Does Fitbit steps count?
Options
Replies
-
Christine_72 wrote: »I have MFP set to sedentary, and then let it add on the fitbit steps. I just checked what it added on for exercise for today, I have 13k steps and it has added on 549 calories.
I eat back very few of the exercise calories because it starts me off at 1200 for the day, and my basic level without exercise is only 1440, with an aim to loose 1- 2 lbs a week, so if I ate them all back it would still be a rather small deficit.
@tess5036 If your exercise calories are accurate... You can eat them ALL back and still end up at a NET of 1200 calories. Eating back your exercise calories is not eating extra per se, it's putting you back at 1200 calories.
For example- Your goal is 1200 calories, you exercise and burn 500 calories which now puts you at 700 net calories for the day. Eating back those 500 cals will put you back at 1200 calories at the end of the day.
Thank you for your reply. However, this is my logic.....MFP starts me off at 1200 calories for the day as a minimum. As my BMR is only 1440, that would only give me a deficit of 220 a day, which is below even a 1lb a week loss. I would like a larger deficit than this, as I still have a lot to loose (started 250 ish, now 192). I am to keep the deficit at about 750 - 1, 000. I do this by only eating a small proportion of my exercise back. If I ate it all back, then the deficit would remain at 240 calories per day.
I do value your input, do if you have further thoughts I would be happy to hear them and them on board.
@tess5036 As has already been mentioned, you deduct your deficit from your TDEE not BMR. My BMR is around 1450, but i eat a minimum of 1600 calories, plus most of my exercise calories to lose weight. I'm 5'8', 150lbs.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I have MFP set to sedentary, and then let it add on the fitbit steps. I just checked what it added on for exercise for today, I have 13k steps and it has added on 549 calories.
I eat back very few of the exercise calories because it starts me off at 1200 for the day, and my basic level without exercise is only 1440, with an aim to loose 1- 2 lbs a week, so if I ate them all back it would still be a rather small deficit.
@tess5036 If your exercise calories are accurate... You can eat them ALL back and still end up at a NET of 1200 calories. Eating back your exercise calories is not eating extra per se, it's putting you back at 1200 calories.
For example- Your goal is 1200 calories, you exercise and burn 500 calories which now puts you at 700 net calories for the day. Eating back those 500 cals will put you back at 1200 calories at the end of the day.
Thank you for your reply. However, this is my logic.....MFP starts me off at 1200 calories for the day as a minimum. As my BMR is only 1440, that would only give me a deficit of 220 a day, which is below even a 1lb a week loss. I would like a larger deficit than this, as I still have a lot to loose (started 250 ish, now 192). I am to keep the deficit at about 750 - 1, 000. I do this by only eating a small proportion of my exercise back. If I ate it all back, then the deficit would remain at 240 calories per day.
I do value you input, do if you have further thoughts I would be happy to hear them and them on board.
A lot of this depends on your current weight. A deficit of 750-1,000 isn't healthy and sustainable for everyone.
I completely agree, with the level of weight I have to loose this seems to be ok, as it leads to about 1.5- 2 a week, as my weigh decreases I will also decrease the deficit to aim for a lower loss per week (targeting 1% of body weight).
I will add one more comment because I do somewhat the same thing. Had she set her activity level to active it would still give her 1200 calorie minimum and the fitbit would not give her any exercise calories to eat back.
Now, for a much heavier person there would be a difference in the calories they are alloted depending on whether they set their activity level to sedentary or active. In that case they should eat their exercise calories back.
I saw someone post that they wish MFP would add a statement when giving the 1200 minimum calorie allotment that states that their deficit is under their goal. I think that would help clear up confusion for some people who have set their loss at 2 pounds, but are only eating at a 200 to 500 calorie deficit due to the minimum 1200 calorie rule.
Yes, this is it, thank you
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I have MFP set to sedentary, and then let it add on the fitbit steps. I just checked what it added on for exercise for today, I have 13k steps and it has added on 549 calories.
I eat back very few of the exercise calories because it starts me off at 1200 for the day, and my basic level without exercise is only 1440, with an aim to loose 1- 2 lbs a week, so if I ate them all back it would still be a rather small deficit.
@tess5036 If your exercise calories are accurate... You can eat them ALL back and still end up at a NET of 1200 calories. Eating back your exercise calories is not eating extra per se, it's putting you back at 1200 calories.
For example- Your goal is 1200 calories, you exercise and burn 500 calories which now puts you at 700 net calories for the day. Eating back those 500 cals will put you back at 1200 calories at the end of the day.
