Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Do HRMs on activity trackers really increase accuracy of CO estimates?

2»

Replies

  • The_EnginerdThe_Enginerd Posts: 3,913Member Member Posts: 3,913Member Member
    robertw486 wrote: »
    How do you overcome the efficiency conversion estimate between power and metabolic calories? That is certainly neither constant nor well-calculated.

    I think that would be the hardest one to try to determine. Short of lab gas exchange testing it would all be just a guess based on absolute VO2 vs power estimations. But I would think that if the HRM device were smart enough to learn from known absolute power measures, you could at least determine (as a possible example) that efficiency on the bike was higher or lower than efficiency running. Being that most studies seem to mostly agree on O2 use efficiency, that could be a baseline for the models.

    As an example, I've seen studies where the O2 requirement for running vs biking at a setpoint wattage, the running shows higher O2 demand. This exposes a "flaw" where net power vs gross power is somewhat skewed, and that even a power measure we can assume absolute is not exacting.

    I would think that part of any estimations would be a slippery slope either way, but there may be sufficient information short of the lab testing to go with averages per any given fitness level, age, etc.

    Do you remember what the difference was in conversion efficiency between the two types of exercise? It would make sense this isn't a constant, and probably more efficient on a bike, as some energy in running is spent just holding your weight that requires muscle force and calories but doesn't result in any work being done.

    edit: and in running, the vertical oscillations are a net zero amount of work being done, but also require muscle force and calories.
    edited March 2016
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    Who cares if it's 20 calories off once in a while? I wear my FitBit Charge HR daily and find it a big help in my weight loss.
    I eat my exercise calories (measured by FitBit) because I'm at net 1200 calories, and I am not gaining weight, actually losing it quite fast.

    It's a huge motivation to have a fitness tracker for many people, because you can see how well you did, and you can see a difference between workouts where you didn't push yourself, and workouts where you did.
    If you plot one hour of spinning into MFP, it will always give you the same calories. If you use FitBit, you will get more calories the harder you worked.

    So the technology might not be perfect, maybe it's 5 or 20 calories off. Why is that so important? Isn't it better that having a HR wrist band makes you motivated to push yourself?

    As I already said mine doesn't feel inaccurate at all.

    I can assure you it can be off by a lot more than 5 to 20 calories, particularly for a day long measurement.
    I recall one of the first days I had a Fibit Charge HR, I think it doing its adjusting algorithms severly underestimated my capacity based on my weight being 220. It thought I burned through 6,375 calories based on ~6,000 steps and a few hours of low effort (watching videos) on a stationary bike. I'm thinking that day was off by more than 20 calories.
  • dubirddubird Posts: 1,854Member Member Posts: 1,854Member Member
    I know my Fitbit isn't going to be 100% accurate. I don't know of any calorie tracker available is. And for some people, I can see that accuracy is a big issue, espically for athletes. But for me, and I think a lot of people, I don't need perfect accuracy, I just need something to give me an idea where I am for the day. It's useful for me to see that oh, yeah, I walked more today and here's about how much over I am from my normal calorie burn for the day. I also used my Fitbit data for the past year to determine my maintenance calories, and so far, I'm doing pretty good on that number.

    Granted, I've had to make adjustments both at Fitbit and MFP to get consistent results. I've accepted that there's a margin of error and there was a period of figuring out what I was doing! But at this point in time, while it may not be fully accurate, it's consistent in tracking the CO, as well as being helpful for see where I am for the day. I think that's just as important as 100% accuracy.
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    Who cares if it's 20 calories off once in a while? I wear my FitBit Charge HR daily and find it a big help in my weight loss.
    I eat my exercise calories (measured by FitBit) because I'm at net 1200 calories, and I am not gaining weight, actually losing it quite fast.

    It's a huge motivation to have a fitness tracker for many people, because you can see how well you did, and you can see a difference between workouts where you didn't push yourself, and workouts where you did.
    If you plot one hour of spinning into MFP, it will always give you the same calories. If you use FitBit, you will get more calories the harder you worked.

    So the technology might not be perfect, maybe it's 5 or 20 calories off. Why is that so important? Isn't it better that having a HR wrist band makes you motivated to push yourself?

    As I already said mine doesn't feel inaccurate at all.

