Big Difference in Cal Burned: HR Charge VS One

Hi everyone. I've been a FitBit user for a few years now, first the Ultra and then the One. On days where I don't engage in any active exercise (cardio, running, weight lifting, etc.), I've gotten used to expecting an average calorie burn estimate from my FitBit of about 2000 cal. Well, my husband surprised me with a new Charge HR and today was my first day using it. I didn't exercise today, recorded about 13,000 steps during normal activity, and my Charge HR is saying I've burned almost 2500 calories. A 500 cal difference is huge! I realize the Charge HR is taking into consideration my HR during the day, but I just can't believe there would be such a difference in cal burn estimate. Has anyone else experienced such a discrepancy? What are your thoughts/opinions on which estimate might be more accurate?

Replies

NancyN795

I would give it a day or two. I especially wouldn't trust the numbers on the first day.

Your results could be different, but I didn't see a big change in steps or calories burned when I switched from the One to the Charge HR.

heybales

And actually no, your HR is not used for calorie burn estimates during the day outside of exercise.
Being recorded and displayed and being used for calculations are 2 different things.
Just like machines that display HR if you happen to hold the handles with the sensors.

Are the steps and distance exactly the same as a day you'd burn 2000 with no exercise?

And did you manually adjust the stride length for the One but not the ChargeHR yet?

mamaboys3

Thanks. I never manually adjusted my stride for my One or Ultra but did "test" several times to see that it was picking up my steps accurately (i.e., manually counted my steps and then compared to FitBit readout). It was always spot on. Haven't done so with the Charge HR yet but will. That's good info that my HR isn't going into my cal burn estimate. I was concerned about that. I will wear the One and Charge HR for a couple days to compare. I only wish I could suddenly eat 500 more calories a day!

cindytw

I was thinking about the HR, but opted for the Flex since its smaller and I already have a heart rate monitor should I want to use it. The One was way lower on Active minutes and steps. But I think the Flex is better, and the HR too, because the One I always felt short-changed! Like I did a LOT and it never registered. I feel my Flex is better and therefore discounting the heart rate, the Charge should be as well. The One would not register me as active unless I was in an all out RUN! I am pretty sure that is not what very Active means.

amybestill

I am new to all of this! What is meant by HR? Just started jogging in the am to take off an extra 35 I have put on after turning 50..im not happy with my One. Doesnt like syncing to my IPhone 6

heybales

Ther HR stands for Heart Rate.
It measures your heart rate by using a light shining on the veins under your skin near the surface.

The success rate of that for daily life and interesting stats (daily burn is still step based) is usually good enough.
The success rate for that during exercise starts to vary depending on the workout, your arm, how high the HR goes, ect.
And since now the calorie burn is based on average HR, if it's not seen decently accurate, the calorie burn can be badly off.

Sherriediva1

Can it be modified in MFP so you don't even have to see the calories you SUPPOSEDLY burned? I don't want to be confused and eat back my "just living" calories! I only usually eat back half of my exercise calories. I've already noticed that my MFP dashboard shows I can eat an additional 462 calories and I haven't worked out yet!!

cwms3rd

I agree there is no way I could eat back my calories according to the charge HR. Right now it says I have burned over 800 calories and I barely over 4000 steps. That is hard to believe. At this rate I would have to consume two full meals on top of breakfast lunch and dinner.

NULYBUM

cwms3rd wrote: »

I agree there is no way I could eat back my calories according to the charge HR. Right now it says I have burned over 800 calories and I barely over 4000 steps. That is hard to believe. At this rate I would have to consume two full meals on top of breakfast lunch and dinner.

This 800 calories is not extra exercise calories, its daily living calories. We use a certain number of calories just by sitting breathing etc For example I use almost 1600 calories a day if I just lay in bed. So you want to eat some of those calories but not as "extra".

I'm not sure I'm making sense but the charge HR gives you the total calories you've burned and not just the extra exercise calories

HTH

heybales

Sherriediva1 wrote: »

Can it be modified in MFP so you don't even have to see the calories you SUPPOSEDLY burned? I don't want to be confused and eat back my "just living" calories! I only usually eat back half of my exercise calories. I've already noticed that my MFP dashboard shows I can eat an additional 462 calories and I haven't worked out yet!!

But you aren't eating back all your just living calories.
MFP takes a deficit off whatever you burned in the day, be that sleeping, little movement, big activity, eating food, and exercise.

Why even a buy a device to help with accuracy of what you burn daily if you aren't going to use it.

So you may have picked the wrong activity level in MFP if your calorie adjustment is that much.

Barring extra steps being seen and calories and being assigned - but that's easy to check.

heybales

cwms3rd wrote: »

I agree there is no way I could eat back my calories according to the charge HR. Right now it says I have burned over 800 calories and I barely over 4000 steps. That is hard to believe. At this rate I would have to consume two full meals on top of breakfast lunch and dinner.

So you picked the wrong activity level in MFP it appears, and Fitbit is informing you that you do burn much more than your selection in MFP is giving you credit for.

Why not take the more accurate estimate, rather than your guess of activity level from 4?

Most people don't have any idea of calorie burn levels or eating levels - until they start on a diet and start eating at bare bottom safety level, not potential upper level for what they really do.