Thank you for your reply. However, this is my logic.....MFP starts me off at 1200 calories for the day as a minimum. As my BMR is only 1440, that would only give me a deficit of 220 a day, which is below even a 1lb a week loss. I would like a larger deficit than this, as I still have a lot to loose (started 250 ish, now 192). I am to keep the deficit at about 750 - 1, 000. I do this by only eating a small proportion of my exercise back. If I ate it all back, then the deficit would remain at 240 calories per day.
I do value you input, do if you have further thoughts I would be happy to hear them and them on board.
A lot of this depends on your current weight. A deficit of 750-1,000 isn't healthy and sustainable for everyone.
I completely agree, with the level of weight I have to loose this seems to be ok, as it leads to about 1.5- 2 a week, as my weigh decreases I will also decrease the deficit to aim for a lower loss per week (targeting 1% of body weight).
I will add one more comment because I do somewhat the same thing. Had she set her activity level to active it would still give her 1200 calorie minimum and the fitbit would not give her any exercise calories to eat back.
Now, for a much heavier person there would be a difference in the calories they are alloted depending on whether they set their activity level to sedentary or active. In that case they should eat their exercise calories back.
I saw someone post that they wish MFP would add a statement when giving the 1200 minimum calorie allotment that states that their deficit is under their goal. I think that would help clear up confusion for some people who have set their loss at 2 pounds, but are only eating at a 200 to 500 calorie deficit due to the minimum 1200 calorie rule.
not sure what you mean by bolded...
0 -
I saw someone post that they wish MFP would add a statement when giving the 1200 minimum calorie allotment that states that their deficit is under their goal. I think that would help clear up confusion for some people who have set their loss at 2 pounds, but are only eating at a 200 to 500 calorie deficit due to the minimum 1200 calorie rule.
MFP already does that (in bold red font no less). People just apparently don't bother to read it.
5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »From what I've read on here that varies a lot by person and how active they have MFP set to (I think, but I could be wrong on the last bit, I'm sure someone will come along and tell me if I am!). The advice I've seen given most often is that MFP's calorie estimates for exercise are high for a lot of people. A lot of people eat back half of what MFP says with good results.
I'm not wiring to be argumentive, I'm trying to clear some stuff up. Please read this with that in mind.
Everyone is supposed to eat their exercise calories back, and most people do. Of course, everyone is supposed to stay under the speed limit, too, but people make their own decisions based on a lot of things.
The advice that active people should eat their calories back, that's just a math thing. If you go it and burn X calories without replacing them and have a too-big deficit ... if you do that once, it's not a big deal. If you do that most days, it's a big deal.
It's the last part I really wanted to touch on. Your 100% right. But you don't have to take MFP's wild guess at how many calories your exercise burned. You can find a better estimate for most things, and you can enter that instead.
Oh I totally agree! I eat my calories back from exercise most days myself.
I think what I was saying with the activity level bit was if the OP had set themselves to be active, when they really should have set themselves to lightly active, then eating the calories MFP gives then AND the calories from the Fitbit would be too much. Because MFP assumes a certain amount of activity for each level of activity of which exercise is on top of. I should have been more clear (I hope this was clearer) and I appreciate the call out!
I'm just new to posting, though I've been lurking for a while, so I didn't want to sound like a know-it-all when really I'm a know-it-some. I always appreciate corrections. I don't want to give out incorrect information!
In the situation you describe - there would be no "MFP gives then AND the calories from the Fitbit".
If your estimated daily burn was high because you selected Active, but you barely were or usually were not actually at that level - then there would be no extra Fitbit adjustment calories given.
In fact if you had Negative calories enabled - you would get that instead, and your eating goal while starting out high would be lowered right back down to the same point.
That would be the method for someone shorter where it is reasonable to have a 2lb weekly goal loss, could set activity level high enough to allow 1000 cal deficit.
Eating goal would be above the 1200 then.
And you'd get negative calories that would not be applied until your Fitbit seen calorie burn was high enough to get it above 1200.
But I'd argue the 2 lb is probably not actually reasonable in those cases.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »From what I've read on here that varies a lot by person and how active they have MFP set to (I think, but I could be wrong on the last bit, I'm sure someone will come along and tell me if I am!). The advice I've seen given most often is that MFP's calorie estimates for exercise are high for a lot of people. A lot of people eat back half of what MFP says with good results.
I'm not wiring to be argumentive, I'm trying to clear some stuff up. Please read this with that in mind.
Everyone is supposed to eat their exercise calories back, and most people do. Of course, everyone is supposed to stay under the speed limit, too, but people make their own decisions based on a lot of things.
