This object is in archive!
What are the parameters used for calculating the calories
Answered
Would like to know the details of the calculation of the calories in order to better understand the results.
Which values are used ?
Algorithm?
Thanks
The same question
Good day Dietrich,
how these values are calculated may be split into two options, based on fact that user has connected heart rate monitor.
If HRM is connected, then consumed calories are computed only based on this value ( and also users weight defined in settings), no matter what activity is user doing. It's most precise option and app use method highly inspired by this web site: https://www.easycalculation.com/health/heart-rate-calorie-burn.php .
If HRM is not connected, then consumed energy is computed based on current user speed and selected activity. Based on selected activity is computed "metabolic equivalent" which is used for final compute of energy. Elevation change is not used here for now, only speed and activity.
Hope this helps. Feel free to ask.
Good day Dietrich,
how these values are calculated may be split into two options, based on fact that user has connected heart rate monitor.
If HRM is connected, then consumed calories are computed only based on this value ( and also users weight defined in settings), no matter what activity is user doing. It's most precise option and app use method highly inspired by this web site: https://www.easycalculation.com/health/heart-rate-calorie-burn.php .
If HRM is not connected, then consumed energy is computed based on current user speed and selected activity. Based on selected activity is computed "metabolic equivalent" which is used for final compute of energy. Elevation change is not used here for now, only speed and activity.
Hope this helps. Feel free to ask.
Good day guys,
as I wrote previously, to get best possible values, use heart rate monitors. If you needs energy values even more precise, suggest to purchase specialized watches/device that will do this for you (usually thanks to measuring HR values).
In case, you don't have or don't want to use heart rate monitor, I'm listing for suggestions with better algorithm, because I was not able to find anything more precise. Thanks for understanding.
Good day guys,
as I wrote previously, to get best possible values, use heart rate monitors. If you needs energy values even more precise, suggest to purchase specialized watches/device that will do this for you (usually thanks to measuring HR values).
In case, you don't have or don't want to use heart rate monitor, I'm listing for suggestions with better algorithm, because I was not able to find anything more precise. Thanks for understanding.
The heart rate monitor is also not good because everybody has a different heart rate during the same activity depending on the fitness. The rate varies hugely for different individuals. The only good and also an elegant way is to use gps and to measure the distance, speed, ascent and descent. I have the formulas and I have made an Excel sheet that's calculating everything for me. I just need to enter the data from the gps track and that's it. It's working for everybody. I'm using the paid version, why should I look for the formulas myself? First implement my previous (years old) suggestions and then we can talk about the formulas.
The heart rate monitor is also not good because everybody has a different heart rate during the same activity depending on the fitness. The rate varies hugely for different individuals. The only good and also an elegant way is to use gps and to measure the distance, speed, ascent and descent. I have the formulas and I have made an Excel sheet that's calculating everything for me. I just need to enter the data from the gps track and that's it. It's working for everybody. I'm using the paid version, why should I look for the formulas myself? First implement my previous (years old) suggestions and then we can talk about the formulas.
Good day Martin,
what a nice discussion with You!
- I see you created this your account a day before so I do not know where to search for your (years old) suggestion
- I still think that compute over HR values is very precise. It consider your heart rate value over interval, your age and weight.
- I'm not saying you should look for formula by yourself. I made support for "energy" values based on users feedback and result is best what I, as unexperienced user, was able to do. If anyone complain, then he needs to give me better solution. You complain on this methods, so provide better solution and I'll gladly improve it if it will make sense. Or don't complain and use different application. No need to use this one, that's all.
Good day Martin,
what a nice discussion with You!
- I see you created this your account a day before so I do not know where to search for your (years old) suggestion
- I still think that compute over HR values is very precise. It consider your heart rate value over interval, your age and weight.
- I'm not saying you should look for formula by yourself. I made support for "energy" values based on users feedback and result is best what I, as unexperienced user, was able to do. If anyone complain, then he needs to give me better solution. You complain on this methods, so provide better solution and I'll gladly improve it if it will make sense. Or don't complain and use different application. No need to use this one, that's all.
