# Tag Info

1

A very rough estimate could be obtained by looking up a METS score, in this case 8.0, and plugging it into following formula: KCalBurnt = MET * bodyMassKg * timePerformingHours eg. A 30 min run for a 176 lb body = 8.0 * 80 * 0.5 = 320 KCal But to get an accurate figure you really need to sneak a labs worth of kit into the ...

0

The analysis suffers from causality. A measured amount of exercise to produce a heart rate does not necessarily mean the reverse. I see that false statistic used for hot Yoga burns more calories as the heart beats faster. In heat the blood vessels in the surface of the skin dilate and blood flow increases to help cool the body. This is not blood ...

1

Short while ago i did dinghy sailing for a couple of hours. The wind was strong but i was sailing with little effort under reduced sail. My heart rate was very high not because of physical exertion but out of alertness. My watch predicted that i burnt 1.800 calories in two and a half hours which is waay off. The formula does not include factors driven by ...

1

Worth noting, without data from an ECG (heart rate monitor) and face mask based gas analyzers, along with details of the gradient, wind speed, and surface there aren't any accurate equations. The best you can do is to estimate a VO2 (mL·kg-1·min-1) figure, and convert that into a Kcal one: Kcal/Min ~= respiratoryExchangeRatio * massKg * VO2 / 1000 ...

1

If you grab yourself a copy of the Compendium of Physical Activities Unit-Conversions table, it may help. Taking the second line first: caloriesBurned = (durationMinutes * ((METs * 3.5 * kilograms) / 200.0f)); This appears to be a simple algebraic manipulation of the standard formula used to convert Oxygen consumption (Volume of O2 in litres [VO2]) into ...

0

Approximation !!!!! There's absolutely no practical way for any machine to state your actual calorie consumption, and they're aren't even any vaguely accurate regression equations, without data from an ECG and face mask based gas analyzers, to estimate the KCals burnt. Though machine manufacturers try, though the figures can be as much as +/- 40% off. ...

0

If you spend a few min's performing one of the general fitness assessments, to obtain your approximate VO2max volume, then your heart rate and activity duration should offer enough data to calculate a fairly accurate value, see: Is it possible to measure calorie burn from heart rate alone?

1

It would be a good approximation, it will probably add a slight error but such a formula in itself is by necessity quite inaccurate.

0

thank you for your answers! i think i have figured out an aswer, and my boss accepted it, because this little pedometer won't have any gps connection. here is the formula: 1.) Calories burned per mile = 0.57 x 175 lbs.(your weight) = 99.75 calories per mile. 2.)Your_strip = height * 0,415. 3.) steps_in_1_mile = 160934.4(mile in cm) / strip. 4.) ...

1

From a step count alone, I wouldn't bother as the error could be as much as +/- 40%. Primarily as your step length changes with speed, as does wind resistance and energy expended, the gradient of a walk, your body fat percentage and fitness level will also affect the calculation, but the errors these factors introduce can be reduced by aggregating several ...

1

Gross Calorie Burn includes both how many calories you burn being alive AND how many extra calories above that you burned doing an activity. Net Calorie Burn is the number of calories burned above the amount you need to stay alive. Use Net Calorie Burned to figure out your progress in a calorie count situation like weight loss.

Top 50 recent answers are included