The advice that active people should eat their calories back, that's just a math thing. If you go it and burn X calories without replacing them and have a too-big deficit ... if you do that once, it's not a big deal. If you do that most days, it's a big deal.
It's the last part I really wanted to touch on. Your 100% right. But you don't have to take MFP's wild guess at how many calories your exercise burned. You can find a better estimate for most things, and you can enter that instead.
Oh I totally agree! I eat my calories back from exercise most days myself.
I think what I was saying with the activity level bit was if the OP had set themselves to be active, when they really should have set themselves to lightly active, then eating the calories MFP gives then AND the calories from the Fitbit would be too much. Because MFP assumes a certain amount of activity for each level of activity of which exercise is on top of. I should have been more clear (I hope this was clearer) and I appreciate the call out!
I'm just new to posting, though I've been lurking for a while, so I didn't want to sound like a know-it-all when really I'm a know-it-some. I always appreciate corrections. I don't want to give out incorrect information!
In the situation you describe - there would be no "MFP gives then AND the calories from the Fitbit".
If your estimated daily burn was high because you selected Active, but you barely were or usually were not actually at that level - then there would be no extra Fitbit adjustment calories given.
In fact if you had Negative calories enabled - you would get that instead, and your eating goal while starting out high would be lowered right back down to the same point.
That would be the method for someone shorter where it is reasonable to have a 2lb weekly goal loss, could set activity level high enough to allow 1000 cal deficit.
Eating goal would be above the 1200 then.
And you'd get negative calories that would not be applied until your Fitbit seen calorie burn was high enough to get it above 1200.
But I'd argue the 2 lb is probably not actually reasonable in those cases.
Well I stand corrected then! Thank you!
2 -
My Fitbit overestimates my burn by quite a bit. I go by steps instead and don't use my mfp as a NEAT system anymore. I figured it out when I had to net 900 cals a day to lose weight, and realized that when I checked my exercise data on Fitbit that it was often nearly doubling my calorie burn. 100cals for 15 minutes of walking instead of 60, for example.
Just watch your data and weight trends over a few months. You'll figure it out. 4 -
I get between 450-650 calories from Fitbit steps. I usually do 12,000 - 16,000 steps. I eat back most of them and I'm losing.
Wow, I have 8621 steps today (lowest activity setting on MFP) and Apple Watch sync to MFP gives me a whole whopping 91 calories. This is typical. I’ve never even seen 200+ calories for steps, even the rare days I exceed 15000 steps.
I know I’m somewhat short, but I’m not THAT short, I am significantly overweight (just under obese) , so something seems wrong with this picture. (prob on my end as usual).
OP: since everyone is individual and since you are breastfeeding I highly encourage you to start as conservatively as possible. Eat back the step calories for two to four weeks and then reassess if you see no weight loss at all.
0 -
I get between 450-650 calories from Fitbit steps. I usually do 12,000 - 16,000 steps. I eat back most of them and I'm losing.
Wow, I have 8621 steps today (lowest activity setting on MFP) and Apple Watch sync to MFP gives me a whole whopping 91 calories. This is typical. I’ve never even seen 200+ calories for steps, even the rare days I exceed 15000 steps.
I know I’m somewhat short, but I’m not THAT short, I am significantly overweight (just under obese) , so something seems wrong with this picture. (prob on my end as usual).
OP: since everyone is individual and since you are breastfeeding I highly encourage you to start as conservatively as possible. Eat back the step calories for two to four weeks and then reassess if you see no weight loss at all.
Responding to the bolded bits.
I'm probably quite a bit bigger than you are so my calorie numbers will probably be larger than yours, but I recently switched from a Samsung phone to an iPhone. I had them both synced with MFP.
Samsung would give me 200 calories for 3000 steps (a thirty minute walk, I'm slow and starting out). Similar to what MFP gives me for the same amount of time at 2.5 mph.
Apple gives me 121 calories for 8000 steps. A much longer walk, both in distance and time, and much fewer calories.
I had a Fitbit at one point before my Samsung. It feel somewhere between the two extremes.
There is obviously a significant difference in the algorithm between the three step calculations.
And I have no idea which one is correct for me. I never bothered to eat my Apple steps back, the calorie count was just too low. I unsynced the two and put in my walks manually now.0 -
Thanks for your numbers @jesslla . I’d say your Apple Watch and mine are pretty much in agreement. But WOW the other two ... explains why I never understood why people even cared about the steps from a calorie perspective- some people/devices are suggesting steps alone could be more than an afterthought calorie wise.
