calories burnt using crutches

[Enterprise1701]

Hello folks. Newby to the fitbit community - have literally never posted before. Have had my fitbit HR for a few months now, getting used to all the facilities. It dawned on me the other day that the record of my calories burnt whilst walking has been and will always be wrong as my use of crutches isn't factored in. I have a back condition and have been reliant on using a pair of crutches for walking for years. So my question is, how do I record the calories burnt on any given walk factoring in my crutch use, please? 

Also, with this Covid-19 virus I do my walks in an empty field - does walking in long grass make any difference, as it's harder to walk through grass than on clear pavement?

Any help or advise is gratefully received!  TIA 🙂

[JohnnyRow]

If you are using a Fitbit model that has heart rate tracking, calories burned are based on heart rate, not steps, so should still be good.

[Heybales]

Interesting issue.

Since daily stuff where the HR isn't high enough and the step rate doesn't appear to be exercise will be using distance, mass, and time for calorie burn - even that would likely be off since your impact steps will be unlikely to yield a correct distance for the math.

Ever walked a known distance and seen how far off the Fitbit was?

If the distance was correct you'd be slightly underestimated since walking is pretty efficient compared to crutches. Long grass would be insignificant increase normally. The difference for the walking in general?

Well, Fitbit is using METs values for the pace it calculates. Both the database when manually logging a workout, and the device.

Here's a subset of the full-blown METs values that are based on studies.

https://community.plu.edu/~chasega/met.html

Walking with crutches, no pace given, is the same METs value of 4 as walking level @ 3.5 mph.

That is exercise level pace. compared to avg daily pace for most people.

Now, how would you account for that to get the proper increased calorie burn?

Your Fitbit distance is likely wrong, I'd wager underestimated also.

Do you know the distance your exercise walks are really?

Then you could just record it as a walking Activity Record so the time info is there - go back into it and make it a Workout Record with the same time but pace of 3.5 mph, or calc the distance yourself and use that inflated number to correct the record.

That still doesn't help the situation of daily life where the distance is underestimated, and even the calorie burn for the correct distance would be underestimated.

Since the eating and burning records are all just estimates of calories anyway, you'd just have to nail your eating for some given amount of weeks as accurate as possible. Weighing everything since calories is per gram.

At the end you see the difference between what should have been by the numbers, and what really was by the results.

[Enterprise1701]

I have a fitbit HR, I've never looked into heart rate measuring so not sure if I can measure it. Also, I'm not sure if heart rate would be a viable alternative in my case as I cannot walk at a great, prolonged pace. I can certainly look into though, thank you 

[Enterprise1701]

Wow, that's quite the detailed reply!  I don't really have any answers for the questions you pose. I mentioned in another reply that I'm not sure heart rate is the best method for measuring as I am physically unable to pick up any kind of substantial pace for any length of time. I'll check out the link and try to work through what you've mentioned. thank you 

[Heybales]

Don't bother with the link - nothing to check out really except to see that what I said is true.

You might walk a known distance then and see how close the Fitbit is.

And no HR would not be a good estimate, as HR would likely remain too low. Besides which the devices don't use HR-based calorie burn for what it considered daily activity.

Your HR and step rate would have to increase enough for it to think it's exercise and use HR-based calorie burn.

[JohnnyRow]

There is no "Fitbit HR".  It could be an Alta HR, Charge HR, Inspire HR.  But any of them automatically measure heart rate as you should be able to see on your app or on the device itself.

I'm going to stick with saying that calories burned already take into account use of crutches (or crawling or walking on your hands) by being based on heart rate.

But I am willing to disagree.

[JohnnyRow]

---

@Heybales wrote:
...
Besides which the devices don't use HR-based calorie burn for what it considered daily activity.

...

---

@Heybales   Any source for that?

Are you saying that, other than during an "exercise session", fitbit always credits only BMR calories?

I think that if I hop up and down for 8 minutes, raising my heart rate, fitbit will reflect increased calorie burn during that time, even without calling it an exercise session.

[Heybales]

---

@JohnnyRow wrote:

---

@Heybales wrote:
...
Besides which the devices don't use HR-based calorie burn for what it considered daily activity.

...

---

@Heybales   Any source for that?

Are you saying that, other than during an "exercise session", fitbit always credits only BMR calories?

I think that if I hop up and down for 8 minutes, raising my heart rate, fitbit will reflect increased calorie burn during that time, even without calling it an exercise session.

---

Not BMR rate, that's if there is no steps and no distance seen.

Same calorie burn sleeping or standing, when there is likely a decent difference in HR just in those states. One can observe that in their 24 hr graphs.

That same method can be used to walk the same distance at 2 different rates and therefore HR's. As long as it's under the HR for auto-starting a workout, you can have a 20 beat range and same calorie burn for the same distance, which is true. Only difference is the extra BMR rate of burn at longer time.

Daily activity has always been based on the distance the steps leads to. Distance & pace is one of the most tested calculations of calorie burn out there. Way more accurate than HR.

I just tried the link I had from years ago, page not found, regarding Fitbit's comment on that.

The reason why is because HR-based calorie burn is only a valid estimate in the aerobic exercise range, with accuracy being lost on either end of, right above non-exercise daily activity, and right below anaerobic. Decent estimate is really bad outside the range.

Have you ever seen what the monitoring frequency is for HR outside of telling the device you are doing a workout? Daily living?

That's why it doesn't have to be frequent - it's merely a curiosity.

Testing early on by many confirmed what is going on when they first saw issues on their new devices. But current ones too when they first start using them.

In fact it was the intro of HR-based calorie burn being possible that people started discovering workouts being recorded because they got their HR up a tad higher than normal when walking, or when first doing more and very unfit. But it wasn't a workout. But they saw the huge inflated calorie burns for the day.

On examining the 24 hr graph it was very easy to see the massive jump in calorie burn right when distance and HR went up just slightly. Calorie burn isn't going to have a big jump in reality from a change of 3-4 bpm. But many could pinpoint that exact moment it happens.

Takes about 2 weeks for the account to narrow down on your restingHR and from that when your HR is likely high enough to start using HR-based calorie burns. Has to estimate your HR-flex point - generally about 90 when you get a tad fit.

Link to study by Polar that discusses the fact HR-calculated calorie burn is very bad estimate for daily living, is found on this page.

http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

So yes, jumping will create distance and will get increased calorie burn.

Actually, that's probably a good test.

[Enterprise1701]

Sorry, I meant an Inspire HR. And I also meant to say that usually i have to wear supports on my writs so the HR does not come into direct contact with my skin.