Major discrepancy in Calories burned in family

[MrMarv]

My wife and I both have Alta trackers - the only difference is mine is the HR version.

She is much more active than me, as I am a computer programmer that has to make time to walk during the day. The following numbers are from our IOS dashboards taken within seconds of each other just after I arrived home this evening.

Our steps lengths are set to the same. The only difference we can see in our settings is she has defined a more aggressive calorie deficit than me - 500 a day to my 250.

Who	Steps	Miles	Active Min	Calories
Me	6,119	2.89	0	2,105
Wife	12,262	5.79	103	2,102

As you can see, she is very active compared to me, and yet she is allegedly burning less calories than me, someone who spends 3 hours a day commuting and a very large portion of my work day sitting in front of a computer.

Can someone please explain this? It is very disheartening for her to work so hard and to be told by the app that she pretty much hasn't done anything.

[WendyB]

Men can sit around doing squat and burn more calories than a women

Steps length should not be the same. You need to change that. We all have different strides. My DH gets more than me

Again its metabolism against men and women. They will never come close.

Like I stated above Men burn way more calories than a women does even if she is more active. Fact of life.

[WendyB]

There are many articles out there. Please google

But here is one

http://healthyliving.azcentral.com/calorie-expenditure-men-vs-women-7165.html

[MrMarv]

Thanks for both posts - we know the stride lengths are wrong. We set them the same to take one variable out of the calculation. But her step length is not out of the question as she is taller than the average woman.

We were also aware that there are differences in burn rates, but hadn't researched to any great length.

The difference was just so great I had to ask the question.

And after reading the article you provided which states in one spot "the average man burns roughly 8 percent more calories than the average woman", the numbers in my first post still don't add up, even taking into consideration the qualifier "average".

The numbers in my first post show my burning calories at a rate of real close to 100% more than my wife, not 8%. She walked twice the steps (and that is the effort that matters not the length of the step). She makes every effort to have lengthly doses of walking, thus her 103 active minutes. My largest effort each day is the quarter mile walk from where I park my car to my desk in the morning and back again at night.

Maybe more research will find an explanation for why she has to make twice the effort to match my calorie burn and not just about 10%, but I am doubtful.

Thanks again.

[MrMarv]

---

@WendyB wrote:

Men can sit around doing squat and burn more calories than a women

Again its metabolism against men and women. They will never come close.

Like I stated above Men burn way more calories than a women does even if she is more active. Fact of life.

---

I would like to make two points:

If I and my wife together were "average Americans" she probably would be correct. Most of the articles on the web that I looked at kept referring to the "average male" or "average female". And I am sure that Wendy posted her comments with that “average” in mind. In fact, her sample web link refers to those “average” people.

Well, according to the CDC, the average male stands at 5' 9" and weighs 195 pounds and the average female stands at 5' 4" and weighs 166 pounds. If my wife and fit those profiles, I might have accepted Wendy’s post and moved on.

But since I depend on “averages” in my life about as much as I depend on generalities, and regularly on “exacts”, I just had to take it further.

I stand at 5' 11" and my wife stands at 5' 8". I won't say how much she weighs, and to tell you the truth, today was the first time in the 40 years we have been together that I actually asked her point blank what she weighed. She has volunteered that information in the past, but I had never asked. But let's say it is above the average and leave it at that. I weigh a little under 190, so just a little under "average". We are both over the “average” in height, my wife greatly so. And she weighs closer to me than she wants to.

So, since the weight delta is much lower than what the "averages" would make people think, I will have to say that if all we looked at was that, then Fitbit has a problem. But it looks like they don't. Or if they do it isn't anywhere close to what it appeared to be - requiring my wife to work twice as hard for calorie burn instead of the stated "average" of 8 percent.

Don't you just love that word "average"?

It appears it is not the number of steps but how many are strung together at once that makes the difference in the Fitbit calculation and I have to say it has a lot of merit. I sit at a desk and bang on a keyboard most of my work time. While I do walk to meetings and try to minimize my online conversations with fellow employees and walk to them instead, the fact remains that most of my steps are taken in large clumps. Very few groups of 20 or less. Normally in excess of 50. And I force myself to get up and walk every hour, not to get my dashboard dots to turn red, but just to exercise and clear my head. Because most of my day is taken up with eighty miles on the LA area freeways and nine-plus hours on my butt behind a desk.

My wife on the other hand, as a housewife, has a very large number of step groups under 20 steps during the day. But she does set aside periods of the day for sustained periods of walking. Those long periods of exercise is where she is apparently getting most of the credit for her calorie burn.

When I am sitting in my chair I almost always get the same calorie burn credit that I get when sleeping. 

It appears that my wife gets the same sleep credit, taking those five steps from the fridge to the stove, and from the stove to the sink, and from the sink to the counter. And the same thing goes for all of those short trips around the house. Equal to or barely more than the sleeping calorie burn credit.

