Fitbit charge HR overestimates walking calories hugely

Pawsforme

Sued0nim wrote: »

I really, really don't like the Fitbit wearable HR monitors

I don't understand how anyone thinks their HR is relevant to calorie burn in anything outside the steady state cardio parameters that underlie the formula

I do appreciate there are other, more expensive, HR monitors which may prove more accurate in other states

Someone told me that actually while walking it reverts to the basic pedometer function to estimate calories (might be made up)

I have a basic Fitbit pedometer (a zip) which I am basically married to (don't tell the husband but seriously I feel more bereft without it than without him) ...and it has proved, over time, to be very accurate

I weigh 72kg (at 173cm) at goal
For 10000 steps I get about 350-500 calories over me at sedentary (1750)
For 15000 it's more like 6-800

With biofeedback over years this has proved to vaguely underestimate my actual burn by 1-200 so I have had to adjust my Fitbit settings to make me 30 years younger, and 5cm taller (come to think of it that might be why I'm so fond of it...well that and the extra calories present it bestows daily)

All I can say is that I've been wearing a Charge HR for over 13 months and at the same time tracking my calorie intake and weight closely. And the HR has been extremely accurate. I'd give it better than 95% accuracy.

The HR monitor had no special appeal to me. I just wanted a device to wear on my wrist (less chance of losing it) and at the time I was shopping the reviews seemed to indicate the Charge HR was the best choice for me. It wasn't much more than the Charge, so I figured . . . why not? And I have found the monitor rather helpful in keeping up with my thyroid symptoms, as a faster/slower resting heart rate can be one indication of what's going on with my levels.

rcktgirl05

Sued0nim wrote: »

Hockey isn't steady state, it is closer to HIIT

HR Monitors are inaccurate outside steady state

May as well use a METS chart

Field hockey 7.8 METS
General ice hockey 8 METS
Competitive ice hockey 10 METS

Times those by your weight in kg to give an estimate of calorie expenditure per hour

So for a Fitbit measured hockey game that shows roughly the same as the METS calc, I can assume that Fitbit is just as accurate as well. Both are just estimates. The convenience of not having to consult a chart or manually enter an activity in MFP comes into play for me. Fitbit takes care of everything for me automatically. It's ok if you don't like them, but stating it's inaccurate across the board isn't quite fair. Many users on here find Fitbit HR estimates to be quite accurate.

GottaBurnEmAll

Sued0nim wrote: »

I really, really don't like the Fitbit wearable HR monitors

I don't understand how anyone thinks their HR is relevant to calorie burn in anything outside the steady state cardio parameters that underlie the formula

I do appreciate there are other, more expensive, HR monitors which may prove more accurate in other states

Someone told me that actually while walking it reverts to the basic pedometer function to estimate calories (might be made up)

I have a basic Fitbit pedometer (a zip) which I am basically married to (don't tell the husband but seriously I feel more bereft without it than without him) ...and it has proved, over time, to be very accurate

I weigh 72kg (at 173cm) at goal
For 10000 steps I get about 350-500 calories over me at sedentary (1750)
For 15000 it's more like 6-800

With biofeedback over years this has proved to vaguely underestimate my actual burn by 1-200 so I have had to adjust my Fitbit settings to make me 30 years younger, and 5cm taller (come to think of it that might be why I'm so fond of it...well that and the extra calories present it bestows daily)

I am aware of how you feel about the Fitbit HR devices , but here's my take on my new Charge 2, having just changed over from a Flex.

You'd have to pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Bear in mind, I tend to only do steady state cardio and weight lifting, so I'm not going to be getting any weird readings out of it. I haven't lifting with it yet, but it does have a setting to record a lifting session which I presume doesn't give you inflated burns for HR increases during lifting.

Even though my Charge 2 is still getting to know me, Fitbit knows me and I'd say the readings are fairly accurate. I'm getting slightly less calories for walking and more for running than I did with my Flex. Overall, that would tie into my perceived effort understanding as well.

Regarding the OP, I do know that there's a post in the Fitbit users group that addresses the need for new users of HR devices to give Fitbit time to learn their resting HR. I also know that when I first used a Fitbit, I was advised to wait three weeks before coming to rely on it "knowing" me.

I think that sort of advice can be applied here.

Seffell

Update: turns out it wasn't fitbit, it was actually me. I do have problems with my heart it turns out, and that is why my heart rate was so high when I was just plain walking or even standing.

Oh well... $#@t happens. Now I can't even walk much so it doesn't really matter anymore.

