How accurate is the calorie counter in DDR games?

April 9, 2007 11:24 AM

How accurate is the calorie counter in DDR games?

So after months of saying I'm going to get healthy I've finally got around to it. I'm down to 1400 calories a day and have lost almost 20 pounds.

I decided to compliment my diet with some activity. At first I started to give running a try but I just couldn't motivate myself to go out everyday. So I decided to go with something I know that I would be willing to do everyday, DDR(Dance Dance Revolution).

DDR comes with a calorie counter which estimates how many calories you burn. You enter your weight for it to get a more accurate estimation. The more you weigh the higher the calories burned.

After about an hour and a half it says I've burned 1000 calories. Now I'm pretty much an idiot when it comes to excercise but that number seems too high. I've been told that you burn about 150 calories running a mile. I feel that after running a mile I feel a lot more exhausted than I do when playing DDR. Granted it takes only ten minutes to run a mile, 1000 calories still seems like a lot. I don't think I could even come close to running the 6-7 miles it would take to burn 1000 calories. I feel like 500 calories seems like a more reasonable number.

Is there a better way to gauge calories burned while excercising? Does 1000 calories even seem remotely close?

If it helps I weigh 240lb and play mostly 7-8 foot songs in DDR.

posted by aznhalf to health & fitness (18 comments total)

I'm going to say that there's no way that DDR burns over 600 Calories an hour. The best reference I can find quickly is this one:
http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm

Using dancing as a reference point, it looks like you could burn 3-400 calories max per hour. Also consider that that DDR involves less movement than most real dancing. I think you're right to be skeptical, and your estimate of 500 calories seems about right.
posted by chrisamiller at 11:38 AM on April 9, 2007

People very often over estimate how hard they are working, and that probably is both an overestimate and assuming you are working as hard as possible.

The best way (albeit kinda fancy if you are a casual exerciser like me) is to invest in a heart monitor that measures how much you are raising your normal heart rate and uses that info. to measure calories burned.
posted by stormygrey at 11:38 AM on April 9, 2007

Does it matter how many calories you burn while doing the exercise? It thought that once you get your heart rate up for a sufficiently long period, your metabolism starts burning fat, so the effect impacts you even after you stop. That's where the weight loss gold is.
posted by DU at 11:42 AM on April 9, 2007

Stormgrey: If you're a casual exerciser like us schleps, what would a good way be to measure calories burned using the heart rate monitors built into exercise machines?
posted by SpecialK at 11:44 AM on April 9, 2007

SpecialK, (this is complicated, but you could set up a table in excel so that you don't have to do the calcs. all the time.
C/min = (-55.0969 + 0.6309 x HR + 0.1988 x weight + 0.2017 x age) / 4.184
posted by stormygrey at 11:49 AM on April 9, 2007 [1 favorite]

You're playing 7-8 foot songs in DDR for an hour and half? You're definitely burning more calories than, say, ballroom dancing. And I'm astounded by your stamina.

While 1000 seems way too high, it seems like you're still doing more work than if you were running or on the elliptical. I would look at charts for jump roping -- there's a lot of jumping in there.
posted by fiercecupcake at 12:00 PM on April 9, 2007

Self
Has pretty accurate calorie counters.
You may be burning almost 1000 calories at your size, if you are working hard. :)

"How many calories did you burn?
You burn 943.02 calories during 90 minutes of Dancing.
If you're already active and you want to lose weight, you'll need to exercise more than you do now (and/or eat less). Keep in mind that as you lose weight, you'll burn slightly fewer calories. If the number looks low, don't be discouraged. Remember, all those calories add up over time to a fitter, sleeker you! These calculations are derived from scientific formulas compiled by exercise physiologists and based on research, and they may differ from that reported by cardio machines. Not all machines calculate calorie burn accurately.
Nieman, David, C. Exercise Testing and Prescription, McGraw Hill, 2003.
Not for use by pregnant women"

Weight: 274 pounds
Duration: 90 minutes
Style: Modern
posted by stormygrey at 12:07 PM on April 9, 2007

My completely random guess would be that it's closer to 800 after 90 minutes. 500 seems low.

Going by the activity list chrisamiller linked, I'd say a 7-8 foot song in DDR is probably somewhere between "general" (518 C/hr) and "high impact" (604 C/hr) aerobics. 1000 seems high to me only because there's non-zero overhead going between songs that allows your heart rate to drop quite a bit (yes, I've played DDR while wearing a HRM).