Am 12. Apr. 2017, um 07:25, Locus Map
During the last few days I have been researching to find out what the experts say to our subject of calculating the burnt calories when walking or hiking a none flat course. There is only one agreement that this is a very complex subject and there is no single parameter that could be applied for any meaningful calculation.
The most comprehensive work seems to me
http://m.jap.physiology.org/content/93/3/1039.full.
From this and some other sources that are cited in this publication I came to this opinion :
There is no simple way to determine accurately the energy spent of an individual when walking over a certain distance.
Too many parameters must be brought into the equation:
Distance, altitude, positive and negative slope, (grade), weight, BMI, speed, changes in oxygen consumption, body temperature, changes in the heart rate, age, gender, individual physical efficiency, degree of coordination.
In addition to all these - and possibly many other influencing values- one general problem exists. The total number of burnt calories is the sum of all individual efforts for each single step. To come to a more accurate result for every distance between any two trackpoints, the energy should be calculated. It is logical that if one has to climb 100m over 10km distance, it can be rather effortless when it is on a steady slope. As opposed to - say walking 9km on a flat road and then during the last 1000m climbing up to the 100m height on an unpaved rocky footpass.
The conclusion could now be, it is not possible to accurately caculate a result, forget the calculated calories they are just arbitrarily numbers and useless, misleading the user.
if you're not insisting on an "accurate" result and still like to have a figure that will give you an indication and can be compared with your (same person's) results, it should be feasible.
Here is what I suggest as a first approach
The energy needed on a flat course
The energy is proportional to the length of the track and depending on the weight of the person. As a first suggestion I would recommend for a person 73kg (160lb) 60kcal/km. At this momement I don't have a suggestion for the influene of the weight?
Additional energy needed for an upslope walk 130kcal/100m
Downslope no additional energy. (Slight downhill slopes use less energy then walking on a flat course, steeper downhill parts need extra energy, this may compensate somewhat.
This suggestion is for walking only, hiking with a havy pack may use 50% more energy?
(But never 300% what the current version seems to use.)
DB
Am 12. Apr. 2017, um 07:25, Locus Map
During the last few days I have been researching to find out what the experts say to our subject of calculating the burnt calories when walking or hiking a none flat course. There is only one agreement that this is a very complex subject and there is no single parameter that could be applied for any meaningful calculation.
The most comprehensive work seems to me
http://m.jap.physiology.org/content/93/3/1039.full.
From this and some other sources that are cited in this publication I came to this opinion :
There is no simple way to determine accurately the energy spent of an individual when walking over a certain distance.
Too many parameters must be brought into the equation:
Distance, altitude, positive and negative slope, (grade), weight, BMI, speed, changes in oxygen consumption, body temperature, changes in the heart rate, age, gender, individual physical efficiency, degree of coordination.
In addition to all these - and possibly many other influencing values- one general problem exists. The total number of burnt calories is the sum of all individual efforts for each single step. To come to a more accurate result for every distance between any two trackpoints, the energy should be calculated. It is logical that if one has to climb 100m over 10km distance, it can be rather effortless when it is on a steady slope. As opposed to - say walking 9km on a flat road and then during the last 1000m climbing up to the 100m height on an unpaved rocky footpass.
The conclusion could now be, it is not possible to accurately caculate a result, forget the calculated calories they are just arbitrarily numbers and useless, misleading the user.
if you're not insisting on an "accurate" result and still like to have a figure that will give you an indication and can be compared with your (same person's) results, it should be feasible.
Here is what I suggest as a first approach
The energy needed on a flat course
The energy is proportional to the length of the track and depending on the weight of the person. As a first suggestion I would recommend for a person 73kg (160lb) 60kcal/km. At this momement I don't have a suggestion for the influene of the weight?
