FAQ - Syncing, logging food & exercise, calorie adjustments, activity levels, accuracy
Replies
-
If you have MFP and Fitbit synced, then when a workout is manually added to MFP it goes over to Fitbit and replaces the Fitbit logged calorie burn.
But you have the same workout going straight to Fitbit too, doing the same thing.
Yes, bad news. Only to Fitbit or MFP, not both.
So I should not have the MapMyWalk app synced to my Fitbit? From what I understand the Fitbit is more accurate, correct? I use the MMW app to track my miles, paths I walk, etc. Should I just not sync it to MFP (which I use to log my food) or Fitbit since the Fitbit will send what I walked to MFP account?
Sorry, just wanting to make sure I am getting accurate info, understanding it all and plus just new to using a Fitbit. I just got it last week.0 -
If you have MFP and Fitbit synced, then when a workout is manually added to MFP it goes over to Fitbit and replaces the Fitbit logged calorie burn.
But you have the same workout going straight to Fitbit too, doing the same thing.
Yes, bad news. Only to Fitbit or MFP, not both.
So I should not have the MapMyWalk app synced to my Fitbit? From what I understand the Fitbit is more accurate, correct? I use the MMW app to track my miles, paths I walk, etc. Should I just not sync it to MFP (which I use to log my food) or Fitbit since the Fitbit will send what I walked to MFP account?
Sorry, just wanting to make sure I am getting accurate info, understanding it all and plus just new to using a Fitbit. I just got it last week.
To correct some misconceptions in your statements.
Should I not sync MMW to Fitbit? Depends.
Is MMW using GPS?
Does the Fitbit see the same distance walked when that distance is accurate?
Then it would be equal accuracy. So you could skip MMW syncing to anything.
Fitbit is NOT by default more accurate, especially a GPS route, unless you have bad accuracy.
Fitbit does not send what you walked to MFP account. Only the daily calorie burn is sent that MFP does any math with that effects your eating level, and therefore your weight loss amount.
Steps are sent as a mere stat for comparing, not used for anything except viewing.
So here are the principles.
A manually entered workout on Fitbit, or one that is synced from another app like MFP or MMW - replaces at minimum the calories burned during the workout time, may replace distance and steps too (not from MFP though).
MMW to MFP creates a manual workout. Which of course syncs over to Fitbit replacing only calorie burn.
Fitbit may or may not be most accurate calorie burn. Since based on pace and mass, therefore distance and time - is the distance correct?0 -
If you have MFP and Fitbit synced, then when a workout is manually added to MFP it goes over to Fitbit and replaces the Fitbit logged calorie burn.
But you have the same workout going straight to Fitbit too, doing the same thing.
Yes, bad news. Only to Fitbit or MFP, not both.
So I should not have the MapMyWalk app synced to my Fitbit? From what I understand the Fitbit is more accurate, correct? I use the MMW app to track my miles, paths I walk, etc. Should I just not sync it to MFP (which I use to log my food) or Fitbit since the Fitbit will send what I walked to MFP account?
Sorry, just wanting to make sure I am getting accurate info, understanding it all and plus just new to using a Fitbit. I just got it last week.
To correct some misconceptions in your statements.
Should I not sync MMW to Fitbit? Depends.
Is MMW using GPS?
Does the Fitbit see the same distance walked when that distance is accurate?
Then it would be equal accuracy. So you could skip MMW syncing to anything.
Fitbit is NOT by default more accurate, especially a GPS route, unless you have bad accuracy.
Fitbit does not send what you walked to MFP account. Only the daily calorie burn is sent that MFP does any math with that effects your eating level, and therefore your weight loss amount.
Steps are sent as a mere stat for comparing, not used for anything except viewing.
So here are the principles.
A manually entered workout on Fitbit, or one that is synced from another app like MFP or MMW - replaces at minimum the calories burned during the workout time, may replace distance and steps too (not from MFP though).
MMW to MFP creates a manual workout. Which of course syncs over to Fitbit replacing only calorie burn.
Fitbit may or may not be most accurate calorie burn. Since based on pace and mass, therefore distance and time - is the distance correct?