    I can assure you it can be off by a lot more than 5 to 20 calories, particularly for a day long measurement.
    I recall one of the first days I had a Fibit Charge HR, I think it doing its adjusting algorithms severly underestimated my capacity based on my weight being 220. It thought I burned through 6,375 calories based on ~6,000 steps and a few hours of low effort (watching videos) on a stationary bike. I'm thinking that day was off by more than 20 calories.

    Nah, dude. You're a beast.
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    Who cares if it's 20 calories off once in a while? I wear my FitBit Charge HR daily and find it a big help in my weight loss.
    I eat my exercise calories (measured by FitBit) because I'm at net 1200 calories, and I am not gaining weight, actually losing it quite fast.

    It's a huge motivation to have a fitness tracker for many people, because you can see how well you did, and you can see a difference between workouts where you didn't push yourself, and workouts where you did.
    If you plot one hour of spinning into MFP, it will always give you the same calories. If you use FitBit, you will get more calories the harder you worked.

    So the technology might not be perfect, maybe it's 5 or 20 calories off. Why is that so important? Isn't it better that having a HR wrist band makes you motivated to push yourself?

    As I already said mine doesn't feel inaccurate at all.
    My question is more related to whether or not HRMs offer a greater benefit than trackers without HRMs. In @senecarr 's example it seems that they HRM might be a possible cause of the anomaly he experienced. However, it makes sense that a lot of those types of issues could be corrected by improved code development and maybe that has already been accomplished in some models.

    I also have a minor secondary concern in that this information is recorded all day, whenever wearing the device and reported to the company's data stores. It becomes a product of the company and a sort of surveillance for which we, the users, volunteer. It seems trivial, I know, but if the one's federal government wanted to strap a heart monitor on you, I think it would be met with a lot of resistance.

    Wait, did I just hijack my own thread?
  • heybalesheybales Posts: 16,964Member Member Posts: 16,964Member Member
    I think that's why it's nice to have the options.

    If training and performance of some sort for cardio is of interest, then you'll probably want a true HRM with better options to creating HR zones and such, and that HRM likely will have better options to get better calorie burn as side benefit.

    Then you get a simple activity tracker that estimates rest of the day based on steps, distance, pace and weight - and that's pretty good accuracy for that part.

    But if exercise is about body improvements and perhaps half the reason is to burn more calories, then best accuracy not needed, get a combo unit and manually log any workouts that really need it like lifting, if done enough.

    And realize up front that if you have a medical condition that throws your HR off from average normal then that's not going to be useful either for combo unit, unless the device really can start adjusting for your body.

    I need to find those few that say their resting HR is already at 80, and see if Fitbit starts doing per sec logging and HR-based calorie burn when they do barely much moving. Or did it get smarter.
  • stealthqstealthq Posts: 4,307Member Member Posts: 4,307Member Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Who cares if it's 20 calories off once in a while? I wear my FitBit Charge HR daily and find it a big help in my weight loss.
    I eat my exercise calories (measured by FitBit) because I'm at net 1200 calories, and I am not gaining weight, actually losing it quite fast.

    It's a huge motivation to have a fitness tracker for many people, because you can see how well you did, and you can see a difference between workouts where you didn't push yourself, and workouts where you did.
    If you plot one hour of spinning into MFP, it will always give you the same calories. If you use FitBit, you will get more calories the harder you worked.

    So the technology might not be perfect, maybe it's 5 or 20 calories off. Why is that so important? Isn't it better that having a HR wrist band makes you motivated to push yourself?

    As I already said mine doesn't feel inaccurate at all.
    My question is more related to whether or not HRMs offer a greater benefit than trackers without HRMs. In @senecarr 's example it seems that they HRM might be a possible cause of the anomaly he experienced. However, it makes sense that a lot of those types of issues could be corrected by improved code development and maybe that has already been accomplished in some models.

    I also have a minor secondary concern in that this information is recorded all day, whenever wearing the device and reported to the company's data stores. It becomes a product of the company and a sort of surveillance for which we, the users, volunteer. It seems trivial, I know, but if the one's federal government wanted to strap a heart monitor on you, I think it would be met with a lot of resistance.

    Wait, did I just hijack my own thread?

    I think you did, but it's worth it IMO. The concern is more than minor to me given the recent FBI vs Apple case.

    I'm still using my HRM linked to my iPhone but could see a time where I won't be comfortable with that anymore.
    edited March 2016
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,424Member Member Posts: 24,424Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Who cares if it's 20 calories off once in a while? I wear my FitBit Charge HR daily and find it a big help in my weight loss.
    I eat my exercise calories (measured by FitBit) because I'm at net 1200 calories, and I am not gaining weight, actually losing it quite fast.

