerometer readings). This bugs me a lot -- it means that totally different algorithms are being used depending on what activity the Band "believes" you're doing.
Yes, that's what is bugging me. There doesn't seem to be a 'standard' way of calculating calories.
Of course there cannot be one way of calculating the burn. It's a different thing to burn 100 calories working out with weights or to do the same with a run. A smart enough band would take advantage of the heart rate but also the accelerometers etc. This is exactly why the three examples SHOULD give a different outcome. Also, at least in default mode the heart rate monitoring is much less constant (every ten minutes instead of every minute) which goes a long way to explaining why that is totally out.
Just in case the "three examples" is pointing back to my comment...I should have been clear that I'm proposing that (within reason) the same activity be repeated three times, while recording once in Default, Run, and Exercise mode. Your comment about sampling frequency is a great one -- I should have remembered that! Still, in principle if the activity is long enough (e.g. 60 minutes), even sampling every 10 minutes should allow reasonable interpolation during the middle 9 minutes. Of course that assumption makes more sense for continuous activities like walking, jogging, or biking than it does for downhill skiing or hockey!Of course there cannot be one way of calculating the burn. It's a different thing to burn 100 calories working out with weights or to do the same with a run. A smart enough band would take advantage of the heart rate but also the accelerometers etc. This is exactly why the three examples SHOULD give a different outcome. Also, at least in default mode the heart rate monitoring is much less constant (every ten minutes instead of every minute) which goes a long way to explaining why that is totally out.
I realize that sparkpeople.com is a pretty questionable source, but as the saying goes, "don't shoot the messenger for the message." :wink:Exercise is exercise. It doesn't matter what you are doing, lifting weights, running , swimming, bicycling, etc. calorie burn is all calculated the same way by your heart rate. Lifting weights doesn't elevate your heart rate near as much as cardio that's why you burn so few calories from doing it. I do crossfit and HIT (High Intensity Training) to make up for the low calorie burn of weight lighting alone, you basically alternate lifting with cardio to increase your burn.
A heart rate monitor (HRM) is capable of estimating calorie burn pretty accurately?but only for aerobic (cardio) exercise, not for strength training. Here's why:
A HRM won't give you an accurate idea of how many calories you burn during strength training because the relationship between heart rate and calorie expenditure is not the same during strength training as during cardio exercise, which is what the HRM's estimate is based on. Unless your weight training is very vigorous circuit training, the heart rate monitor will be overestimating your calorie burn by a fair amount.
The problem is a technical one. Calorie burning isn't determined by heart rate; it's determined by the number of muscle cells that are activated to perform a given activity. It's the working cells that actually use the energy (calories) and consume oxygen. When working muscle cells need more energy and oxygen, your heart rate goes up to deliver these things to the cells via the blood stream.
I'm not sure if it's truth or gym/urban legend, but I've bought in to the idea that the weight workout itself burns moderate (or low) calories. In other words, the benefits of weight training don't come from the actual lifting. The "real" metabolic benefits of weight training (supposedly) are (1) the post-workout "repair process" of building new muscle (which involves high energy) and (2) longer-term, the process of feeding that muscle (which has higher energy demands than stored fat). But I'm the pot calling the kettle black...I haven't lifted since January!The only thing right in that article is that weight training alone doesn't burn a lot of calories as your not taxing your body all that much. Your heart rate only goes up for very short periods of time, a couple minutes at most, and there is a lot of resting between reps.
I'm not sure if it's truth or gym/urban legend, but I've bought in to the idea that the weight workout itself burns moderate (or low) calories. In other words, the benefits of weight training don't come from the actual lifting. The "real" metabolic benefits of weight training (supposedly) are (1) the post-workout "repair process" of building new muscle (which involves high energy) and (2) longer-term, the process of feeding that muscle (which has higher energy demands than stored fat). But I'm the pot calling the kettle black...I haven't lifted since January!
-Matt
So the band is basically saying I burned 50% more calories during the run of the same distance that took me a little bit longer.
Fat is just stored energy so it doesn't burn calories, it's a potential source of calories for the body to burn. Yes more muscle = more calories burned to maintain it and to repair it. You'll increase your base metabolic rate, mine right now is around 1900 calories per day. Professional body builders take in upwards of 6000 calories a day but also workout 6 hours a day with a balance of strength and cardio workouts. But look at the mass of muscle they have to maintain and at the same time add more. The band isn't a precise instrument and I think for the average person its a good tool to help maintain a healthy lifestyle but its also has its draw backs. I figure in at least 10-15% error in how many calories burned just to be safe and that seems to work for me.