Energy tracked

[Adrian-Sadler]

Any ideas why when I go for a short walk - only half of it appears to be tracked on the energy side? 

Ill upload pics shortly to show as a pic shows it wayyyy better

 

 

[Heybales]

Massive downhill?

No, that's not right, but - if you are using HR device and this is HR-based calorie burn - it easily could be a matter of downhill and you got your warmup so HR went down a lot at some point.

Or your device misread your HR for the 1st half and appeared much higher, and it finally settled on good reading 2nd half of walk.

Was this a level walk basically, was your pace consistent despite that graph showing varying calorie burn?

Because I gotta say - that is a massive calorie burn for walking 4 mph for 24 min. Those are the 2 figures I'm accepting as likely right. Calories isn't a measurement - it's calculated from other things - either HR, or pace & weight (which is more accurate).

10.4 cal/min is 624 cal/hr - that's a pretty intense workout to burn that much by an accurate method of calorie burn - like watts on a bike.

Using best formula out there that's been tested incredibly (since almost half studies about energy doing treadmill tests) and what Fitbit uses if you have no HR-based calorie burn:

https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

For gross calorie burn which that 250 cal is - you'd have to weigh 268 lbs.

Perhaps that is true and so true calorie burn.

But if you are lighter, then that is inflated calorie burn.

Go to your HR stats for that chunk of time - what does a pic of the same time span show for HR graph?

[Adrian-Sadler]

Its actually uphill for the last 10 mins. 

I weigh 212lb and HR peaked at 120 but average is around 110.

Does that make it more likely to be correct? 

It all confuses the *outta me 😔

[Heybales]

It takes so much energy to move so much mass so much distance in so much time.

HR merely reflects how difficult it was for your body to do that work load.

If you had equal up and downhill, then that would be around 200 calories.

So no still not likely to be correct that per min calorie burn dropped that much.

8.33 cal/min would have been more correct if it was using distance based calorie burn on average.

So the fact it dropped so much lower could either be your HR actually went up, but the device couldn't record it accurately then and stopped at some smaller value and calculated from there.

But that would show up when you view your HR graphs - which would match the energy graphs.

HR would be higher at start, and then suddenly drop to an almost equal level. Might look at those.

The other part, which still wouldn't drop that much I'd think but is possible - it was using distance based calorie burn - and you slowed down to tackle the hill.

But the device doesn't know you are going up or down hill.

Uphill it see less step impact and thinks shorter steps so less distance and calorie burn.

Downhill it see more step impact and thinks longer steps so more distance and calorie burn.

Again - possible - but I wouldn't expect that big a jump in values, nor so flat for last 10 min compared to some variation in first part of walk.

Did terrain vary like that energy graph in first part?

[Adrian-Sadler]

Its actually downhill slightly for the 1st half. 2nd half is uphill most of
the way.

[Adrian-Sadler]

Update. With autotracking on this is what i get

 

 I weigh 15st and pretty unfit lol

Now if I manually tell it i went for a walk - gave it the times and distance etc that it asks for this is what I get. This is on the same route also so everything is equal

  so which is closer to being correct?

Using that formula in previous post its closer to the 250 calories - but why - if i auto track - it blows up? 

[Heybales]

 Because it's using HR-based calorie burn initially and while that can be decent estimate in good circumstances, and potentially better than any other formula - it's not for walking & running where formula based is more accurate.

That's where the 257 came from - formula for pace and weight.

So out of shape will certainly throw HR-based off.

Eventually you'll likely get as fit as the HR formula thinks and the 2 methods will match.