    It's a huge motivation to have a fitness tracker for many people, because you can see how well you did, and you can see a difference between workouts where you didn't push yourself, and workouts where you did.
    If you plot one hour of spinning into MFP, it will always give you the same calories. If you use FitBit, you will get more calories the harder you worked.

    So the technology might not be perfect, maybe it's 5 or 20 calories off. Why is that so important? Isn't it better that having a HR wrist band makes you motivated to push yourself?

    As I already said mine doesn't feel inaccurate at all.
    My question is more related to whether or not HRMs offer a greater benefit than trackers without HRMs. In @senecarr 's example it seems that they HRM might be a possible cause of the anomaly he experienced. However, it makes sense that a lot of those types of issues could be corrected by improved code development and maybe that has already been accomplished in some models.

    I also have a minor secondary concern in that this information is recorded all day, whenever wearing the device and reported to the company's data stores. It becomes a product of the company and a sort of surveillance for which we, the users, volunteer. It seems trivial, I know, but if the one's federal government wanted to strap a heart monitor on you, I think it would be met with a lot of resistance.

    Wait, did I just hijack my own thread?

    I think you did, but it's worth it IMO. The concern is more than minor to me given the recent FBI vs Apple case.

    Why, tho?
    Are you concerned that the state saw you had a HR increase on Tuesday at 9:30?

    And if so, why are you tracking the food you eat here? Do you think your HR somehow gives the state more info that what (and sometimes where) you eat? How about your phone pinging those cell towers all the time you update your data?

    HR data shouldn't be of particular concern by its lonesome.
    edited March 2016
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Who cares if it's 20 calories off once in a while? I wear my FitBit Charge HR daily and find it a big help in my weight loss.
    I eat my exercise calories (measured by FitBit) because I'm at net 1200 calories, and I am not gaining weight, actually losing it quite fast.

    It's a huge motivation to have a fitness tracker for many people, because you can see how well you did, and you can see a difference between workouts where you didn't push yourself, and workouts where you did.
    If you plot one hour of spinning into MFP, it will always give you the same calories. If you use FitBit, you will get more calories the harder you worked.

    So the technology might not be perfect, maybe it's 5 or 20 calories off. Why is that so important? Isn't it better that having a HR wrist band makes you motivated to push yourself?

    As I already said mine doesn't feel inaccurate at all.
    My question is more related to whether or not HRMs offer a greater benefit than trackers without HRMs. In @senecarr 's example it seems that they HRM might be a possible cause of the anomaly he experienced. However, it makes sense that a lot of those types of issues could be corrected by improved code development and maybe that has already been accomplished in some models.

    I also have a minor secondary concern in that this information is recorded all day, whenever wearing the device and reported to the company's data stores. It becomes a product of the company and a sort of surveillance for which we, the users, volunteer. It seems trivial, I know, but if the one's federal government wanted to strap a heart monitor on you, I think it would be met with a lot of resistance.

    Wait, did I just hijack my own thread?

    I think you did, but it's worth it IMO. The concern is more than minor to me given the recent FBI vs Apple case.

    Why, tho?
    Are you concerned that the state saw you had a HR increase on Tuesday at 9:30?

    And if so, why are you tracking the food you eat here? Do you think your HR somehow gives the state more info that what (and sometimes where) you eat? How about your phone pinging those cell towers all the time you update your data?

    HR data shouldn't be of particular concern by its lonesome.

    All of those things are also valid. It's part of the data mining age. From my standpoint, I think in general, people tend to overlook the information we give private companies like mfp/under armor and fitbit when we would be very unlikely to do so for other public organizations.

    HR data could be an indicator for many things.
    edited March 2016
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Who cares if it's 20 calories off once in a while? I wear my FitBit Charge HR daily and find it a big help in my weight loss.
    I eat my exercise calories (measured by FitBit) because I'm at net 1200 calories, and I am not gaining weight, actually losing it quite fast.

    It's a huge motivation to have a fitness tracker for many people, because you can see how well you did, and you can see a difference between workouts where you didn't push yourself, and workouts where you did.
    If you plot one hour of spinning into MFP, it will always give you the same calories. If you use FitBit, you will get more calories the harder you worked.

    So the technology might not be perfect, maybe it's 5 or 20 calories off. Why is that so important? Isn't it better that having a HR wrist band makes you motivated to push yourself?

