Calories burned is bogus

[Stockmoose16]

Delete

 

[anthonyng]

Why is that wrong? Calories are hard to build up. When I do work outs on the Airdyne, targets are set by calories and it's HARD If I coast it, it takes forever, if I sprint it, my legs want to melt but at least I hit the target faster.

Maybe your lesser calorie run you had less spring in your stride hence not working has hard as the other one Would be interesting to do the same run a few more times as two data points doesn't really say that much.

In my workouts thus far, I feel it represents within reason my harder days as higher calorie burning than my lighter days.

 

[jmerrey]

I'm sure the calorie burn is way off. I took a ride on my bike around the neighborhood with my 7 and 9 year old, and I wanted to test the bike-Strava integration. 32 minutes, 2.2 miles, 632 calories burned. 632!

 

[aardvarkie]

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.

 

[EMitchell]

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.

 

[poit57]

I don't know about during workouts. All I have to compare it to was an Adidas miCoach chest strap that measured 84 at the lowest before a workout when my normal resting heart rate is around 58. The first Band I received had a similar issue with insanely high heart rate readings when I wasn't doing any physical activity. I once met my calorie goal for the day at 3:30 PM when I had been sitting at a computer desk all day.

Once I got my replacement with a good HRM, I feel that the calorie count is a good estimate, but again, I have no reliable measurement to compare my results with. My results are pretty consistent from workout to workout.

 

[gadgetrants]

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.

My experience is very similar. Haven't seen 100+ calorie differences over the same workout like Jonny -- my heartrate during runs is a bit higher (170), and I also tend to burn about 150 calories/mile, but most runs give me consistent numbers on the Band.

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.

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.

​-Matt

 

[pallentx]

Heart rate data will definitely affect calories, but so does time. If you ran hard earlier and then walked, but took more time overall, you were burning calories longer because you were exercising longer.

So, I agree the data looks like more calories than it should, but its not completely impossible that you burned more on the longer run under some conditions.

I general, I find that the Band, like previous Garmin devices I've owned, over estimates calories on bike rides. I upload the data to Strava and it "corrects" them down to what I think is a more realistic number. Ultimately, I guess I don't really know which is accurate.

 

[EMitchell]

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.

 

[aardvarkie]

I copied this from another site.

One of the more standard and most accurate ways to calculate the equation is to use the calorie expenditure formula below . It comes from the Journal of Sports Sciences and provides a formula for each gender.

Men use the following formula:

Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.2017) — (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) — 55.0969] x Time / 4.184.

Women use the following formula:

Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.074) — (Weight x 0.05741) + (Heart Rate x 0.4472) — 20.4022] x Time / 4.184.

Time would be in minutes. So for my last run the band say 278 calories and the calculation comes out to 256 (Age 55, 31 minutes, 185 pounds, 150 average heart rate). That's pretty close to me, about an 8% difference.

 

[teemulehtinen]

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.

 

[CliveSinclair]

What equipment gives you the 366kcal ?

 

[aardvarkie]

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.

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.

 

[gadgetrants]

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!

-Matt

 

[gadgetrants]

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.

I realize that sparkpeople.com is a pretty questionable source, but as the saying goes, "don't shoot the messenger for the message." :wink:

Can I Measure Calories Burned during Strength Training with a Heart Rate Monitor?

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.

​-Matt

 

[aardvarkie]

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 monitor my band a lot during my workouts and for a weights only training sessions a 200 calorie burn is pretty good for 30 minutes (8 exercises, 10-12 reps, 3-4 sets) and my heart rate barely breaks 130 and spends most of time only around 90. On a hard day I try and maintain 140-150 bpm for a full 60 minutes and will burn on average about 750 calories. My body can't tell the difference as to what I'm doing it just responds to the increased stimuli by providing more calories to maintain itself.

I think a lot of band owners have issues with weight training and maintaining good contact between your arm and the band which can lead to higher recorded heart rates and higher than expected calorie burn. I look at my heart rate constantly to see where its at. I've seen 300's while running and 260's while lifting. Junk data in junk data out. Averages are very important with the band and that is why recording lots of data is important. I've had the band since it came out and religiously record my workouts. This way all those high reading gets washed out and you get a better picture of your fitness. I've used the data collected over that last 6 months to set my caloric intake for the day, 2300 calories in based upon 2600 calorie average output. I pretty much maintain my current weight with this. If I wanted to lose weight I'd go down to 1900 calories a day in and not have to increase my training at all and I would lose about a pound a week.

 

[gadgetrants]

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

 

[aardvarkie]

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

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.

 

[DroidUser42]

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.

Sure, why not? It's like saying your car burned more fuel when it took longer for you to do the same trip.

Keep in mind that some of those calories might be "stay alive" calories that get counted regardless of what you do. Just like your car burns gas sitting at a stop light going nowhere.

So my knee-jerk reaction is that you're confusing power and energy. Energy = power x time. Just because you use less power doesn't mean it took less energy - particularly when it took more time to do it.

As for how the Band calculates - I'm pretty sure it's based on heart rate. But I don't know as any of the devices we use reveal the formula. And I'd be willing to bet money there's more than one formula for estimating.

I think there's also a healthy amount of "A man with two watches is never sure of the time" syndrome. They're ALL estimates. Why should we be surprised when they differ?

 

[Beast of Haeven]

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.

I cant afford the band right now but I want to buy the band to track my heart rate and supposed calorie burn during my workouts. Cardio for me only involves a 15-20 minute walk at a high incline at the gym but my weight training routine can last 3hr. I've lost a lot of weight in a very short period of time and built a ton of muscle. I completely buy into the idea that I've burned more calories repairing muscle but I'm curious as to how much I burn during my longer workouts.