Group photo
Author:
KAYOTIC's Photo KAYOTIC Posts: 15,500
8/1/14 9:29 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Does the bodymedia and garmin use heart rate monitors? If so, then those will likely be closer to your actual burn than the Sparktracker or the fitbit.

The number of calories burned per hour depends a lot on age, gender, weight, etc, so can vary widely! It's probably better to get the estimate from a device that takes those variables into account, but it's still an estimate, not an exact science.

I think go by your results over time, if you find you are losing more rapidly than you want, you may need to eat more to fuel your activity, if you find you are stalling out, you may need to tweak your program a bit, track your calories in/out diligently to see if your deficit it too big or small.

Sounds like you all do some pretty intense hiking! emoticon

highest weight ever:202, SP starting weight: 143

H: 5''4" 53 y.o.

"Don''t let yesterday use up too much of today." Will Rogers

"Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly Plants" Michael Pollan



 current weight: 6.8  over
10
5
0
-5
-10
SOUTHTXXRNNR's Photo SOUTHTXXRNNR Posts: 3,201
7/28/14 9:46 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Thanks Moondustie. I use my garmin that I usually use for running and I also use my spark tracker. The garmin, like you said, tends to have a higher calorie count. I also have a bodymedia but haven't used it for a while. Maybe I should charge it up and start using it as it sounds like yours does the better job of tracking. Again, thanks.


~@~Padre Islander, Corpus Christi, TX~@~


 current weight: 136.3 
252
221.5
191
160.5
130
MOONDUSTIE's Photo MOONDUSTIE Posts: 190
7/27/14 2:19 P

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
For comparison, I'll throw out my stats from yesterday's hike. I'm a gadget girl, so I wear a both Fitbit and a Bodymedia armband. The Bodymedia armband has always been extremely accurate for calorie burn. I've worn it for 6 years. The fitbit usually underestimates by 10-20%.

Yesterday I hiked 11 miles in 8 hours with a couple of 10 minute stops. Much of the hike was very steep, gaining over 1,000 feet per mile, and cross country over talus. That's why my pace seems slow. Total elevation gain was about 4000 feet. My Bodymedia said 3446 for the day, the Fitbit said 2947. The greatest calorie burn for 1 hour (Bodymedia) was 333 calories. That's a lot less than the 600 you guys are talking about! I weigh around 131 and my day pack weighs 12-15 pounds. (I start out with 3 liters of water).

I only ate 2600 cals yesterday, so today if I'm starving by afternoon, I'll eat some extra. But I'm trying to drop a couple of pounds, so the deficit is fine with me :)

When I backpack, my pack usually weighs about 28-30 pounds. Depending on daily mileage and terrain I might burn 3600-4000 a day, but I certainly wouldn't lose any weight eating that much.

 current weight: -2.0  under
5
2.5
0
-2.5
-5
SOUTHTXXRNNR's Photo SOUTHTXXRNNR Posts: 3,201
7/27/14 10:04 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Wow. Thanks for the info. I am not wrong on my miles, but once looking at my time, it was actually just under 5 hours. Oops. Yes, I steadily hike with no breaks. I eat while moving because I have found that if I stop and eat, it feels "heavier" in my stomach, if that makes sense. My pack starts out weight a bit over 10 lbs., but by the end of the hike, it weighs under due to eating and drinking a lot of my weight. :) Again, thanks for the input.


~@~Padre Islander, Corpus Christi, TX~@~


 current weight: 136.3 
252
221.5
191
160.5
130
MOTIVATED@LAST's Photo MOTIVATED@LAST Posts: 15,477
7/27/14 8:50 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Yeah, likewise I am skeptical of the distance over 4 hours. Also, a rough guide is that you burn about 100 calories per mile walked even on level ground, so 1100 calories sounds like a bit of an underestimate (especially as the tracker doesn't know about the elevation gain or the rough terrain).

Burning 10 calories per minute/600 calories an hour is pretty reasonable for a vigorous activity like hiking with a pack (especially with elevation), but it can be difficult to maintain this level of effort for 4 hours. Somewhere in the lower 500's per hour is probably a more reasonable guess for a sustained effort.

The body holds roughly 2000 calories in usable energy, so whenever you are doing an activity that is going to burn more than 1500 calories, you need to be thinking about getting some calories in DURING exercise. If I thought I was going to burn about 2000 calories through hiking, I'd probably want to consume an extra 500-600 during my hike. If I thought I was going to burn 3000, I'd probably want to consume an extra 1200ish.

This of course assumes you are doing just a single day's hiking, and can rebuild the body's reserves the next day. If you want to turn around and put in an equivalent effort the next day, you need to consume more to replenish your reserves. On multi-day backpacking trips, I can eat 4000 calories per day (about double my normal consumption) and still lose significant weight.

M@L

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.


 current weight: 183.0 
220
203.5
187
170.5
154
MOONDUSTIE's Photo MOONDUSTIE Posts: 190
7/27/14 12:45 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
To cover 14 miles in 4 hours with 2000 feet of gain would be an incredibly fast pace with no rest stops. I think you might be mistaken about the distance.

600 calories per hour is WAY too high IMO. Today I hiked a solid 8 hours with over 4000 feet of elevation gain. No way I burned 4800 calories! Maybe 3300.

If you didn't eat enough, you'll be extra hungry tomorrow and should eat more than usual. But I've seen too many people overestimate their burn and eat too much, then they don't understand why their weight loss stalls

 current weight: -2.0  under
5
2.5
0
-2.5
-5
MTODRYK's Photo MTODRYK Posts: 103
7/27/14 12:23 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Just about all activity trackers calculate hiking at about 10 calories a minute or 600 calories an hour. (2387 for 4 hours). Backbacker.com has some great info on how much to eat while hiking and how often. I almost NEVER eat near enough calories when I hike.

 current weight: 231.0 
237
225.25
213.5
201.75
190
SOUTHTXXRNNR's Photo SOUTHTXXRNNR Posts: 3,201
7/26/14 10:13 P

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Hey spark hikers .. have a question about calories burned/calories intake. When I hike, I wear my spark tracker and usually I just go by that calorie burn to calculate what to eat during that day. BUT ... out of curiosity I checked the activity tracker and if I calculate my calorie burn by the guide there, the calorie difference is a little over 1,000 calories. I don't want to eat too little, but I sure don't want to eat too many calories. I guess my question is, how do you all calculate your calories when you hike? For example, today we did a 14 mile, 4 hour hike with an elevation change of just over 2,000 feet (so it was a steady climb most of the way up and actually some climbs going back down). According to my spark tracker I burned 1,100 calories, but if I put information in to the activity tracker and do a mountain climb w/ pack under 10 lbs., I says I burn 2,387 calories. Do you see my confusion?! LOL. Any help/input would be great!!

~@~Padre Islander, Corpus Christi, TX~@~


 current weight: 136.3 
252
221.5
191
160.5
130
Page: 1 of (1)  

Report Innappropriate Post

Other Let's go Hiking General Team Discussion Forum Posts




Thread URL: https://www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/team_messageboard_thread.asp?board=0x749x58654511

Review our Community Guidelines