Additional energy needed for an upslope walk 130kcal/100m
Downslope no additional energy. (Slight downhill slopes use less energy then walking on a flat course, steeper downhill parts need extra energy, this may compensate somewhat.
This suggestion is for walking only, hiking with a havy pack may use 50% more energy?
(But never 300% what the current version seems to use.)
DB
I was only looking for possibilities to get better and more realistic results in the area of walking and hiking. Biking is a totally different kind of exercise, and without having read anything in this area I would say that very little applies in the same way. Just a few ideas.
In walking there is a strong dependancy between weight and burnt calories. In biking this weight factor differs largely whether riding on flat roads or climbing an upslope section.
Downhill - unlike walking - costs no energy (except the energy used by the brain get you through the next serpentine
I was only looking for possibilities to get better and more realistic results in the area of walking and hiking. Biking is a totally different kind of exercise, and without having read anything in this area I would say that very little applies in the same way. Just a few ideas.
In walking there is a strong dependancy between weight and burnt calories. In biking this weight factor differs largely whether riding on flat roads or climbing an upslope section.
Downhill - unlike walking - costs no energy (except the energy used by the brain get you through the next serpentine
I think, something or somebody is out of sync.
Or at least I don't see a connection to the question how to calculate the calories?
Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Locus Map
Datum: 16.05.17 02:00 (GMT+01:00)
An: Dietrich Boege
Betreff: New Comment in "What are the parameters used for calculating the calories"
I think, something or somebody is out of sync.
Or at least I don't see a connection to the question how to calculate the calories?
Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Locus Map
Datum: 16.05.17 02:00 (GMT+01:00)
An: Dietrich Boege
Betreff: New Comment in "What are the parameters used for calculating the calories"
Hi menon
Would you please let me know where i can update my personal parameters (weight) in order to have the most accurate calculation of the calorie consumption.
Please note that I'm using a HRM connected with ANT.
This question is in reference of your above answer:"If HRM is connected, then consumed calories are computed only based on this value ( and also users weight defined in settings)".
Could you please precise once again how the calculation of calorie consumption is made considering that I'm using an HRM and the very last LOCUS soft version.
ONCE AGAIN THANKS FOR THIS INCREDIBLE soft/app!
I'm your ambassador sharing the soft capabilities to all my friends and family! !
Hi menon
Would you please let me know where i can update my personal parameters (weight) in order to have the most accurate calculation of the calorie consumption.
Please note that I'm using a HRM connected with ANT.
This question is in reference of your above answer:"If HRM is connected, then consumed calories are computed only based on this value ( and also users weight defined in settings)".
Could you please precise once again how the calculation of calorie consumption is made considering that I'm using an HRM and the very last LOCUS soft version.
ONCE AGAIN THANKS FOR THIS INCREDIBLE soft/app!
I'm your ambassador sharing the soft capabilities to all my friends and family! !
Was there some change in algorithm over 4 years how calories are calculated ?
Was there some change in algorithm over 4 years how calories are calculated ?
Calculation looks wrong for me and does not corresponds to the formula provided in this topic.
See two screenshots.
hard.png (76.93 km)
it has more distance, more avg speed, more avg heart rate, more max heart rate, more distance uphill,
more elevation gain..
easy.png (75.2 km)
has more track time (movement).
Question is: why easy.png show 25% more calories (actually kJ on screen)?
p.s.
I did not change age/weight between tracks, tere was just couple of weeks between them. And hard.png indeed felt harder)
Calculation looks wrong for me and does not corresponds to the formula provided in this topic.
See two screenshots.
hard.png (76.93 km)
it has more distance, more avg speed, more avg heart rate, more max heart rate, more distance uphill,
more elevation gain..
easy.png (75.2 km)
has more track time (movement).
Question is: why easy.png show 25% more calories (actually kJ on screen)?
p.s.
I did not change age/weight between tracks, tere was just couple of weeks between them. And hard.png indeed felt harder)
Replies have been locked on this page!