    As I already said mine doesn't feel inaccurate at all.
    My question is more related to whether or not HRMs offer a greater benefit than trackers without HRMs. In @senecarr 's example it seems that they HRM might be a possible cause of the anomaly he experienced. However, it makes sense that a lot of those types of issues could be corrected by improved code development and maybe that has already been accomplished in some models.

    I also have a minor secondary concern in that this information is recorded all day, whenever wearing the device and reported to the company's data stores. It becomes a product of the company and a sort of surveillance for which we, the users, volunteer. It seems trivial, I know, but if the one's federal government wanted to strap a heart monitor on you, I think it would be met with a lot of resistance.

    Wait, did I just hijack my own thread?

    I think you did, but it's worth it IMO. The concern is more than minor to me given the recent FBI vs Apple case.

    Why, tho?
    Are you concerned that the state saw you had a HR increase on Tuesday at 9:30?

    And if so, why are you tracking the food you eat here? Do you think your HR somehow gives the state more info that what (and sometimes where) you eat? How about your phone pinging those cell towers all the time you update your data?

    HR data shouldn't be of particular concern by its lonesome.

    I don't worry about, but then I'm a psychopath so my heart rate doesn't even go above 60 until I have to drag the body somewhere. o:)
  • stealthqstealthq Posts: 4,307Member Member Posts: 4,307Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Who cares if it's 20 calories off once in a while? I wear my FitBit Charge HR daily and find it a big help in my weight loss.
    I eat my exercise calories (measured by FitBit) because I'm at net 1200 calories, and I am not gaining weight, actually losing it quite fast.

    It's a huge motivation to have a fitness tracker for many people, because you can see how well you did, and you can see a difference between workouts where you didn't push yourself, and workouts where you did.
    If you plot one hour of spinning into MFP, it will always give you the same calories. If you use FitBit, you will get more calories the harder you worked.

    So the technology might not be perfect, maybe it's 5 or 20 calories off. Why is that so important? Isn't it better that having a HR wrist band makes you motivated to push yourself?

    As I already said mine doesn't feel inaccurate at all.
    My question is more related to whether or not HRMs offer a greater benefit than trackers without HRMs. In @senecarr 's example it seems that they HRM might be a possible cause of the anomaly he experienced. However, it makes sense that a lot of those types of issues could be corrected by improved code development and maybe that has already been accomplished in some models.

    I also have a minor secondary concern in that this information is recorded all day, whenever wearing the device and reported to the company's data stores. It becomes a product of the company and a sort of surveillance for which we, the users, volunteer. It seems trivial, I know, but if the one's federal government wanted to strap a heart monitor on you, I think it would be met with a lot of resistance.

    Wait, did I just hijack my own thread?

    I think you did, but it's worth it IMO. The concern is more than minor to me given the recent FBI vs Apple case.

    Why, tho?
    Are you concerned that the state saw you had a HR increase on Tuesday at 9:30?

    And if so, why are you tracking the food you eat here? Do you think your HR somehow gives the state more info that what (and sometimes where) you eat? How about your phone pinging those cell towers all the time you update your data?

    HR data shouldn't be of particular concern by its lonesome.

    What and where I eat wouldn't tell anyone when I was sleeping. Or whether I was other than calm at a particular moment. What and where I eat would not catch me in a lie since it's pretty common for me to use entries that are only approximates of what I actually did eat and only occasionally are from the place I actually ate and even more rarely are made when I actually ate. Harder to state that I was sleeping when the HRM records a steady HR of 100+, or that I was not sleeping with a HR of 40, or that I was perfectly calm when my HR suddenly spikes.

    None of which really applies to me right now because I'm not wearing my HRM 24/7, but there are people who do and I could see the value of doing so in the future.

    The issue is that if the FBI gain access to one phone, precedent is set - and you'll note the request does not limit the data they will have access to on the phone. So they would have all of it. Precedent makes it potentially easier for the FBI and other government agencies to gain access to other phones. Not good but not yet enough to make me stop using my phone to record data.

    However, we've already made the first steps toward a single payer, government run health insurance system. Move further in that direction, and suddenly the government has a good reason to want to access Joe Blow's phone for all that lovely health information it's starting to store.

    But, as I said, I currently do use my HRM and record to my phone. Because we're not there yet and may never be. It's something to keep a weather eye on for now. And if perchance we do get close to that scenario, it wouldn't be 'oh, I'm going to stop using my HRM with my phone', it would be 'I'm not going to have a cell phone or record health data to anything but my own closed system'.