MMW does use GPS. It maps out the route I walk. The distance seems to be the same for it and the Fitbit. I think the thing I am most worried about is making sure that the calories burned sent from my Fitbit and MMW don't add together. Just not sure on which would be better at giving a more accurate reading of my calories burned each day. I think I understand everything else you have said. I am mostly worried about my calories being all wrong since I want to stick with a goal to lose weight. I don't want to have "false" extra calories.
Thank you for taking the time to answer and explain things. It's very helpful for a newbie to the Fitbit world0 -
If the distance seems correct and the calorie burn matches up (that is if you trust MMW more), than nothing is really gained by syncing MMW to Fitbit.
The end result is the same, the daily calorie burn is sent to MFP.
MFP adjusts what it thought you'd burn with no exercise to that number received.
Deficit is taken for your eating level.
MMW synced to MFP probably doesn't give many stats to your wall posting - so just manually make a wall post about the workout, distance, time, thoughts, calories.
See my profile for example.
And MMW isn't giving you a daily calorie burn anyway. If it is, is it using your phone as a pedometer when no GPS?
If so, it's attempting to do exactly what the Fitbit is already doing.
Use your investment, forget MMW except on their site for tracking workouts. Better there than Fitbit for stats anyway.0 -
So I have my activity level on mfp as active and calorie goal as 1906. My food plan on fitbit is set at -250lbs is there anything else I should adjust and should I follow mfp or fitbit for how many calories I have left, also follo 'goal' or 'net'?
My burn goal on fitbit is 28680 -
Food plan on Fitbit doesn't matter to the math on MFP. Deficit on MFP matters.
Follow MFP eating goal, net or gross doesn't matter, it tells you how much left to eat.
Your manually set 1906 will be changed.
What method are you trying to use since you got a mix there?0 -
If the distance seems correct and the calorie burn matches up (that is if you trust MMW more), than nothing is really gained by syncing MMW to Fitbit.
The end result is the same, the daily calorie burn is sent to MFP.
MFP adjusts what it thought you'd burn with no exercise to that number received.
Deficit is taken for your eating level.
MMW synced to MFP probably doesn't give many stats to your wall posting - so just manually make a wall post about the workout, distance, time, thoughts, calories.
See my profile for example.
And MMW isn't giving you a daily calorie burn anyway. If it is, is it using your phone as a pedometer when no GPS?
If so, it's attempting to do exactly what the Fitbit is already doing.
Use your investment, forget MMW except on their site for tracking workouts. Better there than Fitbit for stats anyway.
Yes I agree to just use my investment. And after something you said I guess MMW doesn't use GPS since it does give calories burned. Plus I have seen that the calories given from them verses Fitbit does have a difference mainly with Fitbit being a lot less. Feel safer using what they track as calories than MMW. Thank you again for all the help and info it is much appreciated!0 -
I have read through a lot of different threads but may be missing something.
I use MapMyWalk when I do my walks and have it synced to MFP and my Fitbit Zip. Should I only have it synced to one or is it ok to have it synced to both? I want to get accurate calories burned but have a hard time understanding how MFP calculates when both MMW and Fitbit report back to it. Would it be best to have only one app synced??
I'm with mallen.
Fitbit doesn't sync the workouts to MFP, only steps. MapMyFitness does (Under Armour own both MFP and MapMyFitness websites). If I put my Fitbit workouts into MapMyFitness and they are synced to MFP are they double counted here?0 -
Fitbit syncs the entire day's calorie burn to MFP - that includes any workouts you did - whether Fitbit came up with the calorie burn, or another app synced a workout to Fitbit and replaced the calorie burn, and that includes MFP itself or MMW.
So Fitbit is used to log your workout for which it's good at, you create an activity say with the button press and then that syncs over to MMF so you can track your workouts better.
Since MMF is receiving from Fitbit full stats, it's not sending something back. Unless I'm guessing you edit the workout and change some stats, then it would.
Then you have MMF synced to MFP, so that workout now syncs to MFP, as start time, duration, and calorie burn only.
MFP is now synced with Fitbit so the workout goes over to Fitbit replacing it's calorie burn stat with ..... exactly the same figure it already had.
Now, the question is does Fitbit now see this manually entered/synced workout as something new with only calorie burn info since that's all it received?
Since it's the same calorie burn info, but a manually logged workout without any other stats, does it send it to MMF again, or does Fitbit or MMF recognize it already got that workout and stop this circle of syncing?
