Charge 2 overestimate calories burned...please help

Bealey2011

I am sorry if this has been asked before...I have been reading the threads and I am probably just being rather dense but I don't understand...

So here goes, I got my charge2 yesterday and today is the first day wearing it. I am overweight, 190lb 35 year old female who up until 2 weeks ago did not exercise and barley moved except three walks a week around 25minutes.

I set MFP to lose 1lb a week that gives me 1490 cals a day. I joined the gym so a) I can eat more and b)improve fitness. 2 weeks ago I gave up smoking (I am using a vape and each week have been decreasing the nicotine level.

My workout consists of 30-40mins walking on treadmill at 6mph alternating through out the workout an incline of 4-7. 3 days a week I do the strong lifts 5x5 squat & row weight is 22kg bar with 5kg each side, 5kg bar with 5kg each side for overhead press, 6kg dumbells for bench press and 22kg with 12.5kg each side for deadlift.

Now today after I did the 5x5 followed by 30min walking on treadmill Fitbit told MFP that I burned 719 calories....

This cannot be right?!

Please help I've checked the Fitbit forums and people are saying they need to change their heights to 4ft and age to 18years old....I have no idea and I only bought the thing to estimate calories burned as I really want to get this right this time.

So sorry for the essay and thanks in advance for your responses xx

janejellyroll

Sometimes people find it takes their Fitbit a week or two to adjust and then their calorie burns become more reasonable.

heybales

Besides the above fact - Fitbit told MFP how many calories you burn in total - not for any workout.
Right now using your resting HR it's trying to decide when you are exercising, or merely daily life.
Right now it's probably putting way too much daily under exercise and using HR-based calorie burn - incorrect and inflated.

But for that adjustment.
You could have very active day and no exercise and get big adjustment.
You could have very big workout and be very lazy and get no adjustment.

The adjustment is merely the difference between what Fitbit saw you do, and what MFP estimated you'd burn from YOUR selected activity level - obviously there could be a big difference there.

Might read the FAQ in the stickies, 1st section, to understand some nuances of the syncing.

Oh - for lifting - you should manually log that on Fitbit anyway for accuracy improvement.
HR-based calorie burn formula is incorrect usage on anything non-aerobic and HR moving up and down constantly.

capaul42

Btw, you can see how mfp calculates that exercise adjustment by clicking on it.

temazur

It's not just you. The heartrate monitor on the Charge 2 is off by quite a bit when it comes to calorie burn. I went from an old flex to a Charge 2 and saw a huge jump in the calorie burn it reported, even after giving it a few months to adjust itself to me. When I go back and look at monthly averages, you can see the jump, to the tune of about 9000 calories a month more being reported as burned. Funny thing is my activity level actually decreased a bit when I got the new one, so I know it's definitely off.

I also have been following a thread on it for over six months on Fitbit's forums, a lot of people who tracked things before notice it when they upgraded to a Charge.

I eventually just turned off the heart rate part (you can do that thru the Fitbit app) and I have a slightly more accurate version of my effort now.

temazur

Dug up the community thread I was referencing for anyone who wants to take a look at what other people have found: https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Charge-2/Calories-burned-too-high/td-p/1556713

heybales

So during the time of the inflation - did steps and distance show about the same average for about same amount of daily activity?
Or were those inflated too?

If so this would indicate that HR-based calorie burn was being used way more than it should have been.
Instead of the more accurate potential of step-based calorie burn for daily activity.

But some people have a high rev'ing HR even on calm daily stuff.

Interesting that Flex is one of the devices, because the point where the potential accuracy for HR-based calorie burn starts is called the HR Flex point - and in studies it's typically about 90.
Women with a slightly larger range (just as they have for measured HRmax compared to formula) in reality though.

And of course meds can cause elevated during low level activity stuff.

Perhaps they tried to tweak their formulas to that more static figure of 90, rather than the method they used to use of looking at your non-moving HR daily and calling that resting HR, and basing it off that it seemed.

Now, during times it's using HR-based calorie burn, it should also be making a workout automatically since that's what kicks off that process.

temazur

heybales wrote: »

So during the time of the inflation - did steps and distance show about the same average for about same amount of daily activity?
Or were those inflated too?

If so this would indicate that HR-based calorie burn was being used way more than it should have been.
Instead of the more accurate potential of step-based calorie burn for daily activity.

But some people have a high rev'ing HR even on calm daily stuff.

I

I can't speak for all the other instances I've heard for inflation, but for me the transition from non HR Flex to Charge HR 2 I had either sustained amounts of activity or decreased amounts. So yes, even though I had decreased activity, I was showing higher calorie burn than much higher levels of activity with the original Flex.

Since I've turned the HR off on mine I've seen it return to normal levels of burn, much closer to what MFP estimates me to be at for a non-exercise day. For example, with HR a 9k step day with no actual exercise, just regular walking around and work, my fitbit had me at around 3,100 calories burned for the day (my maintenance is right around 2100). After turning HR off, a 10k step day with some jogging (very light walk day, was busy at work, but did find time to hit the treadmill that night) has me at 2,694 calories burned. <-- that sounds much, much closer to reality (if not a touch high as well, but I follow the unofficial mantra around here of never eat back more than half anyway).

I have no idea if it's a formula issue or an issue with HR when you aren't moving around/exercising. Whenever I read threads on it, people talk about testing the accuracy of it with a chest band at the same time while exercising, but no one seems to mention testing the accuracy of it when you're doing normal, every day stuff, which accounts for more like 90% of the HR reading time the Charge will be doing. It may be spot on when I'm jogging and my heart rate is 130+, but it might be confused and think I'm doing some exercise when my HR is 90+ and really I'm just at my desk pissed off at a coworker (my normal resting HR is between 65 and 70 usually). I don't know. It makes me think I need to stay away from HR-based fitness bands in general until I find one that is more accurate for everyday wear.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but really I'm just frustrated that I've been wearing the band for a year and have had to estimate my burn manually, on the fly, to see what I'm really at and how I should be adjusting my eating.