    ETA: That should read 'I'm not going to have a cell phone for anything other than calls or record health data to anything but my own closed system'.
    edited March 2016
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,424Member Member Posts: 24,424Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Who cares if it's 20 calories off once in a while? I wear my FitBit Charge HR daily and find it a big help in my weight loss.
    I eat my exercise calories (measured by FitBit) because I'm at net 1200 calories, and I am not gaining weight, actually losing it quite fast.

    It's a huge motivation to have a fitness tracker for many people, because you can see how well you did, and you can see a difference between workouts where you didn't push yourself, and workouts where you did.
    If you plot one hour of spinning into MFP, it will always give you the same calories. If you use FitBit, you will get more calories the harder you worked.

    So the technology might not be perfect, maybe it's 5 or 20 calories off. Why is that so important? Isn't it better that having a HR wrist band makes you motivated to push yourself?

    As I already said mine doesn't feel inaccurate at all.
    My question is more related to whether or not HRMs offer a greater benefit than trackers without HRMs. In @senecarr 's example it seems that they HRM might be a possible cause of the anomaly he experienced. However, it makes sense that a lot of those types of issues could be corrected by improved code development and maybe that has already been accomplished in some models.

    I also have a minor secondary concern in that this information is recorded all day, whenever wearing the device and reported to the company's data stores. It becomes a product of the company and a sort of surveillance for which we, the users, volunteer. It seems trivial, I know, but if the one's federal government wanted to strap a heart monitor on you, I think it would be met with a lot of resistance.

    Wait, did I just hijack my own thread?

    I think you did, but it's worth it IMO. The concern is more than minor to me given the recent FBI vs Apple case.

    Why, tho?
    Are you concerned that the state saw you had a HR increase on Tuesday at 9:30?

    And if so, why are you tracking the food you eat here? Do you think your HR somehow gives the state more info that what (and sometimes where) you eat? How about your phone pinging those cell towers all the time you update your data?

    HR data shouldn't be of particular concern by its lonesome.

    What and where I eat wouldn't tell anyone when I was sleeping. Or whether I was other than calm at a particular moment. What and where I eat would not catch me in a lie since it's pretty common for me to use entries that are only approximates of what I actually did eat and only occasionally are from the place I actually ate and even more rarely are made when I actually ate. Harder to state that I was sleeping when the HRM records a steady HR of 100+, or that I was not sleeping with a HR of 40, or that I was perfectly calm when my HR suddenly spikes.

    None of which really applies to me right now because I'm not wearing my HRM 24/7, but there are people who do and I could see the value of doing so in the future.

    The issue is that if the FBI gain access to one phone, precedent is set - and you'll note the request does not limit the data they will have access to on the phone. So they would have all of it. Precedent makes it potentially easier for the FBI and other government agencies to gain access to other phones. Not good but not yet enough to make me stop using my phone to record data.

    However, we've already made the first steps toward a single payer, government run health insurance system. Move further in that direction, and suddenly the government has a good reason to want to access Joe Blow's phone for all that lovely health information it's starting to store.

    But, as I said, I currently do use my HRM and record to my phone. Because we're not there yet and may never be. It's something to keep a weather eye on for now. And if perchance we do get close to that scenario, it wouldn't be 'oh, I'm going to stop using my HRM with my phone', it would be 'I'm not going to have a cell phone or record health data to anything but my own closed system'.

    ETA: That should read 'I'm not going to have a cell phone for anything other than calls or record health data to anything but my own closed system'.

    First off, the FBI has been using phone data for years (even apple has given them data in the past, the current issue was about forcing apple to develop software to break there latest encryption) - second, HR data has never been used in a coup of law. Nor would it be reasonably admissible (both in the cadre of self-inculpation limitations and a causal state between an observation and a mental state) - a raised HR isn't directly related to being excited - sex, pooping or exercise will raise your HR.

    Europe has (we can talk about the differences ...) pretty much a single payer system or variants thereof per country and does not collect/nor is interested in HR data per patient - that is and remains with the very tight set of laws governing restricted access. The US does have problems with HIPAA and does need to tighten access to medical data - (insurers certainly should not get it to validate medical decisions made between doctors and physicians).