So I could see at the least you'd get in Fitbit the activity record from the button press and a synced workout with just calorie burn for every workout, perhaps making review interesting.
Then again - using MMF for workout tracking, so may not matter at all.
MFP doesn't double count though, because it subtracts any workout (manual or synced from other apps) calorie burn from the Fitbit daily calorie burn.
Fitbit wouldn't double count as it is replacing the original calorie burn with the same figure.
Depending on where the cycle ends is if WWF gets a manual workout with only calorie burn from Fitbit, and the original activity record with full stats.
If the intent of MMF is merely to have a workout entered on MFP without any stats except duration and calorie burn - then may I suggest making it more interesting by just making a wall post instead of manually entering the workout on MMF to sync over.
Then again, if MMF is used as a good exercise diary basically, then why not.0 -
Food plan on Fitbit doesn't matter to the math on MFP. Deficit on MFP matters.
Follow MFP eating goal, net or gross doesn't matter, it tells you how much left to eat.
Your manually set 1906 will be changed.
What method are you trying to use since you got a mix there?
See I'm confussed on what method is best when using a fitbit
0 -
Very informative; thanks for this
0 -
Food plan on Fitbit doesn't matter to the math on MFP. Deficit on MFP matters.
Follow MFP eating goal, net or gross doesn't matter, it tells you how much left to eat.
Your manually set 1906 will be changed.
What method are you trying to use since you got a mix there?
See I'm confussed on what method is best when using a fitbit
Depends on what you want.
Do you work better with a constant eating goal daily, that you only adjust perhaps weekly?
MFP math will be wrong and you must unsync Fitbit.
Or are you able to meet daily goals that change, that may inspire you to move more in order to eat more?
MFP math will be right and you can sync Fitbit.
MFP and Fitbit were designed for this method.
The amount of deficit you take in either case can be exactly the same or close, though the former could be a block amount or % amount. The latter method is block amount.0 -
I have a new Fitbit Surge. I do a bit of motorcross riding. I'm wondering whether all the bouncing around is affecting my steps. During a 40 minute motor bike ride I did 7000 steps!!!! Can someone please explain how to overcome this please?
I'll need a bit of a step by step guide...I'm pretty new to this.
PS. I noticed in one early comment in this thread that a bus driver changes his fitbit to drive as he seems to have the same issue. I need the method to do this please?
Thanks very much, in advance.0 -
SleeplessInSeattle wrote: »I have a new Fitbit Surge. I do a bit of motorcross riding. I'm wondering whether all the bouncing around is affecting my steps. During a 40 minute motor bike ride I did 7000 steps!!!! Can someone please explain how to overcome this please?
I'll need a bit of a step by step guide...I'm pretty new to this.
PS. I noticed in one early comment in this thread that a bus driver changes his fitbit to drive as he seems to have the same issue. I need the method to do this please?
Thanks very much, in advance.
You create an activity record with the device button for the time.
You then use that info to create a manual workout on Fitbit's site called bus driving or car driving covering the same block of time. Though you may see if motorcycle is enough calories for that extra work, but I don't know if that removes steps like the other entries do.
Once manually logged, delete the activity record with bogus info since not really useful.
Done, bogus steps removed.0 -
I just bought a surge and synced it to MFP. I'm new to calorie counting, and very confused! When looking at the calories remaining , mine says goal- 1200, food- 1451, + exercise 339 = 88 remaining. By looking at this I have no idea if I'm under my goal of 1200, at my goal, or have to burn more calories if I'm over my goal! So completely lost! Can someone dumb it down for me! Thanks0
-
Eat 88 more to reach your eating goal. Just follow what it says to eat.
Your eating goal is 1200 on non-exercise days that match the activity level you selected in MFP. Rarely will you exactly match that level, and Fitbit allows correction to it.
Fitbit gave daily burn to MFP to correct that with 339 calorie adjustment more.
1200 + 339 = 1539 eating goal now.
1539 - 1451 eaten so far = 88 left
In other words - just follow what it says. I think you knew it meant you had 88 remaining to eat.
You don't eat 1200 when you do more activity, you eat more.
And when you reach 50 lbs left, you should switch to 1.5 lbs weekly, as 2 lbs weekly will be too much stress on body.
At 30 lbs go to 1 lb.
