activite minutes vs steps? Most calories?

[kindlegirl]

Question: If I walk 9,000 steps with "0" activite min will I "earn" the same amount of calories if I walked the 9,000 steps but 30 min. of them were active min?

Thank you in advance for any response..... 

[TandemWalker]

You earn VAMs when the intensity of your walk is sufficient to warrant them, given your BMR profile. The faster you walk, the more VAMs you will earn and the more calories you will burn; and your stats will reflect as much on both counts. HTH! Have a nice day.

[kindlegirl]

I thought as much.  This  morning I have walked for 2 hours16,941 steps but only 37 active min.  I guess I need to push myself harder

[Colinm39]

---

@kindlegirl wrote:

I thought as much.  This  morning I have walked for 2 hours16,941 steps but only 37 active min.  I guess I need to push myself harder

---

@kindlegirlVAM's are calculated every 60 seconds so a very slight drop off in pace will put you into the moderate activity, may only be a minute or so, maybe slowing to drink some water. When you look at your one minute activity graph you will see the peaks and troughs.

[LZeeW]

@kindlegirl  What I am about to write is guaranteed to get somebody's panties in a bunch, but from exercise physiology, it is the truth.  If you walk in the range of 3.0 - 4.0 miles per hour, calories per mile is constant.  So if you are walking, it doesn't matter -- you will burn the same number of calories taking those 9,000 steps.

Your walking speed will change calories per minute, but not calories per mile.  My source for this information is the Duke University Department of Exercise Physiology.

If you try this with your Fitbit and get different numbers, don't be surprised.  Fitbit uses derived algorithms.  The real data came from human volunteers who had every breath measured for oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production.

The reason to track active minutes is to get the CDC recommended minutes of moderate activity per day. 

[Heybales]

Not sure if it's newer study than Duke than, but the pace does change the calorie burn.

As 3.5 mph is most efficient for vast majority, and slower or faster is less efficient, therefore burning more per mile. Other chart on link shows by decent amount.

http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

[slysam]

---

@kindlegirl wrote:

Question: If I walk 9,000 steps with "0" activite min will I "earn" the same amount of calories if I walked the 9,000 steps but 30 min. of them were active min?

Thank you in advance for any response..... 

---

Throughout the day, you might, but maybe not. The very active minutes are related to calorie burn per minute, but I am not sure that 30 minutes will make a big difference. Also my One has credited me with small amounts of activity with not steps at least a few times (and I was moving both every time I've seen this--once cleaning a closet, once during a suspension trainer workout). So I wouldn't say it is strictly step count that you would factor. For me differences in calorie burn for the same step count seem to be more related to the quantity of time spend sedentary, lightly active, moderately active and very active in each day (and how they blance out). Generally the less sedentary time the better in terms of calorie burn, and more very active minutes can help. I think the moderately active minutes generally make a bigger difference in daily calorie burn for me since I get  more of them and the calorie burn per minute is often just 1-3 calories less than the very active minutes. So there isn't enough information in the example, it really could go either way.

[TandemWalker]

@Heybales- Like all studies and statistical data, it's all subject to proper interpretation. When discussing VAMs, it's not the overall speed of an entire walk that is important, but the speed of movement, the time elapsed between each step = intensity.  Sure, if you steadily walk a 4 MPH for the whole one hour, you will earn 60 VAMs. But very few people do this, as there are peaks and valleys. The fitibit algorithm calculates Very Active Minutes on the basis of what it assesses in every 60 second segments - not an hire one hour walk.

[Gershon]

Guess I'll get my panties in a bunch. I wish I could find the research report, but the most efficient speed to walk in terms of calories per MILE is 3.5 mph. Here is a secondary source: http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html. This is consistent over a broad range of heights. Walking slower or faster burns more calories per MILE. If a walker wanuts to burn more calories per MINUTE they can walk faster until the pavement catches fire.

I doubt if the Fitbit tracks things so closely. The way to test it is with a metronome over a set course of a few miles and see which stride rate gets the most calories per MILE. I find increasing the stride rate increases the calories per MINUTE.

[Heybales]

---

@TandemWalker wrote:

@Heybales- Like all studies and statistical data, it's all subject to proper interpretation. When discussing VAMs, it's not the overall speed of an entire walk that is important, but the speed of movement, the time elapsed between each step = intensity.  Sure, if you steadily walk a 4 MPH for the whole one hour, you will earn 60 VAMs. But very few people do this, as there are peaks and valleys. The fitibit algorithm calculates Very Active Minutes on the basis of what it assesses in every 60 second segments - not an hire one hour walk.

---

Oh, I know - I was responding to the idea that you burn the same number of calorie per mile no matter the pace, no matter what Fitbit may be estimating or underestimating.