One possibility is that the in-game calculator is using a simple linear model for weight -> calorie burn, when it's probably quite a bit less than linear over a certain weight. Certainly Bemani has incentive to overstate the number rather than understate it.
posted by 0xFCAF at 12:45 PM on April 9, 2007

I've always taken it to be pretty accurate, but then again, I play 6-7 foot songs for half-hours at a time. (I'm about 120). We have an exercise bike that tells me I burn about 100 calories biking at 10 km/h for about 15 minutes. On average, I burn about 200 calories playing DDR for half an hour (10 songs, give or take) - and I feel a lot more tired after DDR than after biking, probably because I'm out of shape and like songs with a lot of overhead. -__-

Anyway, my point was, step that up in terms of intensity and weight and your number of 1000 doesn't seem at all farfetched, especially if you're actually playing nonstop for 90 minutes. (Whoa.)
posted by Phire at 1:01 PM on April 9, 2007

If I remember right, DDR figures the calories per-step (shuffling around on the pad before the song begins adds calories, and a tougher song will net you many more calories than a simple one). Next time, pay attention to how many calories it adds for each step, and see if that strikes you as reasonable. I think 1000 calories is certainly possible -- an hour and a half at continuous 7-and-8-foot difficulty is a lot of exercise -- but it's probably lower than that, because you're spending some of that time choosing songs and/or mixing in some easier songs to catch your breath.

If you can, try to work your way up to playing mostly 8-9 foot songs. Those songs burn a LOT more energy than the 7 footers (IMHO 1000 calories for an hour and a half is perfectly achievable at 8 and 9 foot, especially if you can also get through one of the 10 foot songs), and you can use the 7s to catch a break now and again.
posted by vorfeed at 1:15 PM on April 9, 2007

According to the ellipticals I've used, and supported by a close tally of calories consumed, burned and pounds lost, 1000 calories in 90 minutes is right on the money. I think you could certainly be getting as good a workout as I'm used to from those machines. I get a heart rate around 170 as a 26 year old woman weighing 200 lbs. I average 14/Kcal a minute or so, again, per the elliptical.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:21 PM on April 9, 2007

Vorfeed, if it computed by step, then it isn't adding extra calories-burned for time spent choosing songs, taking breaks, etc.

Honestly, I think the calorie counter is about as accurate as you can get anywhere. It certainly is comparable exercise to jogging or other cardio based on results I've seen in myself and several others. And wow, kudos on your stamina dude.
posted by shownomercy at 1:28 PM on April 9, 2007

In order to answer this question I played DDR in workout mode about a half-hour ago: DDR Max 2, ten songs, ranging between 6-8 feet. (I usually play in game mode.)

The clock definitely doesn't run unless a song is playing, and every step that you make goes toward your calorie count. Arrows that go by without you pressing them don't count--steps that you make in addition to the arrows do count. Clearing an 8-footer burned about 23-24 calories, which seems about right. And supposedly I burned 200 calories over the course of ten songs.
posted by Prospero at 3:37 PM on April 9, 2007

Actually, for 240 lbs, that's probably about right. For the average person, sprinting burns about 500+ calories an hour, but it's more for heavier people, and as has been said, there's a lot of jumping in hard DDR songs. I usually play 8-10 foot (difficulty) songs at the arcade and I figure I'm burning about 20 calories per song, 60 per dollar spent, roughly 675 per non-stop hour (DDR songs are about 105 seconds on average, some more, some less), and I weigh 200 lbs.
posted by Vorteks at 4:45 PM on April 9, 2007

I just had DDR up in Workout mode, so I checked it out.

A single step when your weight is set at 240.9 counts as 0.062 calories. If that helps.

(For what it's worth, at my weight I usually play the 4-5-6 foot difficulty and it takes me about 10 minutes to burn 50 calories.)
posted by Lucinda at 5:00 PM on April 9, 2007

I'm piggybacking on this questions, but does anyone know the reasoning for ITG calories? It quotes me 70 or 80 calories per 2-minute song when I play at the arcade.
posted by scission at 5:43 AM on April 10, 2007

The ITG calorie counter in ITG 1 seemed fairly accurate, and produced similar numbers as DDR. The counter in ITG 2 and both home versions is way off. I asked about this on Roxor's message boards a while back.
posted by Vorteks at 9:08 AM on April 10, 2007

Whether or not you're leaning on the bar probably has an effect as well.

Don't lean on the bar. :)
posted by Four Flavors at 10:03 AM on April 10, 2007