At 10 lbs go to 1/2 lb.1 -
Eat 88 more to reach your eating goal. Just follow what it says to eat.
Your eating goal is 1200 on non-exercise days that match the activity level you selected in MFP. Rarely will you exactly match that level, and Fitbit allows correction to it.
Fitbit gave daily burn to MFP to correct that with 339 calorie adjustment more.
1200 + 339 = 1539 eating goal now.
1539 - 1451 eaten so far = 88 left
In other words - just follow what it says. I think you knew it meant you had 88 remaining to eat.
You don't eat 1200 when you do more activity, you eat more.
And when you reach 50 lbs left, you should switch to 1.5 lbs weekly, as 2 lbs weekly will be too much stress on body.
At 30 lbs go to 1 lb.
At 10 lbs go to 1/2 lb.
Thank you! This helps!0 -
For HR devices, calorie burn for daily activity is still step based as that is more accurate, but for exercise it's based on HR formula. HR formula is used when you start an activity record with button press, and your steps are high enough to indicate the higher HR is indeed from exercise, or HR and steps go up to show exercise is being done. Otherwise it thinks elevated HR due to something else and just uses step calculation.
HR formula is only a decent calorie estimate when the exercise is steady-state aerobic, same HR for 2-4 min. Anything anaerobic, like good lifting or interval workout, which is also non-steady-state HR, is not valid use of formula and will result in inflated calorie burn. Step based would actually be best for intervals.
I read this very helpful thread (thanks heybales!!) but could still use some guidance. I want to use my Charge HR to only capture specific walking exercise activities, determine the estimated calorie burn, then update MFP. I am not looking for Fitbit to update MFP with daily calorie and step tracking. I just want the calorie burn from my power walks that I can squeeze into my otherwise sedentary day. I'll use the device button to stop/start the activity for each walk. I intend to do it this way since MFP is already estimating my normal daily activity and I just need to add in my calorie burn from exercises.
I am trying to digest your comments above to understand if the HR formula is accurate enough for my walks. Often my walks involve hills, sometimes not so much (although it is generally hilly around here). I'm including a sample HR chart from a morning walk. Does the variability shown in my chart suggest the HR formula is accurate for my walks? I got the device thinking the HR feature would give me a more accurate calorie burn estimate than Runkeeper.
0 -
And to help explain my question, here are the calorie burn estimates using 3 methods for the same 28 minute walk
MFP = 159 (uses duration, speed)
RunKeeper = 216 (uses GPS, elevation)
Fitbit Charge HR = 264 (uses HR? steps? both?)
The deviation between methods increases if you consider I may do anywhere from 2 to 4 of these walks a day. Sometimes longer, sometimes shorter.0 -
And to help explain my question, here are the calorie burn estimates using 3 methods for the same 28 minute walk
MFP = 159 (uses duration, speed)
RunKeeper = 216 (uses GPS, elevation)
Fitbit Charge HR = 264 (uses HR? steps? both?)
The deviation between methods increases if you consider I may do anywhere from 2 to 4 of these walks a day. Sometimes longer, sometimes shorter.
HR is likely going to be better, I really doubt RunKeeper incorporates elevation changes, unless they replace the bad GPS data with better online data, which Garmin does do, so it is possible.
Wondering though why you want to trust MFP's rough estimate of daily burn outside of exercise, when you have a device able to measure it much more accurately?
You can still manually log that workout on MFP if it must be seen logged in your exercise diary, and then that will show you that any adjustment that remains is exactly because the MFP estimate needed correction.
Have you ever looked at the adjustments that remain after manually logging the exercise to see how close MFP was in the first place?
But otherwise, you hit the button to start an activity.0 -
HR is likely going to be better, I really doubt RunKeeper incorporates elevation changes, unless they replace the bad GPS data with better online data, which Garmin does do, so it is possible.
Actually Runkeeper does incorporate the elevation/GPS data. I'm aware of the elevation issue you mention and I do their 'fix' which corrects the route and calorie burn. That said, I have no idea how accurate it is.Wondering though why you want to trust MFP's rough estimate of daily burn outside of exercise, when you have a device able to measure it much more accurately?
You can still manually log that workout on MFP if it must be seen logged in your exercise diary, and then that will show you that any adjustment that remains is exactly because the MFP estimate needed correction.
