Calories Burned Calculator

What data did you base these calculation on?

TC

Quoted message said:

Hi all,

I just put together this calculator tool that figures out the number of
calories you've burned based on your age, resting heart rate, average
heart rate during your workout, and your workout length, using a
formula harvested from a thread on sci.med.nutrition.

Here's the link:

http://www.gersic.com/calories/

I hope you find it useful.

Tom

P.S. Here's the forumla, in case you're curious:

%VO2max = (Avg. HR - RHR)*100 / (MHR - RHR)
Calories burned/hour = 106.4 * exp (2.7486 * %VO2max/100)

I got the formula from a message posted to sci.med.nutrition by "Steve
Dannenbaum".

The message is here:

groups.google.comb437e7d1d8d5c629Open ↗

I wish I knew more about the formula, but I don't. I am but a humble
computer programmer. If it helps, the calories-burned numbers
calculated for me are very close to the numbers I get from the exercise
equipment at the local gym.

Tom

Quoted message said:

I got the formula from a message posted to sci.med.nutrition by "Steve
Dannenbaum".

The message is here:

groups.google.comb437e7d1d8d5c629Open ↗

I wish I knew more about the formula, but I don't. I am but a humble
computer programmer. If it helps, the calories-burned numbers
calculated for me are very close to the numbers I get from the exercise
equipment at the local gym.

Tom

I am a humble computer programmer too, and if I were to write a calorie
calculator I would find the correct numbers, factors and calculations
to program into my calculator. So what you did was extrapolate some
inputs and results based on some arbitrarily programmed guesstimating
exercise equpiment calculator. You should always reference the most
basic rock-solid scientific mathematical values when creating this kind
of calculator.

TC

Quoted message said:

So what you did was extrapolate some
inputs and results based on some arbitrarily programmed guesstimating
exercise equpiment calculator.

Not at all. I took the only formula I was able to find, and implemented
it. Unless proven otherwise, I'm assuming that this formula used the
correct "numbers, factors and calculations". As a way of checking that
the results were at least in the right ballpark, I compared them with
the results of an exercise-equipment calculator. I didn't "guesstimate"
anything. I also posted the exact formula that I used so that anyone
who's interested is able to verify whether or not they think the
formula meets whatever criteria they might have for such a formula. If
the formula that I used is incorrect, I'd welcome a better one.
Personally, I just wanted an easy way to calculate my own calorie burn,
wasn't able to find a tool online that worked with Average Heart Rate,
and thought others might appreciate the same tool. If you know of a
formula that's widely accepted, you're welcome to post that. If you
have some way to show that it's better, I'll change the formula on my
site.

Other than that, if you don't want to use it, don't use it. I couldn't
care less.

Tom

Quoted message said:

P.S. Here's the forumla, in case you're curious:

%VO2max = (Avg. HR - RHR)*100 / (MHR - RHR)
Calories burned/hour = 106.4 * exp (2.7486 * %VO2max/100)

and if you have a fever and HR of 150 ??

I'd say if you have a fever and a resting HR of 150, you should
probably see a doctor...

Seriously, though, I didn't make the formula. I found it online. I
would imagine that the person that came up with the formula knew
something about what they were doing. Maybe not. I don't know. If
somebody has a better formula, I'm all ears.

Tom

Quoted message said:

I'd say if you have a fever and a resting HR of 150, you should
probably see a doctor...

Seriously, though, I didn't make the formula. I found it online. I
would imagine that the person that came up with the formula knew
something about what they were doing. Maybe not. I don't know. If
somebody has a better formula, I'm all ears.

it is nearly unusable :-( Even without fever, heart rate is not only a
function of activity/energy consumption, but a lot of other factors
has impact on it.

When you are above about 150 in heart rate due to physical activity,
it is on the other side good agreement. Below that, almost unusable.
We have compared it toward double labeled water and there is not good
agreement.

I have to say that it's interesting that you and TC have complaints
about the formula that I used, but neither of you have been able to
offer up a better one...

Quoted message said:

I have to say that it's interesting that you and TC have complaints
about the formula that I used, but neither of you have been able to
offer up a better one...

there are better, but not using heart rate.
Eg. drink double labeled water.

While I'm certainly not going to argue that a formula based on average
heart rate is going to stand up to double labeled water, I think the
point of such systems on various fitness-oriented heart rate
monitors--and the system on my website--is to provide a reasonably
accurate index of physical activity. This index may not be particularly
accurate, but it is precise, and so can be used to compare activity
from one day to the next. Are the numbers that come off of a Lifestyle
Fitness Treadmill or Polar watch going to be accurate enough to use in
any sort of scientific study? Of course not. However, most people who
are interested in their calorie burn are not scientists, and simple
calculated numbers are a heck of a lot easier to obtain than with more
accurate methods of calculating calorie burn like double labeled water.

Quoted message said:

While I'm certainly not going to argue that a formula based on average
heart rate is going to stand up to double labeled water, I think the
point of such systems on various fitness-oriented heart rate
monitors--and the system on my website--is to provide a reasonably
accurate index of physical activity. This index may not be particularly
accurate, but it is precise, and so can be used to compare activity
from one day to the next. Are the numbers that come off of a Lifestyle
Fitness Treadmill or Polar watch going to be accurate enough to use in
any sort of scientific study? Of course not. However, most people who
are interested in their calorie burn are not scientists, and simple
calculated numbers are a heck of a lot easier to obtain than with more
accurate methods of calculating calorie burn like double labeled water.

there are others. Both based on accelerometers and measuring position
and if there has been a movement every second. Look for my name on
Pubmed :-)