Disappointed with calories burned results

theprizelamb1

Hi everyone.
 I usually cycle into work each morning, which is about 6 miles and relatively flat. But sometimes, when I know I’ll be out after work I will walk in.

 I am quite a fast walker, and can walk to work in about 1hr 15min. I’ve always thought that this was a great, low impact way of burning calories in the morning.  Various calorie trackers such as FatSecret estimates a brisk walk with my weight and height burns around 530 calories.

 However, I have recently bought the Wahoo Tickr X heart rate monitor to try and get a bit more analytical about my work outs. And I was a bit shocked to see that the walk only burned off 198cals!

 
The output results were: Walking 1h 15m, 113bpm, 198Cal, 6:11min/km, 12.13km.
 I’m 5ft 7, and currently weight 76kgs – which is about 3kgs over what I usually weigh. I work in an office but I am quite active – gym 3 times a week, cycle to work 4 times a week, football once a week.

 My question to you is, should I be shocked about the low calorie return? It seems quite out of step from what standard online calculators would estimate.

 Thanks

jameshayes

you walk at 6:11/km ? are you sure? thats the speed a 4 hour marathon runner would run at during training.. if I was out running and you walked past me I'd be pretty impressed!

Macy0161

I'd also be impressed with the walk speed - that's much faster than my long slow run pace! It does seem low for the distance, but there's always the debate of how many extra calories you burn with exercise, and not being aware of the tickr, maybe it only measures the extra? As in, sat on your hole watching TV, you will burn calories, so in theory the only extra calorie burn for the walk is what is above that.

Heart rate data will only be as accurate as the max and min info you have put in. Have you done a max heart rate test?

My experience is that as I've got fitter, what my garmin with hrm tells me for my calorie burn has got more out of step with the online estimates. The garmin is much lower than what the likes of strava, myfitnesspal would tell me. Earlier in the process, they would be more in line.

jameshayes

Macy0161 wrote: »

My experience is that as I've got fitter, what my garmin with hrm tells me for my calorie burn has got more out of step with the online estimates. The garmin is much lower than what the likes of strava, myfitnesspal would tell me. Earlier in the process, they would be more in line.

Good point actually.. Have you a strava account? Strava is free and you should be able to link your tickr to it and your walks will directly upload to strava.

Strava's analytics are very good and take into account your HR on a given activity and produce a calorie burn estimate.

theprizelamb1

Ah, okay.
 Just reading the results as they appear on the apps output, honest!

 I have just mapped the routes on google maps from my desktop and it reports the route as being 8.9kms. This reduces the pace to 8.4 min/kms – which is more realistic?

 But the app uses the mapping off the phone, which is google maps, so not sure how there is such a large discrepancy.

 But pace aside, would a brisk walk for 75 minutes only knock off 200 calories?
I do have Strava, but didn't turn it on this morning as both links to my FitnessPalApp, which then double counts both. 
But I guess I should use both for now to see if they're consistent.

Macy0161

jameshayes wrote: »

Strava's analytics are very good and take into account your HR on a given activity and produce a calorie burn estimate.

I find them an overestimate compared to Garmin. And up until recently I did pay for premium.

slicus ricus

An 8.9km walk in 75 mins should most definitely be North of 500 cals burned. There's something amiss with your equipment or how you are using it because the reading of 200 cals burned is way off.

This is the site I use for estimating calories burned: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml. It appears to be accurate to me in that I lose body fat at expected rates when I use this site to calculate the walking cardio part of the equation.

cnocbui

If you are dissapointed at the calorie burn because you want to lose weight, exercise doesn't achieve weight loss. it's fantastic for keeping healthy, though.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellbeing/fitness/why-is-exercise-useless-for-weight-loss-20170223-gujmzc.html

theprizelamb1

Thanks Silcus and Cnocbui. 
Silcus, that estimates I should have burned 623 calories! I'll contact Wahoo to make sure I'm using it properly. 
Cnocbui - I won't say I'm an expert, but don't think your statement is correct (I'll read the article later). 
I'm trying to lose about 3 kgs, so running a calorie deficit. The exercise will help maintain the deficit. So for instance, I could target 1,500 calories a day, eat 1,700. So burning 200 calories in exercise helps achieve the target, and hence lose weight.