Have you ever looked at the adjustments that remain after manually logging the exercise to see how close MFP was in the first place?
Right now I have a good rhythm using MFP for food and adding/importing exercise to manage my net calorie goals. I got the device in the hopes of getting more accurate calorie burn for exercise. I am willing to switch over to using the device for full daily burn once I get better used to the device. I only got it yesterday!
I have not connected Fitbit to MFP yet. I am still hoping to learn if my logged activity walks have an accurate calorie burn given your statements about what the HR formula. Do you think the HR formula is accurate for power walks like mine? Or is it using estimated steps?
0 -
I'll bet your HR is getting high enough on power walks for it to be used. When you hit the button, it starts doing per sec logging of HR and calorie burn, and as long is steps is frequent enough it figures it is a workout.
If steps stop but HR is high, it figures malfunction (or perhaps stage fright) and stops either the activity or using HR formula.
But if Runkeeper is using corrected elevation profiles, those formula's are really accurate too, more than HRM actually, though steep incline starts causing more and more inaccuracy.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/774337/how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
0 -
HR formula is used when you start an activity record with button press, and your steps are high enough to indicate the higher HR is indeed from exercise, or HR and steps go up to show exercise is being done. Otherwise it thinks elevated HR due to something else and just uses step calculation.
HR formula is only a decent calorie estimate when the exercise is steady-state aerobic, same HR for 2-4 min. Anything anaerobic, like good lifting or interval workout, which is also non-steady-state HR, is not valid use of formula and will result in inflated calorie burn. Step based would actually be best for intervals.
Is there Fitbit documentation that explains this? I'd like to know what value or modeling they use for to determine when "steps are high enough". Also why interval is not good use of HR formula if heart rate is taken at 1 sec intervals and should show my heart is working harder. I am still skeptical of the calorie burn values produced despite reading all the linked references and other posts. Fundamentally I would expect a HR-based calorie burn to be more accurate, but this issue of Fitbit choosing/applying varying formulae has me guessing at what is going on.
Even my walks have varying HR due to hills, and soon I will incorporate a little interval jogging / walking which will further increase the variable HR readings.0 -
@heybales - First, thank you for hitting on points that are often confusing with regard to the activity trackers and working them into the EM2WL program. I've been meaning to ask you about the variation / correction of weight training workouts in relation to my activity tracker (you often say the calories are underestimated by the AT). But by what I am reading on these posts/comments, it seems the FitBit is different in how it figures calories than how my Bodymedia Fit does. BMF not only tracks movement (steps) like FitBit, but also skin temperature, heat flux and skin response. According to BMF, these additional measurements are to record non-step activity.
My questions: how accurate, then, do you think the BMF is for weights and machine-based exercises (stairstepper, elliptical, crossfit-esque cardio machine, et cetera)? And do you think that it is still underestimating weights and I need to manually put in weight training, elliptical and such through MFP? So far it averages me at about 2200 calories, and going by the calculators, I'm figuring that is pretty close, if not over-estimated by a tad. Thoughts?0 -
HR formula is used when you start an activity record with button press, and your steps are high enough to indicate the higher HR is indeed from exercise, or HR and steps go up to show exercise is being done. Otherwise it thinks elevated HR due to something else and just uses step calculation.
HR formula is only a decent calorie estimate when the exercise is steady-state aerobic, same HR for 2-4 min. Anything anaerobic, like good lifting or interval workout, which is also non-steady-state HR, is not valid use of formula and will result in inflated calorie burn. Step based would actually be best for intervals.
Is there Fitbit documentation that explains this? I'd like to know what value or modeling they use for to determine when "steps are high enough". Also why interval is not good use of HR formula if heart rate is taken at 1 sec intervals and should show my heart is working harder. I am still skeptical of the calorie burn values produced despite reading all the linked references and other posts. Fundamentally I would expect a HR-based calorie burn to be more accurate, but this issue of Fitbit choosing/applying varying formulae has me guessing at what is going on.
Even my walks have varying HR due to hills, and soon I will incorporate a little interval jogging / walking which will further increase the variable HR readings.
I've not seen Fitbit doc's - they'd probably like to avoid the confusion.
It's the nature of what increased HR means when doing cardio, to supply more oxygen for the more carbs that are being burned for the bigger calorie burn.
