Best calorie counter?

Options
ivylaurenolsen
ivylaurenolsen Posts: 56 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I am looking into getting some kind of bracelet that counts calories. That's pretty much all I want (nothing fancy). What is the best and most inexpensive kind to look into? Thanks!

Replies

  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    None of them count calories.

    Specifically, what activities do you do? Exactly what data are you looking to track?
  • ivylaurenolsen
    ivylaurenolsen Posts: 56 Member
    Options
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    None of them count calories.

    Specifically, what activities do you do? Exactly what data are you looking to track?

    I have seen the polar bracelets that track your workouts and say how many calories are burned...I would only use it when I workout (run, lift, bike, etc) :)
  • strong_curves
    strong_curves Posts: 2,229 Member
    Options
    ivylaurenolsen wrote: »
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    None of them count calories.

    Specifically, what activities do you do? Exactly what data are you looking to track?

    I have seen the polar bracelets that track your workouts and say how many calories are burned...I would only use it when I workout (run, lift, bike, etc) :)

    You can try the fitbit HR but NO tracker "accurately" counts calories burned from lifting weights. I have a fitbit flex that tracks how many steps I take and my calories burned for the day.
  • tincanonastring
    tincanonastring Posts: 3,944 Member
    Options
    You'd be better off with a Heart Rate Monitor (HRM) that utilizes a chest strap. They're only for steady state cardio, though, so they won't help you estimate a burn for lifting.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    MFP says how many calories you burn as well. It doesn't count calories either. All any of those devices do is detect movement, use a set of parameters to "count" steps based on programmed parameters, then plug that step number into a formula to estimate caloric burn. The marketing of activity trackers and HRMs is effective, but not necessarily factually accurate.

    -None of them are accurate for lifting. There are too many variables to account for.
    -Step based counters aren't accurate for tracking cycling ... different movement patterns. A GPS device can accurately track distance ... coupled with HR and cadence data that can produce a caloric estimate ... those estimates can vary considerably with my personal rides generating estimates with an over 700 calorie spread from the same data file.
    -A GPS is more accurate for determining distance run outside than a pedometer. Using MET information or the formula in Runner's World it is possible to estimate calories from running and walking just from distance traveled and known weight.

    There are reasons why my first questions are what do you do and what do you want to track versus blindly saying "I have a (insert device here) and love it". Some devices are good for tracking some activities ... none are one size fits all solutions. None of them count calories ... that takes a cart full of equipment.
  • tincanonastring
    tincanonastring Posts: 3,944 Member
    Options
    @strong_curves - Hit me up with a PM when you get a chance. Had a question for you based on a post I saw in another thread.
  • strong_curves
    strong_curves Posts: 2,229 Member
    Options
    tincanonastring wrote: »
    @strong_curves - Hit me up with a PM when you get a chance. Had a question for you based on a post I saw in another thread.

    Ok... tho I don't think my PM's are working :s

  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    MFP says how many calories you burn as well. It doesn't count calories either. All any of those devices do is detect movement, use a set of parameters to "count" steps based on programmed parameters, then plug that step number into a formula to estimate caloric burn. The marketing of activity trackers and HRMs is effective, but not necessarily factually accurate.

    -None of them are accurate for lifting. There are too many variables to account for.
    -Step based counters aren't accurate for tracking cycling ... different movement patterns. A GPS device can accurately track distance ... coupled with HR and cadence data that can produce a caloric estimate ... those estimates can vary considerably with my personal rides generating estimates with an over 700 calorie spread from the same data file.
    -A GPS is more accurate for determining distance run outside than a pedometer. Using MET information or the formula in Runner's World it is possible to estimate calories from running and walking just from distance traveled and known weight.

    There are reasons why my first questions are what do you do and what do you want to track versus blindly saying "I have a (insert device here) and love it". Some devices are good for tracking some activities ... none are one size fits all solutions. None of them count calories ... that takes a cart full of equipment.

    @brianpperkins Not to derail but if you have a gps app (mapmyride) that is linked to your activity tracker...would that alleviate this issue do you think?

    I ask as Jawbone and MapmyXXX (ride/walk/fitness) sync and my bike rides are automatically taken from MMF to my jawbone...
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    MFP says how many calories you burn as well. It doesn't count calories either. All any of those devices do is detect movement, use a set of parameters to "count" steps based on programmed parameters, then plug that step number into a formula to estimate caloric burn. The marketing of activity trackers and HRMs is effective, but not necessarily factually accurate.

    -None of them are accurate for lifting. There are too many variables to account for.
    -Step based counters aren't accurate for tracking cycling ... different movement patterns. A GPS device can accurately track distance ... coupled with HR and cadence data that can produce a caloric estimate ... those estimates can vary considerably with my personal rides generating estimates with an over 700 calorie spread from the same data file.
    -A GPS is more accurate for determining distance run outside than a pedometer. Using MET information or the formula in Runner's World it is possible to estimate calories from running and walking just from distance traveled and known weight.

    There are reasons why my first questions are what do you do and what do you want to track versus blindly saying "I have a (insert device here) and love it". Some devices are good for tracking some activities ... none are one size fits all solutions. None of them count calories ... that takes a cart full of equipment.

    @brianpperkins Not to derail but if you have a gps app (mapmyride) that is linked to your activity tracker...would that alleviate this issue do you think?

    I ask as Jawbone and MapmyXXX (ride/walk/fitness) sync and my bike rides are automatically taken from MMF to my jawbone...

    No, it wouldn't. The tracker still isn't what tracks the cycling in your example ... your phone is.
  • rushfive
    rushfive Posts: 603 Member
    Options
    I like my fitbit charge hr. But you wear it all day to get the best estimate for cal. burn.
    I have compared it to another one with strap, doing cardio (jogging) and both were close to same burn amount.
    As all have said, doesn't work good for weightlifting.
    It gives me at least a ideal of what I am burning but I realize it is not completely accurate-- counts steps when driving, doesn't count steps when pushing a shopping cart. But for just workouts in cardio it is good.
    It Can be fun when doing challenges with others too.
    Good Luck to you.
  • tincanonastring
    tincanonastring Posts: 3,944 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    strong_curves wrote: »
    tincanonastring wrote: »
    @strong_curves - Hit me up with a PM when you get a chance. Had a question for you based on a post I saw in another thread.

    Ok... tho I don't think my PM's are working :s

    Aw, that stinks. I tried going to your profile to send you a friend request, but it's telling me the account is deactivated. Clearly it's not as you're here posting. That's bizarre.
  • edwardetr
    edwardetr Posts: 140 Member
    Options
    My girlfriend uses the Polar pulse because it can be used with or without a heart rate monitor. She wears it all day. It's nice because it will track your movement without a heart rate monitor then if you are doing work that does not require a lot of lateral movement, like stationary bike, you can strap on the monitor and it will track more accurately.

    On a side note, I don't think the accuracy, as far as real calories measured, is all that important. Measure the calories you are taking in from food and the number this unit is spitting out for your activity and track your progress over some time. If it is not where you like it, adjust calories or the number this unit is spitting out, or both, up or down and track again. As long as more work gives a proportionally higher number, you should be good. I like the way Nike does it with activity measured in 'Fuel' points. You don't get the illusion of it being direct calories.

Categories