Why no separate activities for hiking vs backpacking?

I guess we need news profiles for Hiking. Walk in Nikes, Walk in cheap Wall Mart Shoes, walk in >300€ Sneakers and so on.
Walk with a jacket, and with or without a hat. Wet clothings vs desert walking with 1l Watterbottle

Thats an idea for the Fenix 7.

gaijin said:

100kg person would have a lower heart rate, but BMR calorie burn would be more wheras the 50kg person would have a faster heart rate, but BMR calorie burn would be less.

On a 10k walk 50kg person + 50kg backpack would die of heart attack if forced to keep up with 100kg person... 

LoganWest said:

I'm not trying to be tedious, but it doesn't. Nothing in there says that heart rate alone is an accurate measurement.

I'll be tedious

Two cases:

1 - Hike, no backpack. About 1h to complete, at the end watch estimates calories consumed C1=886;

2 - Hike, same hill, this time with a 20kg backpack. Takes more time to complete (harder due to additional weight), taking into account increased HR from increased work watch estimates C2=1124 calories;

Is figure C2 correct? I don't know. Same way that there is no way to know if figure C1 is correct. Both are plausible in relation to other.

Should calculation take into account weight carried? Yes.

Does it take weight into account? No. It relies on HR GOES BRRRRR.

Is this correct? Most likely no, but it is close enough.

Is Garmin going to change algorithms to take weight into account - most likely no.

singletrackmind said:

What that means to me as someone whose life may depend on

If you put your survival in the hands of a company, something is definitely going wrong.

You want to honestly say that your extreme tour planning is based on an algorithm of a Fenix? And if Garmin didn't do the math, could you die? Would you also drive your car into the river if your car told you to? Because a few months ago there was still a ferry and your maps are out of date?

I jump off the plane. I have a rescue system called "CYPRES". That opens the parachute at a height of a good 200 meters if I haven't done it by then. I've never needed it in 25 years. If I had needed it, something would have been wrong in my planning or parachute maintenance. I would never count on it. No skydiver does that. Even if I know that it works 100%.

bluefish said:

If you put your survival in the hands of a company, something is definitely going wrong.

Huh, and which company makes your CYPRES then? If you jump out of planes you put your survival in the hands of every piece of gear that got you in the air and back on the ground safely.  

I never said my planning is based on an algorithm in a fenix. The watch is a just fancy tool to help me achieve my goals. This whole post is about a nice-to-have not a must-have.  

singletrackmind said:

which company makes your CYPRES

www.cypres.aero/.../

singletrackmind said:

I never said my planning is based on an algorithm in a fenix.

singletrackmind said:

If Garmin chooses to use a more simplistic method to calculate energy expenditure then that’s what we consumers have to work with.

No, you do not have to. You shouldn't make your survival planning dependent on it.

Wow, why so nasty?

Look, man, I've posted over and over that I understand that the extra weight carried is likely to raise heart rate. What I've contested is that in the specific case of carrying extra weight (assuming that base weight is already known and accounted for), that it will account for the extra caloric burn accurately. 

I've read the links provided. None of them prove one way or the other. You're begging the question and then ridiculing me for not buying into unsubstantiated assertions. Let's figure this out! I'm happy to read articles that are actually relevant but so all that has been pointed out is that heart rate can account for activity and thus caloric burn but not for the special use case of carrying extra weight, so far that's merely been assumed by extension and I don't see how that is a valid assumption. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I'd be happy to read any of the "gazillion" articles on this specific use case which I can't find because I'm apparently incompetent. Let's find a better method than Pandolf's equation or the minimal mechanics model that incorporates heart rate, but I'm willing to bet it also incorporates extra weight in order to be accurate.

Well, actually I have read them (and understand them). I agree for things like cycling, walking, running, heart rate can be a good metric once basal caloric burn is known. What we are talking about is the specific use case of carrying extra weight where it has not yet been proven that heart rate alone accounts for it.

I read your link. Your link doesn't even address the question. It does say 

The weight of your backpack makes a big difference. Every 1 lb of backpack weight increases calorie burn by around 5 calories per 2 hour hike.

with nothing about how heart rate measures that. Using the calculator I find that with my normal pack weight, I'd burn at least 100 extra calories per hour, but that doesn't tell me that heart rate could measure that.

Perhaps heart rate can accurately account for extra weight. But so far that has been assumed, not proven by any means.

Thanks for this. This is very much what I'm getting at: heart rate should account for some extra calories due to extra weight carried, does it accurately account for all? That is unknown. 

But you've also hit the correct nail here as to what should be accounted as truth data to compare to Garmin. I'm curious to know what it looks like if you plugged your numbers into the calculator Allalin72 posted. I was going to do my own test this morning but it's raining

well being completely pedantic, as you have never needed to use it, you dont actually know it will work. It has a history of being very reliable, etc, etc, etc. But its an electronic device, and electronic devices can & do fail. (Adrian Nicholas)

There was a brief let up in the rain so I did a quick test, admittedly a longer one would be better but in my initial walk, at pretty much a flat incline and

For my first test and just my body weight of 192 lbs (87 kg) I maintained a stead pace of 16:10/mile, heart rate was very steady at 106 bpm, and Garmin estimated calories at 110.

For my second test, I donned my 37 lb (16.8 kg) backpack and again, maintained a 16:08/mile pace, heart rate was very steady at 107 bpm average, and estimated calories was 108...

Now what is truth data? I don't know. And yes, a better test would be longer and have more incline which should produce more dramatic effects. But my heart rate wasn't dramatically impacted (if at all) in this initial test.

Perhaps I'm just super efficient at backpacking