That's the only correlation between HR and calorie burn.
And it only applies in the aerobic exercise range, which for men and women and been found to start at about 90 bpm (HR flex point). And it ends when you go anaerobic, which varies. But HRM doesn't even attempt to figure that out, it keeps on applying the formula up to whatever level.
I don't know if they use 90, or something more personalized like % of HRmax they calculated.
While HR could shoot up from fright, it's not because of a need for more oxygen. Hormones are prepping in case there is and you must run, but at the moment, there isn't. So not a bigger calorie burn, except the heart going faster, but that doesn't burn nearly as much as the increased HR would doing cardio, and what a HRM would think you are burning.
Same as lifting, HR shoots up from exertion, not because of need for oxygen, energy source is ATP stored in muscle ready to be used without oxygen. And after it shoots up doing some good hard squats say, how long to come back down, while only standing there resting? Does it ever reaching standing resting HR level?
Here's some details on it. In the lower section called Worse Math. Only if really curious.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales?month=201301
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21904287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2706223
The problem with intervals and the fact Fitbit would use HR based formula, is again invalid use of such formula.
Walk 4 mph for 5 min and notice what the avg HR is.
Now jog for 5 min and see what the HR gets up to.
Now Walk 4 mph for 5 min. Did the HR instantly go down to the prior level that was actually needed for that pace?
No, and likely the lag time to go high was much shorter than the lag time to drop - so it's not a wash out.
I'd be curious if the HR even got back down to walking speed in 5 min.
So that whole time it was elevated HR for supplying the amount of oxygen actually needed for walking right then.
The HR is high for other things, not because more oxygen is still required for level of effort.
Now, the greater the difference and worse the fitness level, the worse the HR calorie burn estimate because of that effect. But good fitness level and smaller difference between HR levels, the better accuracy because of the wash effect.
It would be an interesting test on treadmill, wish I could do it. Fitbit would have to be proved out to be decently accurate on distance, and stride length corrected if need be.
Start walking slow, don't start an activity, right on an even 5 min mark according to Fitbit's time.
Every 10 min increase the pace so that HR goes up by 10 bpm.
Keep doing that until reaching your powerwalking pace and HR for 10 min.
On review in the 5 min daily graph, looking at calorie burn and HR, should see the jumps in HR.
Now, I'm betting for the 2 different 5 min blocks of calorie burn at the same pace, the HR is actually different averages.
The question will be, if calorie burn for each 5 min block is by distance (based on steps of course), they would match if distance did. If done by HR, then they should vary.
It may be required to make an activity record for each 5 min segment to compare when the level should be the same.
This would probably also make it evident what point the calorie burn went to HR based.
So you aren't going to get as accurate as you might hope.
The best would be in a metabolic chamber doing your workout.
Second would be a metabolic cart hookup with face mask and EKG HR unit.
Third would be a VO2max test of the step up variety to give 2 formulas to use later, steady-state and non-steady state formula, to be used for other workouts.
Fourth would be a proxy for VO2max test by doing a running test and developing the same formula.
Ha! - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales?month=201405
All will have limitations when actually applied to real life use - just like the Fitbit.
So with caveats to use, it may be the best you can get for now.
0 -
@heybales - First, thank you for hitting on points that are often confusing with regard to the activity trackers and working them into the EM2WL program. I've been meaning to ask you about the variation / correction of weight training workouts in relation to my activity tracker (you often say the calories are underestimated by the AT). But by what I am reading on these posts/comments, it seems the FitBit is different in how it figures calories than how my Bodymedia Fit does. BMF not only tracks movement (steps) like FitBit, but also skin temperature, heat flux and skin response. According to BMF, these additional measurements are to record non-step activity.
My questions: how accurate, then, do you think the BMF is for weights and machine-based exercises (stairstepper, elliptical, crossfit-esque cardio machine, et cetera)? And do you think that it is still underestimating weights and I need to manually put in weight training, elliptical and such through MFP? So far it averages me at about 2200 calories, and going by the calculators, I'm figuring that is pretty close, if not over-estimated by a tad. Thoughts?
Step-based trackers are badly underestimated.
Squats for 45 seconds and maybe 1 step seen - that would be one slow pace, short distance, and low calorie count if even given above BMR level burn.