New Goat

I'm the same, have a garmin watch and if I do a walk with the heart rate monitor attached calories burned is almost half compared to without the heart rate monitor

cnocbui

I am no physiologist, but the consensus I am reading more and more is that weight loss is more dependent on restricting input, rather than increasing output.

Brian?

cnocbui wrote: »

I am no physiologist, but the consensus I am reading more and more is that weight loss is more dependent on restricting input, rather than increasing output.

By increasing activity and maintaining the same calories you are actually achieving the same thing. There are 2 ways to create a calorie deification, move more or eat less.

Greenduck

Hi Op,

I am a similar weight (71kg) and 5'8.

According to my Fitbit and phone a 78 minute walk burns 527 calories approximately so I would think there is something wrong with your equipment! although I've always found it helpful to ignore calories burned from exercise and focus on reducing the calories from food. Any additional calories burned from walking/running gym are then a bonus!

slicus ricus

theprizelamb1 wrote: »

I'm trying to lose about 3 kgs, so running a calorie deficit. The exercise will help maintain the deficit. So for instance, I could target 1,500 calories a day, eat 1,700. So burning 200 calories in exercise helps achieve the target, and hence lose weight.

Your best bet is to work out everything on a weekly basis and calculate a daily average. The starting point is to work out your Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) for a week, then multiply by an appropriate activity factor, then add in weekly calories burned through specific exercise which will give you your Total Weekly Energy Expenditure (TWEE) - just divide that by 7 and there you go. From there, a good starting point to lose body fat would be a 500 calorie deficit below Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE) in terms of food intake.

Post #12 by G'em explains how to go about doing what I have described above: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055963342

Macy0161

I'll just say my experience, as I'm not qualified....

I used the calculation on that link to calculate my calorie needs, well up to step 2. I then took 500 calories off for the diet side. I then tried to "earn" at least 500 calories from exercise, and tried not to consume them (i.e. always leave at least 500 earned in the bank). In theory, that should give you 2lbs a week.

Even now in maintenance, I try not to consume all "earned" calories, as I prefer to have a bit of wriggle room for overestimating exercise and underestimating food, and also more wriggle room for weekends where I know won't have the focus I might have during the week.

Again, for me, I preferred the daily target without averaging out exercise. A long cycle, long/ hard run or even a hard session, my thinking is I want to replenish more that day, than on an easy day. Also it's an incentive to get out and do something!

cnocbui

Greenduck wrote: »

Hi Op,

I am a similar weight (71kg) and 5'8.

According to my Fitbit and phone a 78 minute walk burns 527 calories approximately so I would think there is something wrong with your equipment! although I've always found it helpful to ignore calories burned from exercise and focus on reducing the calories from food. Any additional calories burned from walking/running gym are then a bonus!

...replied to wrong post.

cnocbui

Brian? wrote: »

By increasing activity and maintaining the same calories you are actually achieving the same thing. There are 2 ways to create a calorie deification, move more or eat less.

You would think so, as that seems logical, but as I said, the latest research seems to indictae that is not the case. I wouldn't be surprised if exercise probably over-compensated by stimulating appetite.

It's rather annoying. I tried taking long vigorous walks thinking I would shed a small amount of weight. Didn't happen.

New Goat

What do you say to people who comment that you've an unhealthy and obsessive attitude to food when you tell them your counting calories. "just eat when you are hungry" they may also say. Most of these people would have never had a real problem with weight gain and they annoy me,,,

j@utis

Brian? wrote: »

By increasing activity and maintaining the same calories you are actually achieving the same thing. There are 2 ways to create a calorie deification, move more or eat less.

eating less is much more effective than burning it. this is all over internet today ...exercise-alone-has-little-effect-on-weight

Alf Veedersane

You're better off underestimating calories burned.

But in any case, it's not a strict formula. Account for your intake, record your exercise and monitor your weight. Over a few weeks, comparing those 3 will help figure out what level of calorie burning you get from exercise.

Brian?

cnocbui wrote: »

You would think so, as that seems logical, but as I said, the latest research seems to indictae that is not the case. I wouldn't be surprised if exercise probably over-compensated by stimulating appetite.

It's rather annoying. I tried taking long vigorous walks thinking I would shed a small amount of weight. Didn't happen.

Exercise stimulates appetite, but if you don't eat based on appetite then you're grand. Count calories, run a calorie deficit and job done. Exercise can help create the deficit. Simples.

