03-12-2019 09:32
03-12-2019 09:32
When tracking activities, what is the difference between a hike and a walk?
Answered! Go to the Best Answer.
03-12-2019 09:46
03-12-2019 09:46
I'll share my theory, but I have no evidence to back it up.
On the earlier Fitbit trackers without heart rate monitoring, calories were based somewhat on the guessed intensity of the activity you were doing, as in manually logging an activity now when weren't wearing tracker. And hiking (hilly woods) was to be considered more intense activity than walking so got estimated more calories.
As I said, just my theory, and I'd welcome seeing anybody else giving a better explanation.
03-12-2019 09:46
03-12-2019 09:46
I'll share my theory, but I have no evidence to back it up.
On the earlier Fitbit trackers without heart rate monitoring, calories were based somewhat on the guessed intensity of the activity you were doing, as in manually logging an activity now when weren't wearing tracker. And hiking (hilly woods) was to be considered more intense activity than walking so got estimated more calories.
As I said, just my theory, and I'd welcome seeing anybody else giving a better explanation.
03-12-2019 09:47
03-12-2019 09:47
03-12-2019 11:01
03-12-2019 11:01
Hi @Mountainman47 & @JohnnyRow,
I believe it's used to track intensity, what I call an "intensity factor" for different forms of exercise. So if you select Walk, you should burn less calories in an hour, than an hour of hiking. It happens this way for me even if the average heart rates are the same--hiking produces more calories burned than walking.
It has to do with METs.
Here's an article describing it. And here's a longer thread getting into details.
03-12-2019 12:23
03-12-2019 12:23