HR-based trackers will inflate the calorie burn by some amount. Explanation above this pots.
BMF can be decent, if the sensors work well for you. And caveats there to potential accuracy.
Is a hot run outside at 6 mph level burning the same as in the gym cooler air at 6 mph? Yes.
But guess what the sensors tell the BMF because of the extra heat your body generates in the heat.
Does that quarter inch square sensor on your tricep see an increase in temp when doing leg day for strength training?
The galvanic sweat sensor is really just an on/off button, I called BodyMedia about it when mine showed on body the whole day - when I forgot to put it on after the shower, and the sensors were touching the strap. That was enough to complete the circuit, making it appear it was on body. But with no movement, sleeping level burn. And since it was on-body, no way to manually correct the calories.
So it may or may not, easiest to test by eating more and more until you actually gain weight.
2 week 250 test is best. If you think you are eating at TDEE already, then eat 250 more daily for 2 weeks.
Should slowly gain only 1 pound.
If more and faster, you weren't at TDEE then, and just topped off glucose stores with water. Which wouldn't be depleted to any level if really eating at TDEE.
So cardio depends on you testing out sensors on your body, and if seems good, calorie burn probably pretty good. The motion helps too which it sees and is a bigger factor in calorie burn anyway.
Weights - I'd log them.0 -
Thank you, sir! Right now I'm doing -15% (working my way up), but I keep adding calories as I watch my BMF showing higher daily burns. When I get close to my estimated TDEE, I'll do that with the 250. I'll start logging my weights as well.
Thanks, again. 0 -
okay, I have read the entire thread looking for an answer to my problem. & I haven't found one. I just need to know how to log activities on my Fitbit and get accurate calories. I am talking about no one step activities with a Fitbit flex.
the other day I logged 39 minutes on my stationary bikeand Fitbit only estimated 51 calories burned for 39 minutes. MyFitnessPal would have given me a hundred and seventy calories burned. I know that my fitness.pal isn't considered very accurate but I assume it should be more than what I would normally get for walking.
even if I tried to log in exercise in my Fitbit it wants to know how many calories I've burned but I thought Fitbit would estimate that based on the data it receives and my weight and what not.
I don't have a heart rate monitor because it isn't in the budget right now but everything I've read says that the Flex is great for tracking even non-stop activity. I just can't figure out how to input it.
I have MyFitnessPal set to sedentary and have allowed for the negative calories because I want to get a more accurate picture of my activities during the day. This is why I'm stressing over getting the manually entered calories correct in my fitbit.
,any help or insight would be greatly appreciated.0 -
okay, I have read the entire thread looking for an answer to my problem. & I haven't found one. I just need to know how to log activities on my Fitbit and get accurate calories. I am talking about no one step activities with a Fitbit flex.
the other day I logged 39 minutes on my stationary bikeand Fitbit only estimated 51 calories burned for 39 minutes. MyFitnessPal would have given me a hundred and seventy calories burned. I know that my fitness.pal isn't considered very accurate but I assume it should be more than what I would normally get for walking.
even if I tried to log in exercise in my Fitbit it wants to know how many calories I've burned but I thought Fitbit would estimate that based on the data it receives and my weight and what not.
I don't have a heart rate monitor because it isn't in the budget right now but everything I've read says that the Flex is great for tracking even non-stop activity. I just can't figure out how to input it.
I have MyFitnessPal set to sedentary and have allowed for the negative calories because I want to get a more accurate picture of my activities during the day. This is why I'm stressing over getting the manually entered calories correct in my fitbit.
,any help or insight would be greatly appreciated.
Section 1 of the FAQ - second question.
Logging exercise calories.
You did NOT manually log a workout on Fitbit, you either started an activity record with the button, or you logged an activity record merely viewing the Fitbit stats.
Neither is manually logging a workout.
Where you enter in start time, duration, intensity or distance, and let Fitbit calculate calories for you, which then replaces whatever the device saw and estimated based on steps.
Where did you read that Flex is great for tracking non-step (unless you really meant non-stop) activity?
I think you've proven to yourself that's not true on the bike.2 -
I meant non step. Exercise that isn't step based.
And actually, I went back and deleted the record and added it back and it logged correctly so it it must have been a glitch.
thanks for the reply.0
