Why no separate activities for hiking vs backpacking?

I have and so has everyone else even if they don't realize it.  When you run faster, your HR increases and you burn more calories.  When you carry additional weight your body is working harder to meet the demand of that additional weight and it's reflected in an increased HR in the same manner as running faster.   Setting any amount of weight in an activity isn't going to automatically add "X" amount of calories burned unless I put forth same effort.  I could simply hike an hour with the 20 lbs as you suggested at a much slower pace than I did without the weight and all things would be equal.  If I did it at the same effort and pace with the weight as I did without, I would have to push myself a little more, increasing HR and burning more calories.  Depending on my pace and effort, I could have the same outcoming carrying 10, 20, 30, 40 or even 50 lbs.  If I'm not mistaken, I've read many of your post that are related to hiking, so you're familiar with the activity.  It goes without saying adding weight will increase your calories burned.  What I'm saying is adding a weight amount won't help in a calculation.  You can do one of your hikes carrying 40 lbs at a very leisurely pace.  You could do that same hike at a slight jog carrying 30 lbs and most likely burn more calories wouldn't you agree?  So, there's no testing needed to see that additional weight will increase your calorie burn, but it's not the entered weight that determines the calorie burn, but the effort put forth.  And how is effort measured in this case?  Heart rate.

I am sure that they can put several parameters into the algorithm. If you are hiking, then your weight + what ever additional weight you choose to add, the algo can can into account your pace, your HR, it can also see what incline you are hiking up or down, the ambient temperature, humidity, etc etc. However I don't take all these figures too seriously really, I just use them as a guide +/- 25% or similar.

Just enter your data in the calculator. Then you will see that the backpack weight has a marginal effect on the calorie consumption.

If you don't use a chest strap, you won't be able to calculate the difference meaningfully anyway. 

In the example, the backpack weight has been doubled. The calorie consumption only increased by 154.

caloriesburnedhq.com/.../

Sure I've seen these "calorie calculators".  I'll say it again, I'm aware carrying weight will increase calorie gain, but I take this calculators with a grain of salt as I do with MaxHR calculators or all these watches that detect REM, deep and light sleep from a wrist worn HR monitor.  There all estimates based on averages that can't factor in hundreds of variables because everyone and every situation is different.  Everyone can argue until they're blue in the face and I'll continue to stand by my statement due to all the variables that the best estimate for calories burned when carrying weight is based on HR during that activity vs your age, gender, weight,  height, "x" minutes on this incline, "x" minutes at this pace, "x" minutes on this terrain, "x" minutes at this altitude, "x" mins at this temperature, etc. for each activity.  These watches already have a considerable degree of error with GPS, pace, elevation and terrain.  As long as someone is using a good HR monitor, I stand by HR being the best indicator of calories burned.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I fully agree with you.

I'm sorry. I thought you were saying that those calculators work well.  I'm paying more attention to defending my stance then I am reading the replies thoroughly.  My apologies.  I'm just going to leave this thread with what I had to say and nothing more.  

tess said:

I thought you were saying that those calculators work well. 

No  

People always want to have backpack weight taken into account. But the difference is marginal.

You would then still have to consider the subsurface. Road, forest floor, snow? The area of ​​the backpack that is exposed to the wind. Wind speed. Headwind? Tail wind? One would have to stop constantly to adjust this data. 

Not sure why you think the calorie count should increase by more than 154.

In the first example your total weight was 209, in the 2nd example your total weight was 231, an increase of 10.52%.

You may have doubled the back pack weight BUT you only increased your overall weight by 10.52%

Take the 1st calorie count of 1467 and multiply it 1.1052 and you get 1621. 

All seems reasonable to me. I think you are thinking I have doubled my backpack weight so why hasn't the calorie count gone up more, the fact is your weight only changed by 10%, but there again so did the calorie count.

2572376 said:

I think you are thinking I have doubled my backpack weight so why hasn't the calorie count gone up more

No. 

bluefish said:

People always want to have backpack weight taken into account. But the difference is marginal.

2572376 said:

I am sure that they can put several parameters into the algorithm. If you are hiking, then your weight + what ever additional weight you choose to add, the algo can can into account your pace, your HR, it can also see what incline you are hiking up or down, the ambient temperature, humidity, etc etc. However I don't take all these figures too seriously really, I just use them as a guide +/- 25% or similar.

bluefish said:

You would then still have to consider the subsurface. Road, forest floor, snow? The area of ​​the backpack that is exposed to the wind. Wind speed. Headwind? Tail wind? One would have to stop constantly to adjust this data.