This object is in archive!

What are the parameters used for calculating the calories

Dietrich Boege shared this question ago
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

Replies (10)

1

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.

2

Again, there's another cosmetic update. Calculation without involving the elevation is useless as you must calculate how many kg are you lifting/lowering per how many metres per how many seconds. Just walking straight is irrelevant and burns very little energy indeed thanks to the fact that a human has two legs. You can drink one tea with sugar and walk 20 km with a dog without even getting sweating. If you PC guys from Praha walk a distance of 20 km with an elevation of 2 km, you'll spit your heart on the grass.

Your kalories are not calculated for the tracks recorded before the update.

Please, remove this feature from the app unless you don't intend to do some serious calculations and brainwork - you only make fools out of yourself.

1

Without HRM, and without considering gradient, seems not so useful. I could be riding on flat at 20km/h using little energy, or 6km/h up very steep hill using double or more energy.

1

Even if it doesn't take all factors into consideration, it is still a very handy measurement and far from "useless". I don't think anyone is a "fool" for offering this feature. Consider it to be a 'baseline approximation' (the actual value will be higher).

If you have an active metabolism and you're charging up a steep mountain wearing mountaineering boots and carrying 25 kilos during the winter in a storm, the calculation will definitely underestimate your caloric consumption.

1

My friend, anything that's mediocre is useless. Anything that gets you only half the way through shouldn't be published for millions of users, moreover, you're even asking money for it. Your app is many years old and just in the last update you fixed a hundred of bugs - what a shame! Only the app is yours - the maps are from OpenStreetMap and you even don't know how to edit a map, not even how to create one. You never had a real paper map in your hands and never compared the copied maps from OpenStreetMap with them. You only copy and paste with all the errors and ask money for it.

It's a big shame on you guys being from Czech republic that you can't do some basic mathematics. 25 years ago Czech republic used to have some of the greatest mathematicians in the world and now it's a pure lazyness.

You're mediocre.

1

Good day Martin,

I'm again pleasantly surprised. There is not many people that know me, and rest of team behind Locus, so well :). Thanks for a valuable feedback and I'm also glad you enjoy Locus Map as well as we and many other users. I believe we may end this discussion here. I'll read useful post you linked before from Dietrich below, if there will be something that my head is able to understand.

Thanks and have a nice day.

2

Menion,

You are really kind person, and you opposed getting down to Martin's level of discussion.

Although there are some features that I would like to see in future Locus versions, IMHO Locus is designed in excellent way, using it is a pleasure.

And complaining that producer of ebook readers don't write books is really stupid.

1

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.

1

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.

1

How do you know your formulas produce accurate results? Did you compare them to a peer-reviewed source of data?

1

Martin - do you have a link to your previous Locus suggestion? Maybe create a new topic (or provide link) with the Excel sheet for people to vote. These old topics get lost very quickly. Best to stay polite and constructive in these topics to make any progress.

2

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.

1

Yes that's a good idea, I'm already trying new apps. Thanks.

1

My advice to all locus users is to compare the locus maps with OpenTopoMaps which are also free but contain much more information.

Instead of all the useless maps in the online store would be sufficient to completely switch to OpenTopoMap which cover the entire world.

1

Can you provide an example of how OpenTopoMap contains "much more information" than LoMaps?

I can see more details in Thunder Forest's Outdoors map than in OpenTopoMap (both as based on OpenStreetMap).

Example:

LoMaps shows as much detail as TF Outdoors plus I can control its appearance using a theme because it's a vector-based map.

1

Thanks Taras - yes when I just read Martin's reply I thought exactly the same thing - OTM Locus vector map? The Windows maps look nice. I have used freizeitkarte-osm.de and Velomap until now.

1

hmm, not sure I like the OTM theme as much as in freizeitkarte-osm.de.

It has a higher contrast look (especially black building outlines) & isn't

displaying any contour lines. A few places (campgrounds) it wasn't

displaying the park boundaries. If it can't display contour lines then it's of no use to me. Any tips?

1

I will make some screenshots and post it here.

In the meantime please kindly tell me how to run Garmin OpenTopoMap on Locus.

Thanks

1

Hi, I want to reply to Taras D regarding the quality of the maps. Please send a link of the appropriate forum category. I want to provide the screenshots.

1

Yes, "Taras D" it's my pleasure to show you screenshots on which you can see how empty is your Locus paid map as compared to free OpenTopoMap. As a proof I'm providing screenshots of all sorts of terrain so that Locus users can see that the Locus really misses the point we are trying to make here. OpenTopoMap covers all the World unlike the maps which are included in Locus "Store" which cover mostly Czechoslovakia and USA.

1

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

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

1

Good day Dietrich,

thank you for additional information and link on useful post. I'll look at it during next days and if this will make sense ( I believe it will ), I'll improve algorithm in Locus Map.

I'll inform about news here.

1

Dietrich - do you think any of this can be applied to cycling energy (when no HRM data available)?

1

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

1

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"

1

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! !

1

Hello Sodjip,

parameters are defined in menu > settings > Track recording > Personal information.

Currently calories in case of known heart rate value are computed based on this formula https://www.easycalculation.com/formulas/heart-rate-calorie-burn.html .

I've compared results of my last 10 workouts with values computed by Garmin watches ( both using same heart rate belt during same activity ) are results are in Locusu in range "0 - 10%" higher then on Garmin watches, just for your information.

Glad you like and mainly use Locus Map, enjoy it ;).

1

Was there some change in algorithm over 4 years how calories are calculated ?

1

Hello Krzysztof,

there were no changes as I know and if there isn't any serious problem, it is not planned for now.

1

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)

1

Hi, this happens with the latest new Locus Map app version? Because in the previous version was a minor issue that caused incorrect calculation when the track had a break (pause).

1

2022-08-07 76.93km (hard), Locus version 4.11.0

2022-07-31 75.2km (easy), Locus version unknown. Must be 4.11.0 too, but I cannot be sure.

It there a way to check what version the track was recorded with?

1

I have backup made by locus app @ 2022-07-29. Could it help to determine version?

1

Hmm, app record raw data and visible sumarries are computed on the fly. So my fix, should fix statistics for all tracks you display. If you display track on the map and then tap on track stats, are they still wrong? If so, may you please export both your tracks to GPX and share it with me? Because you have recorded heart rate values, I should be able to simulate your issue as well. Thanks!

1

attached two tracks in an archive

1

> sumarries are computed on the fly.

that's even more strange. the above screenshots were from web planer. so it's computed in web planer then.

attaching new screenshot from locus app, 4.11.0. same calculations (but in calories units).

1

Thanks. I'm trying to find out exact reason of this difference and I think I've got one.

Energy in your case is calculated as "Time spend at certain heart rate frequency". As you may see, average HR in easy and hard track was quite similar. A lot bigger difference is total track time. This generally means, your heart (body) made a more work in case of easy track. Does it make sense to you? It sounds logical to me.

1

If we check "Track time (movement)"

Hard 4:12 = 252 mins

Easy 4:49 = 289 mins

Easy took 14% more time.

But Easy consumed 25% more energy.

So it does not match. Even if all other tracks params are equal (and those are not equal - Hard track is harder).

Or do you think "Total track time" should be taken in account?

Total track time is 31% more for Easy than Hard.

Probably that make sense. But still looks strange. I consume lots of callories even when I stop..

2

"I consume lots of callories even when I stop.." > exactly. Because of this, app use total spend time in certain heart rate frequency, not just during the ride. So your ride was a 31% longer, but in a little lower HR = result is 20% more consumed energy.

1

ok, thanks!

Replies have been locked on this page!