Fitbit Zip/One vs Fitbit Alta

amusedmonkey

For those who had the clip-on and upgraded to Alta, how does it generally compare in terms of calories for the same average daily activity? I'm asking because I'm considering the Alta for the call notifications function, but unsure how calories compare and in what direction I should expect the burn to change.

amusedmonkey

Bump

idioblast

I didn't pay too close attention to the burn, but I get fewer steps with the Alta/Blaze versus the zip/one (and I've used all of them). I'd say it was about 1,500-2,000 fewer and I aim for 15,000 daily. A lot of it was due to walking and holding my phone in my hand, not swinging it.

Right now, I wear a Blaze for the extra features (HR, notifications, sleep, etc) and a zip to get credit for all my steps.

GrinnyMae

I had the One and then switched to the Alta. I think Alta overestimates my steps slightly. Hand and arm movement do count as steps sometimes. But I don't rely too heavily on the calorie counts. I have looked at a lot of articles summarizing different studies and it seems basically all studies of fitness trackers have concluded that Fitbits are pretty accurate for step counting. For HR and calories they are not reliably accurate. So keeping that in mind, I use my Fitbit as a tool to help have a general idea if I'm meeting my step/fitness goals.

If you've been happy with the function of the clip-on Fitbit, I think you'll be happy switching to the Alta. One feature I do really like on the Alta is that it automatically senses when you're active and will automatically log your exercise for you.

amusedmonkey

Interesting how two people are getting the opposite results. I actually have the HR, but I found the calories a pain to finetune compared the the clip on ones because it grossly overestimates for me. I have a job that can be stressful sometimes so my heart rate can get high without activity, not to mention coffee, video games, action packed shows...etc, which made me switch back. If it has the same algorithm as the HR, I might try it with heart rate turned off and compare to the One.

GrinnyMae

Alta does not have the HR function. So, if that's something you want, you'll have to look at some of the others. Charge, blaze and I think the new Flex2 will all have the heart rate function.

PAV8888

I would suspect that all the Fitbits use the exact same algorithms based on what they detect with a slight tweak to the algorithm for the HR ones to take the HR into consideration.

Indeed if your HR varies for reasons not related to exercise or is relatively high like that of many people who first start an exercise/diet program, the numbers might be off.

How much off your Alta will be varies by model and particular device too (I've had three Charge HR's and none of them recorded the EXACT SAME number of steps).

I suspect in your case the amount "off" might be related to how much keyboarding or driving you do.

In your case the solution is much simpler. Just operate both for a short while with the new unit on a separate temporary free email account... and compare their results for the day.

amusedmonkey

The HR is relatively okay on steps, it overestimates a bit, but not as badly as it does calories. It gives nearly twice the amount of calories with the HR function on vs off. Thank you all. I do plan to compare, I just wanted to know what to expect. I usually play with stride length until the fitbit burns match my actual weight loss, so I was hoping to skip the initial comparison and jump right into stride tweaking.

Ready2Rock206

idioblast wrote: »

I didn't pay too close attention to the burn, but I get fewer steps with the Alta/Blaze versus the zip/one.

Same here. Alta cheats me out of tons of steps which I guess just makes me walk more so its all good.