How do I know which is right
Options
dynamix1
Posts: 12 Member
I have been using my galaxy S5 Shealth app and now switched to pacer as it syncs with MFP. After doing some walking for 1hr 2min S health has recorded 6778 steps, 861 calories burned and 4.24 miles. Pacer is showing 5871 steps 404 calories burned and 2.7 miles. There seems to be a big difference. Which is showing the correct information? Thanks all.
0
Replies
-
I don't think there's anyway to know...they're probably both incorrect.0
-
I don't know, but I would definitely go with the lower calories!0
-
Likely neither.
Pick one and stick with it. For walking - figure you burn about 50-60 calories per mile and go with that for a few weeks. Assess your results vs. expectations at that time, and if they're not lining up, adjust as necessary.0 -
My Galaxy S6 health app I feel like always records REALLY high for steps. I was at the zoo last weekend and noticed as soon as I got there that my Fitbit had died on me so I used my phone to count my steps so I could log them later. When I got to my computer, turned out my Fitbit had had just enough juice left to keep counting my steps (just not my HR or show the display) so I didn't have to make any adjustments. BUT, my phone counted something like 11,000 steps while I was there while my Fitbit counted only like 8,000.0
-
unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?0
-
Based on the measuring devices I have (treadmill, FitBit and expensive bike pedal thing that also works as pedometer) they both seem high. But it does vary by size and stride.
All of my devices show about 4000 steps per 2 mi walk. I have tested them all by manually counting 100 of my steps then checking what the device registered so I think they are pretty accurate for steps. FitBit shows about 70-80 calories per mile, I think, but I have no idea whether that is accurate..0 -
I have been using my galaxy S5 Shealth app and now switched to pacer as it syncs with MFP. After doing some walking for 1hr 2min S health has recorded 6778 steps, 861 calories burned and 4.24 miles. Pacer is showing 5871 steps 404 calories burned and 2.7 miles. There seems to be a big difference. Which is showing the correct information? Thanks all.
Those burns both seem extremely high
How quickly were you walking and what's your weight?
Use the METs values and work out what it should be probably around 3 METs so it would be for an hour 3 X your weight in kg
Even at 200 lbs (90kg) that would be around 280 cals burned0 -
CassidyScaglione wrote: »unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?
Fitbits ask you to enter your stride length, that's how0 -
@rabbitjb That's better, but still odd, don't you have different stride lengths when out walking for fitness vs ambing around the house? I do. What about going uphill, or walking on icy ground, or along a steep slope? It just doesn't seem like an incredibly accurate way of keeping track.0
-
CassidyScaglione wrote: »unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?
Fitbits ask you to enter your stride length, that's how
Actually, both the Samsung phones and Fitbits have accelerometers, which measure the movement of the device in several directions (as in forwards/backwards/up/down/side to side) and, based on how it's programmed, determines when it believes you have taken a step. It's not based on distance at all. Fitbit asks for your stride length to fine tune the "miles traveled" measurement that it gives you in addition to the step count. I also have short legs, so while most people need about 2,000 steps per mile, I'm more like 2200-2250. But my steps would still counted accurately even if I didn't correct my stride.0 -
CassidyScaglione wrote: »unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?
Fitbits ask you to enter your stride length, that's how
Actually, both the Samsung phones and Fitbits have accelerometers, which measure the movement of the device in several directions (as in forwards/backwards/up/down/side to side) and, based on how it's programmed, determines when it believes you have taken a step. It's not based on distance at all. Fitbit asks for your stride length to fine tune the "miles traveled" measurement that it gives you in addition to the step count. I also have short legs, so while most people need about 2,000 steps per mile, I'm more like 2200-2250. But my steps would still counted accurately even if I didn't correct my stride.
Yeah, I can stand in place and pump my arms as if I'm walking and it will measure steps.
0 -
CassidyScaglione wrote: »@rabbitjb That's better, but still odd, don't you have different stride lengths when out walking for fitness vs ambing around the house? I do. What about going uphill, or walking on icy ground, or along a steep slope? It just doesn't seem like an incredibly accurate way of keeping track.
Not significantly ...it's an estimate ..all numbers in fitness and weight loss (including calories in) are estimatesCassidyScaglione wrote: »unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?