    I still fail to see the need for concern in the current environment for HR data. Maybe someday in a world of unlimited data storage where HR data transmission to mayors becomes obligatory. But I'm not seeing that, I think it is a vast reach.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Who cares if it's 20 calories off once in a while? I wear my FitBit Charge HR daily and find it a big help in my weight loss.
    I eat my exercise calories (measured by FitBit) because I'm at net 1200 calories, and I am not gaining weight, actually losing it quite fast.

    It's a huge motivation to have a fitness tracker for many people, because you can see how well you did, and you can see a difference between workouts where you didn't push yourself, and workouts where you did.
    If you plot one hour of spinning into MFP, it will always give you the same calories. If you use FitBit, you will get more calories the harder you worked.

    So the technology might not be perfect, maybe it's 5 or 20 calories off. Why is that so important? Isn't it better that having a HR wrist band makes you motivated to push yourself?

    As I already said mine doesn't feel inaccurate at all.
    My question is more related to whether or not HRMs offer a greater benefit than trackers without HRMs. In @senecarr 's example it seems that they HRM might be a possible cause of the anomaly he experienced. However, it makes sense that a lot of those types of issues could be corrected by improved code development and maybe that has already been accomplished in some models.

    I also have a minor secondary concern in that this information is recorded all day, whenever wearing the device and reported to the company's data stores. It becomes a product of the company and a sort of surveillance for which we, the users, volunteer. It seems trivial, I know, but if the one's federal government wanted to strap a heart monitor on you, I think it would be met with a lot of resistance.

    Wait, did I just hijack my own thread?

    I think you did, but it's worth it IMO. The concern is more than minor to me given the recent FBI vs Apple case.

    Why, tho?
    Are you concerned that the state saw you had a HR increase on Tuesday at 9:30?

    And if so, why are you tracking the food you eat here? Do you think your HR somehow gives the state more info that what (and sometimes where) you eat? How about your phone pinging those cell towers all the time you update your data?

    HR data shouldn't be of particular concern by its lonesome.

    What and where I eat wouldn't tell anyone when I was sleeping. Or whether I was other than calm at a particular moment. What and where I eat would not catch me in a lie since it's pretty common for me to use entries that are only approximates of what I actually did eat and only occasionally are from the place I actually ate and even more rarely are made when I actually ate. Harder to state that I was sleeping when the HRM records a steady HR of 100+, or that I was not sleeping with a HR of 40, or that I was perfectly calm when my HR suddenly spikes.

    None of which really applies to me right now because I'm not wearing my HRM 24/7, but there are people who do and I could see the value of doing so in the future.

    The issue is that if the FBI gain access to one phone, precedent is set - and you'll note the request does not limit the data they will have access to on the phone. So they would have all of it. Precedent makes it potentially easier for the FBI and other government agencies to gain access to other phones. Not good but not yet enough to make me stop using my phone to record data.

    However, we've already made the first steps toward a single payer, government run health insurance system. Move further in that direction, and suddenly the government has a good reason to want to access Joe Blow's phone for all that lovely health information it's starting to store.

    But, as I said, I currently do use my HRM and record to my phone. Because we're not there yet and may never be. It's something to keep a weather eye on for now. And if perchance we do get close to that scenario, it wouldn't be 'oh, I'm going to stop using my HRM with my phone', it would be 'I'm not going to have a cell phone or record health data to anything but my own closed system'.

    ETA: That should read 'I'm not going to have a cell phone for anything other than calls or record health data to anything but my own closed system'.

    First off, the FBI has been using phone data for years (even apple has given them data in the past, the current issue was about forcing apple to develop software to break there latest encryption) - second, HR data has never been used in a coup of law. Nor would it be reasonably admissible (both in the cadre of self-inculpation limitations and a causal state between an observation and a mental state) - a raised HR isn't directly related to being excited - sex, pooping or exercise will raise your HR.

    Europe has (we can talk about the differences ...) pretty much a single payer system or variants thereof per country and does not collect/nor is interested in HR data per patient - that is and remains with the very tight set of laws governing restricted access. The US does have problems with HIPAA and does need to tighten access to medical data - (insurers certainly should not get it to validate medical decisions made between doctors and physicians).

    I still fail to see the need for concern in the current environment for HR data. Maybe someday in a world of unlimited data storage where HR data transmission to mayors becomes obligatory. But I'm not seeing that, I think it is a vast reach.