Unfortunately for me, the Apple Watch estimate is generous in my case. (Probably in the ballpark, but giving me credit for an extra base or two) But truly glad I didn’t decide to get one of those others that appear to be even more generous and therefore way too high for my actual calorie burn. I would have been Very confused.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I have MFP set to sedentary, and then let it add on the fitbit steps. I just checked what it added on for exercise for today, I have 13k steps and it has added on 549 calories.
I eat back very few of the exercise calories because it starts me off at 1200 for the day, and my basic level without exercise is only 1440, with an aim to loose 1- 2 lbs a week, so if I ate them all back it would still be a rather small deficit.
@tess5036 If your exercise calories are accurate... You can eat them ALL back and still end up at a NET of 1200 calories. Eating back your exercise calories is not eating extra per se, it's putting you back at 1200 calories.
For example- Your goal is 1200 calories, you exercise and burn 500 calories which now puts you at 700 net calories for the day. Eating back those 500 cals will put you back at 1200 calories at the end of the day.
Thank you for your reply. However, this is my logic.....MFP starts me off at 1200 calories for the day as a minimum. As my BMR is only 1440, that would only give me a deficit of 220 a day, which is below even a 1lb a week loss. I would like a larger deficit than this, as I still have a lot to loose (started 250 ish, now 192). I am to keep the deficit at about 750 - 1, 000. I do this by only eating a small proportion of my exercise back. If I ate it all back, then the deficit would remain at 240 calories per day.
I do value you input, do if you have further thoughts I would be happy to hear them and them on board.
A lot of this depends on your current weight. A deficit of 750-1,000 isn't healthy and sustainable for everyone.
I completely agree, with the level of weight I have to loose this seems to be ok, as it leads to about 1.5- 2 a week, as my weigh decreases I will also decrease the deficit to aim for a lower loss per week (targeting 1% of body weight).
I will add one more comment because I do somewhat the same thing. Had she set her activity level to active it would still give her 1200 calorie minimum and the fitbit would not give her any exercise calories to eat back.
Now, for a much heavier person there would be a difference in the calories they are alloted depending on whether they set their activity level to sedentary or active. In that case they should eat their exercise calories back.
I saw someone post that they wish MFP would add a statement when giving the 1200 minimum calorie allotment that states that their deficit is under their goal. I think that would help clear up confusion for some people who have set their loss at 2 pounds, but are only eating at a 200 to 500 calorie deficit due to the minimum 1200 calorie rule.
not sure what you mean by bolded...
Let's say that when she sets her activity level to sedentary she should eat 1600 calories for maintenance. To lose 2 pounds she would have to eat only 600 calories. MFP would set her plan at 1200 calories as that is the minimum. Fitbit will give her more calories for her exercise.
If she was to set her activity to active then the number of calories at maintenance would be 2000 calories. To lose weight she would need to eat only 1000 calories, but again MFP would set her calories at 1200 due to the minimum. But now fitbit will give her no calories for her exercise because of her activity level.
1 -
Thanks for your numbers @jesslla . I’d say your Apple Watch and mine are pretty much in agreement. But WOW the other two ... explains why I never understood why people even cared about the steps from a calorie perspective- some people/devices are suggesting steps alone could be more than an afterthought calorie wise.
Unfortunately for me, the Apple Watch estimate is generous in my case. (Probably in the ballpark, but giving me credit for an extra base or two) But truly glad I didn’t decide to get one of those others that appear to be even more generous and therefore way too high for my actual calorie burn. I would have been Very confused.
You're welcome. Glad I could help.
0 -
Thanks for your numbers @jesslla . I’d say your Apple Watch and mine are pretty much in agreement. But WOW the other two ... explains why I never understood why people even cared about the steps from a calorie perspective- some people/devices are suggesting steps alone could be more than an afterthought calorie wise.
Unfortunately for me, the Apple Watch estimate is generous in my case. (Probably in the ballpark, but giving me credit for an extra base or two) But truly glad I didn’t decide to get one of those others that appear to be even more generous and therefore way too high for my actual calorie burn. I would have been Very confused.
I was using a Fitbit for the last couple of years and only started tracking exercise calories a couple of months ago. I found the Fitbit suggestions much too high, so never synched up the devices. However, I got the new Apple Watch last week and have found the estimates so far line up much closer to expectations. Today I got 94 calories from a 15 minutes jog, and 70 calorie step adjustment for just over 9k steps (I'm set to active on MFP).1 -
not sure you can answer the question actually....only the person who posted can accurately explain it.janejellyroll wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I have MFP set to sedentary, and then let it add on the fitbit steps. I just checked what it added on for exercise for today, I have 13k steps and it has added on 549 calories.