Colorscheme

gebeziseva wrote: »

Update: turns out it wasn't fitbit, it was actually me. I do have problems with my heart it turns out, and that is why my heart rate was so high when I was just plain walking or even standing.

Oh well... $#@t happens. Now I can't even walk much so it doesn't really matter anymore.

Hey, glad you got answers. I have POTS and heart problems too [AVNRT/ventricular tachycardia], so I know how you feel. I gotta take meds the rest of my life and even then, I still end up in hospital sometimes.

Good luck to you.

Francl27

gebeziseva wrote: »

Update: turns out it wasn't fitbit, it was actually me. I do have problems with my heart it turns out, and that is why my heart rate was so high when I was just plain walking or even standing.

Oh well... $#@t happens. Now I can't even walk much so it doesn't really matter anymore.

It's a good point really, that's the main issue I think with HRMs... they don't seem to account for your resting heart rate. I'm not sure how heart rate directly relates to calorie burns during exercise though (as if, would someone with a lower heart rate burn as much for the same effort as someone with a higher one?), so maybe it's not a huge deal?

Seffell

Colorscheme wrote: »

gebeziseva wrote: »

Update: turns out it wasn't fitbit, it was actually me. I do have problems with my heart it turns out, and that is why my heart rate was so high when I was just plain walking or even standing.

Oh well... $#@t happens. Now I can't even walk much so it doesn't really matter anymore.

Hey, glad you got answers. I have POTS and heart problems too [AVNRT/ventricular tachycardia], so I know how you feel. I gotta take meds the rest of my life and even then, I still end up in hospital sometimes.

Good luck to you.

Thanks. It's POTS that I have as it turns out. Good luck to you too

Colorscheme

gebeziseva wrote: »

Colorscheme wrote: »

gebeziseva wrote: »

Update: turns out it wasn't fitbit, it was actually me. I do have problems with my heart it turns out, and that is why my heart rate was so high when I was just plain walking or even standing.

Oh well... $#@t happens. Now I can't even walk much so it doesn't really matter anymore.

Hey, glad you got answers. I have POTS and heart problems too [AVNRT/ventricular tachycardia], so I know how you feel. I gotta take meds the rest of my life and even then, I still end up in hospital sometimes.

Good luck to you.

Thanks. It's POTS that I have as it turns out. Good luck to you too

gebeziseva wrote: »

Colorscheme wrote: »

gebeziseva wrote: »

Update: turns out it wasn't fitbit, it was actually me. I do have problems with my heart it turns out, and that is why my heart rate was so high when I was just plain walking or even standing.

Oh well... $#@t happens. Now I can't even walk much so it doesn't really matter anymore.

Hey, glad you got answers. I have POTS and heart problems too [AVNRT/ventricular tachycardia], so I know how you feel. I gotta take meds the rest of my life and even then, I still end up in hospital sometimes.

Good luck to you.

Thanks. It's POTS that I have as it turns out. Good luck to you too

Welcome to the club, lol! I have hyper-POTS [it's the kind that causes too much adrenaline so my bp is often high instead of normal or low like a lot of POTSies]. If you have any questions or anything, feel free to PM me. I've had it for about ten years now.

snowflake930

Fit bit gives the total calories burned for the 24 hour period. When I wake up in the morning, it shows calories burned while I was sleeping.
Mine is currently @ 1658 burned. It is 12:20 pm here now. I spent 73 minutes on the elliptical at the gym this morning and the rest of the burn is from just being alive, with little additional activity.
I have had a fit bit for over 3-1/2 years and find it to be accurate for my needs as I never eat back all of my exercise calories, and it's accuracy is very acceptable for me.

fenderolp2

I manually tracked calories and activity with MFP for 3 years before getting a Fitbit HR, and I find the Fitbit overestimates calories by A LOT for walking. I think it's because it overestimates the heart rate and is kind of guessing based on the fact that it knows you are moving. I can do legit cardio circuits that have me huffing and puffing, yet the Fitbit will tell me my heart rate is higher from a casual 15 min walk.

It seems the calorie estimates and the heart rate monitor are good for other types of activities, like going to the gym, but for walking its way too high. On the days when i don't really walk much and just do gym stuff, I notice it's pretty accurate.

I use mine for the Resting HR, the sleep logs, and the steps.

PS - It's also bad if you went out drinking the night before because your HR will be elevated all day burning off the booze, so Fitbit thinks you are a workout warrior that day haha.