[Is that really me]

I've been tracking my eating and exercising on Fitday. I think it's great for keeping track of my calories, although I find some of their counts lower than it should be. Also, their lifestyle calories are simply ridiculous! But I thought their calories burned for exercising was right. I just checked out another site (caloriecontrol.org - I got the link from a thread here at 3FC) and it is completely different. As an example, on Fitday I enter 48 minutes walking at 3.5 mph (I actually walk at 3.7 but it doesn't let me put that in). It says I burn 148 calories. On this other site I put in Walking, brisk (that's the only option, no mph or anything) and 48 minutes and my weight. It says I'm burning 360 calories! Which is closest to being right? Anyone have a more accurate site/link to getting a better idea of just how much I'm burning when I exercise? Thanks!

Jo

[ennay]

both and neither

Fitday tells you how many calories you burned ABOVE your basal metabolism. So if your BMR is 1400 calories, in 48 minutes you burn about 45 calories just living. Fitday then reports that you burn an ADDITIONAL 148 calories walking for a TOTAL burn in the 48 minutes of 193.

Which is still quite different than calorie control's number which is most likely TOTAL burn. MOST reports of "how much you burn" are


You walked around 3 miles which typically is ~300 calories TOTAL burn depending on how fast you go (faster burns more)

But none of them can be truly accurate without your heartrate and other metabolic factors. The fitter you are the less you burn going the same speed at the same weight.

Also--I get a higher number than you do from fitday and I think I weigh less?

[Is that really me]

Originally Posted by ennay

You walked around 3 miles which typically is ~300 calories TOTAL burn depending on how fast you go (faster burns more)

If you walk 3 miles in 1 hour you burn 300 calories (more or less). If you walk 3 miles in 45 minutes, don't you still burn 300 calories (more or less)? You're just doing it in a shorter amount of time. That's what I've always heard and read. Isn't that why distance (rather than time spent) is always what they talk about? Kind of like a lb. of fat weighing the same as a lb. of muscle; a lb. is a lb., fat just takes up more space. 3 miles is 3 miles; you burn the same amount of calories whether you slow jog it or quick walk it; you're just saving time. Do I have that right or am I missing info.? Thanks!!

Jo

[Mini-Me]

There are so many variables when it comes to how many calories an individual burns at an activity, it's almost not worth guessing at.

If you REALLY want to know, check your local college sports departments, and see if they offer metabolic testing to the public.

Where I live there are several sports centers that offer that, as well as, underwater weighing, fitness assesments, etc...

For me? I just 'assume' that every hour I spend exercising is worth 150 calories. (I'd rather underestimate than overestimate)

[SlimLindy]

How many calories you burn depends on how elevated your heart rate is and for how long (given your height, weight, age, and metabolism). So if you run three miles really fast you actually do burn more calories than if you slowly walk three miles. I know this because I wear a heart rate monitor and do the exact same activities day after day (an hour on the elliptical, a 4 mile run, etc) but the number of calories I burn varies FOR THE SAME EXACT ACTIVITY AT THE SAME EXACT LENGTH OF TIME AND/OR THE SAME DISTANCE depending on how elevated my heart rate is. For example, when I run on the treadmill, I may have to adjust my Ipod or take off my sweatshirt or talk with the person on the treadmill next to me. All of those things will increase my heart rate even though I'm going the same distance at the same pace. Or I could pump my arms more or drink more caffeine pre-workout or eat more food pre-workout or a million other variables. What really changes the number of calories you're burning is your heart rate. Furthermore, if I run four miles in 30 minutes and burn (lets say) 450 calories, then I walk around my house doing normal activity for the next 30 minutes and burn (lets say) 100 calories, I will have burned more in an hour than if I WALKED those four miles slowly for 55 minutes and burned 300 calories, then putzed around the house for 5 minutes and burned 15 calories. So going the same distance, does not necessarily give you the same calorie burn. Make sense?