Fitbits ask you to enter your stride length, that's how
Actually, both the Samsung phones and Fitbits have accelerometers, which measure the movement of the device in several directions (as in forwards/backwards/up/down/side to side) and, based on how it's programmed, determines when it believes you have taken a step. It's not based on distance at all. Fitbit asks for your stride length to fine tune the "miles traveled" measurement that it gives you in addition to the step count. I also have short legs, so while most people need about 2,000 steps per mile, I'm more like 2200-2250. But my steps would still counted accurately even if I didn't correct my stride.
I don't dispute that but it's irrelevant to the question she asked which was how does it convert steps measured into distance travelled from person to person. The answer is stride length as I said. Measurement of steps with my Fitbit has proved accurate enough for me over time0 -
CassidyScaglione wrote: »@rabbitjb That's better, but still odd, don't you have different stride lengths when out walking for fitness vs ambing around the house? I do. What about going uphill, or walking on icy ground, or along a steep slope? It just doesn't seem like an incredibly accurate way of keeping track.
Not significantly ...it's an estimate ..all numbers in fitness and weight loss (including calories in) are estimatesCassidyScaglione wrote: »unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?
Fitbits ask you to enter your stride length, that's how
Actually, both the Samsung phones and Fitbits have accelerometers, which measure the movement of the device in several directions (as in forwards/backwards/up/down/side to side) and, based on how it's programmed, determines when it believes you have taken a step. It's not based on distance at all. Fitbit asks for your stride length to fine tune the "miles traveled" measurement that it gives you in addition to the step count. I also have short legs, so while most people need about 2,000 steps per mile, I'm more like 2200-2250. But my steps would still counted accurately even if I didn't correct my stride.
I don't dispute that but it's irrelevant to the question she asked which was how does it convert steps measured into distance travelled from person to person. The answer is stride length as I said. Measurement of steps with my Fitbit has proved accurate enough for me over time
No, she asked how "step counters that base steps on distance traveled supposed to work?" Taken in context with the rest of what she said, to me that means "how does a step counter that measures how far you walked and then converts it into steps actually do that accurately?" The answer to which is "they don't do it that way at all, because, no, that wouldn't be accurate." If she had asked how "step counters that base distance traveled on steps counted supposed to work?" then, yes, stride length, as you said.0 -
hm. alright. I was kind of wondering how they work. that makes sense. Seems like some combo of gps and heart rate would be better for calorie burn though.0
-
CassidyScaglione wrote: »hm. alright. I was kind of wondering how they work. that makes sense. Seems like some combo of gps and heart rate would be better for calorie burn though.
Step counters that also give you a calorie burn generally take into consideration the speed in which you took the steps and combine that with your stride length and number of steps you took in that time period to come up with your speed/intensity, and then combine that with your statistics (weight/age/etc) to come up with your estimated calorie burn for that period of time. Of course it's still just an estimate, but since you've provided the device with such specific information the estimate is at least as good as and probably better than anything you'd come up with using an online calculator or something.0 -
CassidyScaglione wrote: »@rabbitjb That's better, but still odd, don't you have different stride lengths when out walking for fitness vs ambing around the house? I do. What about going uphill, or walking on icy ground, or along a steep slope? It just doesn't seem like an incredibly accurate way of keeping track.
Not significantly ...it's an estimate ..all numbers in fitness and weight loss (including calories in) are estimatesCassidyScaglione wrote: »unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?
Fitbits ask you to enter your stride length, that's how
Actually, both the Samsung phones and Fitbits have accelerometers, which measure the movement of the device in several directions (as in forwards/backwards/up/down/side to side) and, based on how it's programmed, determines when it believes you have taken a step. It's not based on distance at all. Fitbit asks for your stride length to fine tune the "miles traveled" measurement that it gives you in addition to the step count. I also have short legs, so while most people need about 2,000 steps per mile, I'm more like 2200-2250. But my steps would still counted accurately even if I didn't correct my stride.
I don't dispute that but it's irrelevant to the question she asked which was how does it convert steps measured into distance travelled from person to person. The answer is stride length as I said. Measurement of steps with my Fitbit has proved accurate enough for me over time
No, she asked how "step counters that base steps on distance traveled supposed to work?" Taken in context with the rest of what she said, to me that means "how does a step counter that measures how far you walked and then converts it into steps actually do that accurately?" The answer to which is "they don't do it that way at all, because, no, that wouldn't be accurate."
I was answering this ...CassidyScaglione wrote: »unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?
0 -
CassidyScaglione wrote: »hm. alright. I was kind of wondering how they work. that makes sense. Seems like some combo of gps and heart rate would be better for calorie burn though.