We did a limited, but serious, test today. We walked the same distance at approximately the same pace for a period of five minutes starting at exactly ten minutes after the hour. Fitbit credited both of us with almost the same calories per minute during the individual 5 minute blocks of time. With me being a little below “average” and she being a lot higher than “average”, being close to burn rate for the same sustained exercise, no matter the length, sounds reasonable as long as it is sustained for even a somewhat short period of time. A lot more reasonable than depending only the number of steps taken to indicate a fair reporting of calories burned.

Sleeping / sitting / very small trips in the kitchen / small movement in the garage laundry area / etc all gain approximately the same calorie burn. Gather enough of those really short “trips” and it looks like Fitbit is ignoring the steps. Not so. It seems like the tracker doesn’t recognize those short trips as worthy of calorie burn. Understandable, but disheartening when everyone, including the American Heart Association seems to talk up 10,000 steps a day as the be-all-and-end-all goal.

The faster the pace, the higher the credit - no surprise there. We have determined that my wife can walk at her most comfortable slower pace for 30 minutes and burn the same calories if she walks at her faster pace that is not as comfortable for 20 minutes.

The bottom line, it isn’t quantity, it is quality. Not a surprise in itself. And my wife’s job as a housewife presents numerous opportunities for non-efficient calorie-burning steps to be taken throughout the day. And remember guys, housewife is a real job - quite often a thankless one.

[MrMarv]

---

@WendyB wrote:

Men can sit around doing squat and burn more calories than a women

Again its metabolism against men and women. They will never come close.

Like I stated above Men burn way more calories than a women does even if she is more active. Fact of life.

---

I would like to make two points:

If I and my wife together were "average Americans" she probably would be correct. Most of the articles on the web that I looked at kept referring to the "average male" or "average female". And I am sure that Wendy posted her comments with that “average” in mind. In fact, her sample web link refers to those “average” people.

Well, according to the CDC, the average male stands at 5' 9" and weighs 195 pounds and the average female stands at 5' 4" and weighs 166 pounds. If my wife and fit those profiles, I might have accepted Wendy’s post and moved on.

But since I depend on “averages” in my life about as much as I depend on generalities, and regularly on “exacts”, I just had to take it further.

I stand at 5' 11" and my wife stands at 5' 8". I won't say how much she weighs, and to tell you the truth, today was the first time in the 40 years we have been together that I actually asked her point blank what she weighed. She has volunteered that information in the past, but I had never asked. But let's say it is above the average and leave it at that. I weigh a little under 190, so just a little under "average". We are both over the “average” in height, my wife greatly so. And she weighs closer to me than she wants to.

So, since the weight delta is much lower than what the "averages" would make people think, I will have to say that if all we looked at was that, then Fitbit has a problem. But it looks like they don't. Or if they do it isn't anywhere close to what it appeared to be - requiring my wife to work twice as hard for calorie burn instead of the stated "average" of 8 percent.

Don't you just love that word "average"?

It appears it is not the number of steps but how many are strung together at once that makes the difference in the Fitbit calculation and I have to say it has a lot of merit. I sit at a desk and bang on a keyboard most of my work time. While I do walk to meetings and try to minimize my online conversations with fellow employees and walk to them instead, the fact remains that most of my steps are taken in large clumps. Very few groups of 20 or less. Normally in excess of 50. And I force myself to get up and walk every hour, not to get my dashboard dots to turn red, but just to exercise and clear my head. Because most of my day is taken up with eighty miles on the LA area freeways and nine-plus hours on my butt behind a desk.

My wife on the other hand, as a housewife, has a very large number of step groups under 20 steps during the day. But she does set aside periods of the day for sustained periods of walking. Those long periods of exercise is where she is apparently getting most of the credit for her calorie burn.

When I am sitting in my chair I almost always get the same calorie burn credit that I get when sleeping. 

It appears that my wife gets the same sleep credit, taking those five steps from the fridge to the stove, and from the stove to the sink, and from the sink to the counter. And the same thing goes for all of those short trips around the house. Equal to or barely more than the sleeping calorie burn credit.

We did a limited, but serious, test today. We walked the same distance at approximately the same pace for a period of five minutes starting at exactly ten minutes after the hour. Fitbit credited both of us with almost the same calories per minute during the individual 5 minute blocks of time. With me being a little below “average” and she being a lot higher than “average”, being close to burn rate for the same sustained exercise, no matter the length, sounds reasonable as long as it is sustained for even a somewhat short period of time. A lot more reasonable than depending only the number of steps taken to indicate a fair reporting of calories burned.

Sleeping / sitting / very small trips in the kitchen / small movement in the garage laundry area / etc all gain approximately the same calorie burn. Gather enough of those really short “trips” and it looks like Fitbit is ignoring the steps. Not so. It seems like the tracker doesn’t recognize those short trips as worthy of calorie burn. Understandable, but disheartening when everyone, including the American Heart Association seems to talk up 10,000 steps a day as the be-all-and-end-all goal.

The faster the pace, the higher the credit - no surprise there. We have determined that my wife can walk at her most comfortable slower pace for 30 minutes and burn the same calories if she walks at her faster pace that is not as comfortable for 20 minutes.

The bottom line, it isn’t quantity, it is quality. Not a surprise in itself. And my wife’s job as a housewife presents numerous opportunities for non-efficient calorie-burning steps to be taken throughout the day. And remember guys, housewife is a real job - quite often a thankless one.

[MrMarv · Accepted solution]

---

@WendyB wrote:

There are many articles out there. Please google

 But here is one

 http://healthyliving.azcentral.com/calorie-expenditure-men-vs-women-7165.html

---

I would like to make two points:

If I and my wife together were "average Americans" she probably would be correct. Most of the articles on the web that I looked at kept referring to the "average male" or "average female". And I am sure that Wendy posted her comments with that “average” in mind. In fact, her sample web link refers to those “average” people.

Well, according to the CDC, the average male stands at 5' 9" and weighs 195 pounds and the average female stands at 5' 4" and weighs 166 pounds. If my wife and fit those profiles, I might have accepted Wendy’s post and moved on.

But since I depend on “averages” in my life about as much as I depend on generalities, and regularly on “exacts”, I just had to take it further.

I stand at 5' 11" and my wife stands at 5' 8". I won't say how much she weighs, and to tell you the truth, today was the first time in the 40 years we have been together that I actually asked her point blank what she weighed. She has volunteered that information in the past, but I had never asked. But let's say it is above the average and leave it at that. I weigh a little under 190, so just a little under "average". We are both over the “average” in height, my wife greatly so. And she weighs closer to me than she wants to.

So, since the weight delta is much lower than what the "averages" would make people think, I will have to say that if all we looked at was that, then Fitbit has a problem. But it looks like they don't. Or if they do it isn't anywhere close to what it appeared to be - requiring my wife to work twice as hard for calorie burn instead of the stated "average" of 8 percent.

Don't you just love that word "average"?

It appears it is not the number of steps but how many are strung together at once that makes the difference in the Fitbit calculation and I have to say it has a lot of merit. I sit at a desk and bang on a keyboard most of my work time. While I do walk to meetings and try to minimize my online conversations with fellow employees and walk to them instead, the fact remains that most of my steps are taken in large clumps. Very few groups of 20 or less. Normally in excess of 50. And I force myself to get up and walk every hour, not to get my dashboard dots to turn red, but just to exercise and clear my head. Because most of my day is taken up with eighty miles on the LA area freeways and nine-plus hours on my butt behind a desk.

My wife on the other hand, as a housewife, has a very large number of step groups under 20 steps during the day. But she does set aside periods of the day for sustained periods of walking. Those long periods of exercise is where she is apparently getting most of the credit for her calorie burn.

When I am sitting in my chair I almost always get the same calorie burn credit that I get when sleeping.

It appears that my wife gets the same sleep credit, taking those five steps from the fridge to the stove, and from the stove to the sink, and from the sink to the counter. And the same thing goes for all of those short trips around the house. Equal to or barely more than the sleeping calorie burn credit.

We did a limited, but serious, test today. We walked the same distance at approximately the same pace for a period of five minutes starting at exactly ten minutes after the hour. Fitbit credited both of us with almost the same calories per minute during the individual 5 minute blocks of time. With me being a little below “average” and she being a lot higher than “average”, being close to burn rate for the same sustained exercise, no matter the length, sounds reasonable as long as it is sustained for even a somewhat short period of time. A lot more reasonable than depending only the number of steps taken to indicate a fair reporting of calories burned.

Sleeping / sitting / very small trips in the kitchen / small movement in the garage laundry area / etc all gain approximately the same calorie burn. Gather enough of those really short “trips” and it looks like Fitbit is ignoring the steps. Not so. It seems like the tracker doesn’t recognize those short trips as worthy of calorie burn. Understandable, but disheartening when everyone, including the American Heart Association seems to talk up 10,000 steps a day as the be-all-and-end-all goal.

The faster the pace, the higher the credit - no surprise there. We have determined that my wife can walk at her most comfortable slower pace for 30 minutes and burn the same calories if she walks at her faster pace that is not as comfortable for 20 minutes.

The bottom line, it isn’t quantity, it is quality. Not a surprise in itself. And my wife’s job as a housewife presents numerous opportunities for non-efficient calorie-burning steps to be taken throughout the day. And remember guys, housewife is a real job - quite often a thankless one.