    I'd actually say that while the spirit of the law and author's intent would be that HR data would be self-incrimination, I don't think modern courts would find it so, as modern courts seem fairly unanimous that your own bodily fluids being taken are not self-incrimination. Though maybe I really just want to see the court case that has "I know what the HR reading says your honor, but I swear I was in a bathroom at the time. Look, my fiber for the 3 days prior was at least 60 grams a day!"
  • Newfor2016Newfor2016 Posts: 1Member Member Posts: 1Member Member
    Who cares if it's 20 calories off once in a while? I wear my FitBit Charge HR daily and find it a big help in my weight loss.
    I eat my exercise calories (measured by FitBit) because I'm at net 1200 calories, and I am not gaining weight, actually losing it quite fast.

    It's a huge motivation to have a fitness tracker for many people, because you can see how well you did, and you can see a difference between workouts where you didn't push yourself, and workouts where you did.
    If you plot one hour of spinning into MFP, it will always give you the same calories. If you use FitBit, you will get more calories the harder you worked.

    So the technology might not be perfect, maybe it's 5 or 20 calories off. Why is that so important? Isn't it better that having a HR wrist band makes you motivated to push yourself?

    As I already said mine doesn't feel inaccurate at all.


    How are you arriving at 5 or 20 calories off? How does a device "feel" inaccurate?
  • robertw486robertw486 Posts: 1,993Member, Greeter, Premium Member Posts: 1,993Member, Greeter, Premium Member
    @robertw486 My elliptical came with a non coded Polar chest HRM that syncs with it. I dont think I can sync a different device with my elliptical unless its non coded. Technically I could use the chest strap with another machine lets say at the gym, but because it is non coded I will get interference from the other machines. Must be manufacturer programmed on a 2Ghz frequency which I think are the majority of electronics. Hence the delayed syncing I would imagine.

    Interesting. My elliptical pairs with my chest strap, which I'm fairly certain is an older Polar model with Trek branding on it. But my (older) Precor machine pairs very quickly. Is it possible you just don't have good contact or something delaying your chest strap pairing?

    Who cares if it's 20 calories off once in a while? I wear my FitBit Charge HR daily and find it a big help in my weight loss.
    I eat my exercise calories (measured by FitBit) because I'm at net 1200 calories, and I am not gaining weight, actually losing it quite fast.

    It's a huge motivation to have a fitness tracker for many people, because you can see how well you did, and you can see a difference between workouts where you didn't push yourself, and workouts where you did.
    If you plot one hour of spinning into MFP, it will always give you the same calories. If you use FitBit, you will get more calories the harder you worked.

    So the technology might not be perfect, maybe it's 5 or 20 calories off. Why is that so important? Isn't it better that having a HR wrist band makes you motivated to push yourself?

    As I already said mine doesn't feel inaccurate at all.

    For me, calorie burn is a greater concern due to my inconsistency and level of training. I suspect even my elliptical and more precise devices have some error, but the greater the error the more it can impact my goals. When I have time and motivation it's not uncommon for me to burn 20-30,000 exercise calories in a month. Even a small percentage of that adds up to less weight control and/or improper refueling.

    robertw486 wrote: »
    How do you overcome the efficiency conversion estimate between power and metabolic calories? That is certainly neither constant nor well-calculated.

    I think that would be the hardest one to try to determine. Short of lab gas exchange testing it would all be just a guess based on absolute VO2 vs power estimations. But I would think that if the HRM device were smart enough to learn from known absolute power measures, you could at least determine (as a possible example) that efficiency on the bike was higher or lower than efficiency running. Being that most studies seem to mostly agree on O2 use efficiency, that could be a baseline for the models.

    As an example, I've seen studies where the O2 requirement for running vs biking at a setpoint wattage, the running shows higher O2 demand. This exposes a "flaw" where net power vs gross power is somewhat skewed, and that even a power measure we can assume absolute is not exacting.

    I would think that part of any estimations would be a slippery slope either way, but there may be sufficient information short of the lab testing to go with averages per any given fitness level, age, etc.

    Do you remember what the difference was in conversion efficiency between the two types of exercise? It would make sense this isn't a constant, and probably more efficient on a bike, as some energy in running is spent just holding your weight that requires muscle force and calories but doesn't result in any work being done.

    edit: and in running, the vertical oscillations are a net zero amount of work being done, but also require muscle force and calories.

    I think I've got a bookmark or two I'll try to dig up. Most deal with O2 consumption assumed vs actual, and may be just showing error in calculation on standard methods.


Sign In or Register to comment.