HR does not provide accurate calorie burn for most walking, because it depends on intensity and steady state ...I believe the Fitbit HRMs use the acceleometer for walking and not the HR monitor ...HR would not be accurate calorie estimator for most walking unless speed /power walking0 -
CassidyScaglione wrote: »@rabbitjb That's better, but still odd, don't you have different stride lengths when out walking for fitness vs ambing around the house? I do. What about going uphill, or walking on icy ground, or along a steep slope? It just doesn't seem like an incredibly accurate way of keeping track.
Not significantly ...it's an estimate ..all numbers in fitness and weight loss (including calories in) are estimatesCassidyScaglione wrote: »unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?
Fitbits ask you to enter your stride length, that's how
Actually, both the Samsung phones and Fitbits have accelerometers, which measure the movement of the device in several directions (as in forwards/backwards/up/down/side to side) and, based on how it's programmed, determines when it believes you have taken a step. It's not based on distance at all. Fitbit asks for your stride length to fine tune the "miles traveled" measurement that it gives you in addition to the step count. I also have short legs, so while most people need about 2,000 steps per mile, I'm more like 2200-2250. But my steps would still counted accurately even if I didn't correct my stride.
I don't dispute that but it's irrelevant to the question she asked which was how does it convert steps measured into distance travelled from person to person. The answer is stride length as I said. Measurement of steps with my Fitbit has proved accurate enough for me over time
No, she asked how "step counters that base steps on distance traveled supposed to work?" Taken in context with the rest of what she said, to me that means "how does a step counter that measures how far you walked and then converts it into steps actually do that accurately?" The answer to which is "they don't do it that way at all, because, no, that wouldn't be accurate."
I was answering this ...CassidyScaglione wrote: »unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?
So was I.
Base steps on distance traveled = come up with the number of steps that you took based on the distance you traveled = not how a Fitbit or a phone with an accelerometer work. It's the other way around. If a device did work that way, then, yes, you could use stride length to back into that, technically.0 -
CassidyScaglione wrote: »@rabbitjb That's better, but still odd, don't you have different stride lengths when out walking for fitness vs ambing around the house? I do. What about going uphill, or walking on icy ground, or along a steep slope? It just doesn't seem like an incredibly accurate way of keeping track.
Not significantly ...it's an estimate ..all numbers in fitness and weight loss (including calories in) are estimatesCassidyScaglione wrote: »unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?
Fitbits ask you to enter your stride length, that's how
Actually, both the Samsung phones and Fitbits have accelerometers, which measure the movement of the device in several directions (as in forwards/backwards/up/down/side to side) and, based on how it's programmed, determines when it believes you have taken a step. It's not based on distance at all. Fitbit asks for your stride length to fine tune the "miles traveled" measurement that it gives you in addition to the step count. I also have short legs, so while most people need about 2,000 steps per mile, I'm more like 2200-2250. But my steps would still counted accurately even if I didn't correct my stride.
I don't dispute that but it's irrelevant to the question she asked which was how does it convert steps measured into distance travelled from person to person. The answer is stride length as I said. Measurement of steps with my Fitbit has proved accurate enough for me over time
No, she asked how "step counters that base steps on distance traveled supposed to work?" Taken in context with the rest of what she said, to me that means "how does a step counter that measures how far you walked and then converts it into steps actually do that accurately?" The answer to which is "they don't do it that way at all, because, no, that wouldn't be accurate."
I was answering this ...CassidyScaglione wrote: »unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?
So was I.
Base steps on distance traveled = come up with the number of steps that you took based on the distance you traveled = not how a Fitbit or a phone with an accelerometer work. If a device did work that way, then, yes, you could use stride length to back into that, technically.
I appreciate this is a semantic discussion (and I have nothing vested in this apart from killing time until it is time to go out to the cinema)
But my thought process is ...Fitbit counts strides based on the motion sensors, Fitbit multiplies strides X stride length to get distance travelled ... we are saying the same thing:)0 -
My S5 SHealth pedometer is always much higher than reality. One way to check is to go for a walk and count 100 steps, then see what the different apps counted. A 100 steps is only like 2-3 minutes of walking, so this is easy and definitive. The other thing to check is if you get steps when you drive, my S5 SHealth does count steps for bumps when driving. Also, I would always assume the calories are overestimates, even if the steps are correct.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions