Charge HR and running...

zdyb23456

I just got a Charge HR and I'm wondering how accurate it is while running.
I ran 3.5 miles on the treadmill this morning - took me 30 minutes.
It logged around 4,800 steps... does that seem right?
It seems kind of low.

It also only gave me 200 calories burned - now that seems very low to me. I know I am a smaller person, but not that small!

Any insight would be appreciated -thanks!

NancyN795

I'd recommend reading the FAQ found in the stickies for the group. It is long, but comprehensive and will answer many questions you don't know you have. Here's a link: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy/p1

Whether your run was accurate is hard to judge. I tend to take more steps than that for a 3.5 mile walk, but I'm short and that is walking, not running. (I can't run that kind of distance yet, but I'm working on it.) You should calibrate your Fitbit stride length, both for running and walking. You can do it on a treadmill and using relatively short distances, if need be. The Fitbit site and the FAQ I mentioned both have instructions on ways to do it. If you do it on a treadmill, be sure not to hold onto the rails as that will throw off the step count. My preferred method is to take a walk outdoors (on relatively level ground and at a moderate pace) and measure the distance using a program such as MapMyWalk and simultaneously count the steps by using exercise mode on my Fitbit. Then, I just divide the distance by number of steps to get stride length. Once I've done that, I sometimes check how close the distance is and if it is relatively far off then I just "tweak" my stride length by a fraction of an inch. (When I can run a decent distance I'll do the same for my running stride.)

When you say it only gave you 200 calories burned, is that what your Fitbit said you burned during that run or is that the Fitbit Calorie Adjustment that you got in MFP? Those are two different things. Read the FAQ.

zdyb23456

I did update the stride length for both walking and running after I bought it and set it up.
I am short too - 5 feet 0 inches.

The 200 calories burned was what fitbit said I burned during my run - I'm not even looking at MFP.

segacs

Hmmmm. 3.5 miles is just over 5 kilometers, right?

First of all, doing that in just over 30 minutes is awesome, so way to go!
Second of all, I tend to log somewhere around 1000 steps per 10 minutes when I'm walking, and a bit more than that (maybe 1200-1300) when running. I'm also around your height (5'1"). So, yeah, 4800 could be accurate. As could the 200 calorie burn.

But also, if your Fitbit is new, it might take a few days to calibrate for you.

Look at what it logged as distance: Was it close to what the treadmill says you ran?

zdyb23456

No the distance was way off - I think when I finished 3.5 miles, fitbit said I only went a little over 2 miles.

Maybe I need to recalculate my running stride. I calculated it once after I bought it, but maybe I need to cover a longer distance to get a more accurate stride length.

It is new - I got it on black friday

NancyN795

I guess I'd look at heart rate, calories burned and steps during the run and see if you can figure out if there is something wrong. In this case, both the steps and the calorie burn seems lower than expected. On a treadmill, holding on will definitely mess up your step count. In terms of the calorie burn, it may be that Fitbit just needs to "learn" you. The first day with a Fitbit is always messed up, it can take several days to learn your typical routine and even longer before it gets a good resting heart rate value.

Just to give you something to compare to:

I just went for a 2.65 mile walk (according to MapMyWalk), but my Fitbit thinks it was 3.06 miles. It's usually not that far off, but the road was snowy, so my steps were shorter than usual. It counted 6891 steps. My walking stride length is set to 2' 2.9". As you can tell if you multiply that out, my Fitbit thought I was taking slightly longer strides than average (it multiplies to 2.93 miles) when I was actually taking shorter strides. It tries to guess at stride length variations by detecting the intensity of the steps and I suspect the snow threw it off.

segacs

zdyb23456 wrote: »

No the distance was way off - I think when I finished 3.5 miles, fitbit said I only went a little over 2 miles.

Maybe I need to recalculate my running stride. I calculated it once after I bought it, but maybe I need to cover a longer distance to get a more accurate stride length.

It is new - I got it on black friday

If it's way, way off, try deleting it and letting Fitbit use the default stride length for a while. Run another set distance on the treadmill and see what it says. If it's pretty close, you can use that, or adjust from there.

I find the Fitbit algorithm, though not perfect, does a better job of estimating my stride length than I do, largely because it takes various kinds of walking and running into account at different paces and speeds.

And yes, I agree, snow and ice throws it off a LOT for me, too. There ought to be a "winter with terribly cleared sidewalks" activity mode.

zdyb23456

Good idea. I set the stride lengths back to zero. I'm going to run on the treadmill again tomorrow. I think I'll count and watch the steps as I run and see how it's counting - if it's truly accurate or not.

segacs

The steps are usually pretty close on these things. The distance may not be, depending on stride length. But you shouldn't see a major discrepancy in terms of steps. If you do, you can file a support ticket with Fitbit.

NancyN795

segacs wrote: »

And yes, I agree, snow and ice throws it off a LOT for me, too. There ought to be a "winter with terribly cleared sidewalks" activity mode.

I love it! I could definitely use that for the next few months. It was so wonderful to get outside for a walk in the sunshine and fresh (but cold) air yesterday after a few days of being cooped up inside, but my stride was definitely affected by the snow on the pavement.

segacs

NancyN795 wrote: »

I love it! I could definitely use that for the next few months. It was so wonderful to get outside for a walk in the sunshine and fresh (but cold) air yesterday after a few days of being cooped up inside, but my stride was definitely affected by the snow on the pavement.

Yeah, there are the itty-bitty little steps that you take when there's ice and snow on the ground. Then there's what I like to refer to as the "Montreal method" of getting around on those really, really icy days, which involves sort of skate-walking without ever lifting your feet off the ground.

Or, you could always just do what this guy did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyHDN8DgzRc

zdyb23456

So I set the stride lengths back to zero and ran on the treadmill again.

I did a 40 minute run and I watched the app count the steps as ran. It seems it's pretty accurate though the higher in speed I go the more off the steps are. For instance, running at 7.2 mph it misses about 20 steps per hundred steps. I notice that when I walk too. It seems like there is a sweet spot in walking and running speed for being dead on. Any variance from that speed and the accuracy suffers.

The mileage was off (by about a mile), but the calorie burn seems more accurate today - 380 for 42 minutes.

I think as I get used to the data, it'll interpret it for what it is. I used the Jawbone for a long time and I don't think it was super accurate, but you get used to seeing data for awhile and you gauge your output based on it. For instance, hitting 20K steps on the Jawbone meant a great deal of activity all day. I think it's been determined that the Jawbone under reports steps by about 10%.

Thanks for all your input and listening to me think out loud

NancyN795

segacs wrote: »

Or, you could always just do what this guy did:

Not around here (I couldn't understand the French, but I got the idea). I'm on the very edge of the mountains in Colorado and we get enough snow to have to deal with it occasionally but it doesn't stick around and the lakes don't generally freeze solid enough to walk or skate on safely.

NancyN795

zdyb23456 wrote: »

So I set the stride lengths back to zero and ran on the treadmill again.

I did a 40 minute run and I watched the app count the steps as ran. It seems it's pretty accurate though the higher in speed I go the more off the steps are. For instance, running at 7.2 mph it misses about 20 steps per hundred steps. I notice that when I walk too. It seems like there is a sweet spot in walking and running speed for being dead on. Any variance from that speed and the accuracy suffers.

The mileage was off (by about a mile), but the calorie burn seems more accurate today - 380 for 42 minutes.

I think as I get used to the data, it'll interpret it for what it is. I used the Jawbone for a long time and I don't think it was super accurate, but you get used to seeing data for awhile and you gauge your output based on it. For instance, hitting 20K steps on the Jawbone meant a great deal of activity all day. I think it's been determined that the Jawbone under reports steps by about 10%.

Thanks for all your input and listening to me think out loud

I don't worry about the step count being exactly correct. It misses some, and then registers some it shouldn't. I try to adjust my stride length so that the mileage is within about 10%, although that doesn't matter as much during exercise with the heart rate monitoring. From what I understand, it matters more to get it right for non-exercise activity because when your heart rate isn't up then the estimated calorie burn is affected by stride length. Of course, for non-HR models, then stride length matters for both exercise and non-exercise activity.

heybales

zdyb23456 wrote: »

So I set the stride lengths back to zero and ran on the treadmill again.

I did a 40 minute run and I watched the app count the steps as ran. It seems it's pretty accurate though the higher in speed I go the more off the steps are. For instance, running at 7.2 mph it misses about 20 steps per hundred steps. I notice that when I walk too. It seems like there is a sweet spot in walking and running speed for being dead on. Any variance from that speed and the accuracy suffers.

The mileage was off (by about a mile), but the calorie burn seems more accurate today - 380 for 42 minutes.

I think as I get used to the data, it'll interpret it for what it is. I used the Jawbone for a long time and I don't think it was super accurate, but you get used to seeing data for awhile and you gauge your output based on it. For instance, hitting 20K steps on the Jawbone meant a great deal of activity all day. I think it's been determined that the Jawbone under reports steps by about 10%.

Thanks for all your input and listening to me think out loud

So if you didn't create an activity record in Fitbit by having a device with button to do it live, do it manually now if you know the exact start time and duration.

There's your steps for that run. If that was typical average speed or type of workout, then stats good to use, even if a few steps were missed. Hopefully the treadmill is accurate. You might ask the gym if they ever calibrate them. If they appear confused - don't trust the treadmill.

Treadmill Distance ran miles x 5280 = feet ran.
Feet / steps seen = decimal feet per step. Say 2.89

Feet is 2 of course.

Inches is 0.89 x 12.

Walking though I'd recommend you pick a pace between your normal daily slow pace and exercise pace. Because really - do you want the 40 min from your day dead on accurate - or the other many hours more accurate?
So you may walk at 4 mph for workout, but 2 mph for office and grocery store, ect. So perhaps 2.5 or 3 is purposeful walk pace to be used.