Long vigorous walks don't burn many calories, so they don't create much of a deficit.

Brian?

j@utis wrote: »

eating less is much more effective than burning it. this is all over internet today ...exercise-alone-has-little-effect-on-weight

That's a poor conclusion from the evidence.

Exercise alone has little effect on weight it says. What about something like cycling? I can burn 800 kcals an hour on a tough spin. If I don't replace that with food, I will absolutely lose weight. The problem is most people over replace the calories they burn from exercise and negate the benefits with respect to weight loss.

Mellor

cnocbui wrote: »

You would think so, as that seems logical, but as I said, the latest research seems to indictae that is not the case. I wouldn't be surprised if exercise probably over-compensated by stimulating appetite.

You are misunderstanding the research, or what rags like the Sydney Morning are saying about the research. Looking at activity without intake it pointless, as it looking at intake without activity.

cnocbui wrote: »

I am no physiologist, but the consensus I am reading more and more is that weight loss is more dependent on restricting input, rather than increasing output.

It's not output or input that matters. It's the difference between the two.

In that regard, whether you reduce intake calories by 500 or increase activity by 500 calories the net effect is the same, a 500 calorie difference (assuming the other quantity is static). They are intrinsically relative quantities and therefore can't be separated from one another.

Look at it this way;
John works a desk job, he burns 2400 calories a day and eats the same.
His twin brother Jim is very active, he burns 2900 calories a day and eats the same.
They are both the same size and want to lose a few kilos for summer.

John gets more active, increasing his output to 2900 cals, eats the same 2400.
Jim eats less food, dropping his intake to 2400 cals, and maintains his 2900 activity.

Which approach is better? increasing output or decreasing input?

It's rather annoying. I tried taking long vigorous walks thinking I would shed a small amount of weight. Didn't happen.

Walking doesn't burn much energy tbh, if you increase intake alongside it, even slightly, then I would expect results.

Mellor

theprizelamb1 wrote: »

 
The output results were: Walking 1h 15m, 113bpm, 198Cal, 8.9km.
 I’m 5ft 7, and currently weight 76kgs

There's 100% something wrong with the tracker figures.


Walking/Running calorie burn is based on work done, ie how far you move. It's quite a uniform thing. So calculators that consider distance/speed and weight tend to be accurate. Calculator than ask for time only (ie 60mins "brisk" walking) tend to be very rough guesses.

It's also relative to weight. I'm 76kg also. I've estimated that running burns 1 cal per km per kg (bodyweight). So you and I would burn 76cals per km, an 8.9km run would be 675cals.
Walking tends to be more energy efficient, how much more depends on the walking speed. At its most efficient, it burns maybe 60%, and faster speed its maybe 80%.

At your speed it would be 80% I'd guess, which equals 540cals. Even rounding down to 500cals shows the tracker is way off. Has it been calibrated to your weight, stats etc? The 193 burn might make sense if the tracker thought you were a 35kg 12 years old.

slicus ricus

j@utis wrote: »

eating less is much more effective than burning it. this is all over internet today ...exercise-alone-has-little-effect-on-weight

I'm calling absolute bullsh*t on this. This drives me mental that something so straight forward gets complicated to the point of insanity!!

It's a really simple formula - calories in vs calories out:
- More in than out = Surplus = weight gain,
- More out than in = Deficit = weight loss.
If you want to lose weight, specifically bodyfat, figure out your daily average calories expended, eat to a sensible deficit (500 calorie deficit is reasonable) and repeat. If you are consistently doing this (i.e. day on day) and not losing bodyfat, it is because: A) You are eating more calories than you think, You are burning less calories than you think. If this happens, go back to the drawing board and adjust your calculations.

j@utis

I think you've got the message wrong. all it says is that e.g. 500kcal less from food it's more effective than extra 500kcal burned through exercise. if you don't monitor your intake meticulously , exercise will do next to nothing in the long term regarding the weight control.

Mellor

j@utis wrote: »

I think you've got the message wrong. all it says is that e.g. 500kcal less from food it's more effective than extra 500kcal burned through exercise..

They are the same thing.
You you eat 500cals less than activity then your activity is 500cals higher by definition.
Glass half full/half empty. See exam in post 23.

Those studies are about higher than average activity not activity higher than intake - both very different.