I eat back very few of the exercise calories because it starts me off at 1200 for the day, and my basic level without exercise is only 1440, with an aim to loose 1- 2 lbs a week, so if I ate them all back it would still be a rather small deficit.
@tess5036 If your exercise calories are accurate... You can eat them ALL back and still end up at a NET of 1200 calories. Eating back your exercise calories is not eating extra per se, it's putting you back at 1200 calories.
For example- Your goal is 1200 calories, you exercise and burn 500 calories which now puts you at 700 net calories for the day. Eating back those 500 cals will put you back at 1200 calories at the end of the day.
Thank you for your reply. However, this is my logic.....MFP starts me off at 1200 calories for the day as a minimum. As my BMR is only 1440, that would only give me a deficit of 220 a day, which is below even a 1lb a week loss. I would like a larger deficit than this, as I still have a lot to loose (started 250 ish, now 192). I am to keep the deficit at about 750 - 1, 000. I do this by only eating a small proportion of my exercise back. If I ate it all back, then the deficit would remain at 240 calories per day.
I do value you input, do if you have further thoughts I would be happy to hear them and them on board.
A lot of this depends on your current weight. A deficit of 750-1,000 isn't healthy and sustainable for everyone.
I completely agree, with the level of weight I have to loose this seems to be ok, as it leads to about 1.5- 2 a week, as my weigh decreases I will also decrease the deficit to aim for a lower loss per week (targeting 1% of body weight).
I will add one more comment because I do somewhat the same thing. Had she set her activity level to active it would still give her 1200 calorie minimum and the fitbit would not give her any exercise calories to eat back.
Now, for a much heavier person there would be a difference in the calories they are alloted depending on whether they set their activity level to sedentary or active. In that case they should eat their exercise calories back.
I saw someone post that they wish MFP would add a statement when giving the 1200 minimum calorie allotment that states that their deficit is under their goal. I think that would help clear up confusion for some people who have set their loss at 2 pounds, but are only eating at a 200 to 500 calorie deficit due to the minimum 1200 calorie rule.
not sure what you mean by bolded...
Let's say that when she sets her activity level to sedentary she should eat 1600 calories for maintenance. To lose 2 pounds she would have to eat only 600 calories. MFP would set her plan at 1200 calories as that is the minimum. Fitbit will give her more calories for her exercise.
If she was to set her activity to active then the number of calories at maintenance would be 2000 calories. To lose weight she would need to eat only 1000 calories, but again MFP would set her calories at 1200 due to the minimum. But now fitbit will give her no calories for her exercise because of her activity level.
but to your comment....MFP only give 1200 to people who have a large weekly weight loss goal or those who are small.
So I am questioning the reasoning behind the bolded as it doesn't ring true.
so basically there is a data point missing in both of the statements above yours and hers.0 -
I use fitbit to count my exercise. I have MFP set at sedentary because I don't walk much at work unless I have time to. I normally don't see a 800-900 exercise unless I have done 17000 plus steps. I eat them back if I am hungry. I wear my fitbit in my sock because I was getting a lot of steps while reaching to the printer. I know that my fitbit count is fairly accurate because I like to count when I get close to my goal. (the only time I have noticed it being off is if I go for a jog, normally it is under what steps were taken. Which is fine with me then I burned somewhat more than I thought. So far this has worked best for me.0
-
Mine (Garmin) gives ~15 calories/1000-steps or ~36 calories/mile over the 2950 step/1.2 mile/44 calorie sedentary 0-Pt. So, it would be +106 calories for 10000 steps that weren't already part of a run. (A run usually gives me ~72-74 cal/mile).
2 -
15476 steps so far today and fitbit has given me 807 calories0
-
There is not an exact correlation between steps and the adjustment amount.
What Activity level you have MFP set to will change the amount of adjustment.
What distance those steps caused will effect the amount of calories.
You could have done those steps with purposeful exercise pace walking, or to other extreme 5 hrs of Ikea shopping shuffle. And both with same number would have different distance and calories.
I think it gets confusing that just because those are the 2 main figures that Fitbit sends over on regular basis - that they are tied together so exactly.
Considering those number of steps is over MFP's highest activity level - 800 sounds very reasonable.4 -
I don't look at the adjustment as exercise calories even though mfp call them that. I use it as data to find the ideal calorie goal over time.
By basic calorie goal is 1320 (sedentary + 1lb a week loss). Current states at 18:35 UK time:
Calories = 2249
Steps = 15753
Miles = 6.15
MFP adjustment = 8380
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
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions