How accurate is you activity tracker?
Options
Replies
-
ITUSGirl51 wrote: »I’m starting to think my Apple Watch is low on some active calories. I do the elliptical a few times a week and it seems really low for those workouts. I’m in maintenance and am still losing a little weight. Also the AW does not sync all active calories (step + exercise) with MFP so that’s a problem too. I’m thinking of buying a different device and see if the results are different.
Correct, Apple does not send the total daily calorie burn on each sync - they send something else.
And because MFP was built to do the math receiving a total calorie burn - not some subset based on who knows what - the math is wrong.
I'm guessing either MFP did tell them they were doing it wrong, but were so thrilled at the time they got Apple to be willing to sync so let it slide - or Apple refused to fix it like all other activity trackers and said take it or leave it.2 -
I've used various activity trackers (started w/BodyMedia Fit after that it was different Garmin or Fitbit devices - currently using Fitbit Blaze) since starting maintenance 7+ yrs ago and found all of them to be reasonable accurate for my calorie burn UNTIL I started major peri symptoms 3+ yrs ago.
0 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »
Wait you MAINTAIN on 1370 with exercise? Now that just doesn’t sound right. How much do you weigh? I have never heard of someone having to maintain on so low unless they are severely underweight.
In order for me to keep my blood pressure under control and normal, I have to be at 110 pds. I'm 5'3, and 53 yo. In order for me to maintain, I have to have to walk 3 miles a day, 5 days a week on top of my daily steps and eat no more than 1200 cals. For some of us it sucks.0 -
I had a fitbit and now have an apple watch. It is stable, even if it's not correct. I watched my net calories for a few weeks - eating up to my net goal if I was hungry. I watched how the scale reacted. Then I adjusted my calories until I was stable. It's worked well for almost six years.
The way it measures movement and steps depends on how much and how quickly you move. I had to adjust my calories when I went from the fitbit to the watch. But that's a fairly stable characteristic, so once you adjust for it, you can count on its accuracy. My husband takes smaller steps than me, so when we walk together he gets 30% more steps than I do (and is allowed more calories). His adjustment would be different than mine.
The dumb problem I have is that I wear it on my wrist and play and banjo and a frame drum. THAT will throw my calories off.
My logic (which is off sometimes ;P) tells me that smaller steps for the same distance means harder work to get there, so it should allow more calories?
Fur example, I have a Pomeranian and when she walks with us, she looks like she is running because she had to take so many more strides than us.
I think A calorie increase is correct.
The formulas for calorie burn from steps is very accurate - and it has nothing to do with number of steps - but rather distance covered.
Since treadmill walking/running is the most used thing in exercise research - the formula's are very accurate.
It's about distance, time (so pace), and weight moved. That's it.
Steps is merely a means to calculate distance to throw into that formula.
I'm betting the higher calorie burn is not because of more steps - but higher weight.
Though, more steps with in accurate stride length does allow for more overall error too, compared to fewer steps.
But no - more steps doesn't mean harder work, it means less muscle engagement per stride so less calorie burn. But more steps.
And yes - your dog is running compared to you - but don't imagine she burned more because of those more steps. How much lighter is she?
I would have to disagree with this. Why? I take many more steps than the average person because I am much shorter (and lighter) than the average person. If you and I put the same effort per stride mine would be much smaller. You taking longer strides does not mean you are working harder! I just about have to run to keep up with someone over 6 foot.
I burn less because I weigh less. This is why the formula takes height and weight into consideration. It is to calculate the average stride for someone that height.3 -
If I believed my Fitbit charge 2, I should have gained at least 30 lbs back, but only gained back 20ish, so mine underestimates.0
-
I track various ways - watch and apps. I don't completely trust any of them because I can track with my watch, a couple of of apps and then use direct entry of my speed and time in mfp and get 4 different calories totals for the same long walk. I edit the entries and I am really using them to give me rough estimates. It didn't matter so much while I was losing, but it makes it is a pain in maintenance because my activity level varies from day to day and I can't just come up with a number that is about right for the total. That's end game - how many calories do I eat and stay the same weight?0
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »I had a fitbit and now have an apple watch. It is stable, even if it's not correct. I watched my net calories for a few weeks - eating up to my net goal if I was hungry. I watched how the scale reacted. Then I adjusted my calories until I was stable. It's worked well for almost six years.
The way it measures movement and steps depends on how much and how quickly you move. I had to adjust my calories when I went from the fitbit to the watch. But that's a fairly stable characteristic, so once you adjust for it, you can count on its accuracy. My husband takes smaller steps than me, so when we walk together he gets 30% more steps than I do (and is allowed more calories). His adjustment would be different than mine.
The dumb problem I have is that I wear it on my wrist and play and banjo and a frame drum. THAT will throw my calories off.
My logic (which is off sometimes ;P) tells me that smaller steps for the same distance means harder work to get there, so it should allow more calories?
Fur example, I have a Pomeranian and when she walks with us, she looks like she is running because she had to take so many more strides than us.
I think A calorie increase is correct.
The formulas for calorie burn from steps is very accurate - and it has nothing to do with number of steps - but rather distance covered.
Since treadmill walking/running is the most used thing in exercise research - the formula's are very accurate.
It's about distance, time (so pace), and weight moved. That's it.
Steps is merely a means to calculate distance to throw into that formula.
I'm betting the higher calorie burn is not because of more steps - but higher weight.
Though, more steps with in accurate stride length does allow for more overall error too, compared to fewer steps.
But no - more steps doesn't mean harder work, it means less muscle engagement per stride so less calorie burn. But more steps.
And yes - your dog is running compared to you - but don't imagine she burned more because of those more steps. How much lighter is she?
I would have to disagree with this. Why? I take many more steps than the average person because I am much shorter (and lighter) than the average person. If you and I put the same effort per stride mine would be much smaller. You taking longer strides does not mean you are working harder! I just about have to run to keep up with someone over 6 foot.
I burn less because I weigh less. This is why the formula takes height and weight into consideration. It is to calculate the average stride for someone that height.
Disagree with what, since there are many details you are commenting to?
Because - research and science says otherwise, but I also think you are reading the context wrong and misunderstanding what was being commented on.
It was about dog and many steps it does, despite being lighter.
If you and I "put the same effort per stride" (ie energy or calorie burn) MY distance would be shorter than normal to match your effort because indeed I weigh more. Think about it.
Because yes - me taking longer strides while moving more mass does mean I'm working harder per stride. Not per a set distance, per stride.
But I take less strides to hit a set distance.
But you are correct you burn less because you weigh less - not sure why you would think I said otherwise.2 -
ITUSGirl51 wrote: »I’m starting to think my Apple Watch is low on some active calories. I do the elliptical a few times a week and it seems really low for those workouts. I’m in maintenance and am still losing a little weight. Also the AW does not sync all active calories (step + exercise) with MFP so that’s a problem too. I’m thinking of buying a different device and see if the results are different.
The Watch is low for me, too -- not on active, as much as on resting. It reads about 20 percent low for me.
0 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »I had a fitbit and now have an apple watch. It is stable, even if it's not correct. I watched my net calories for a few weeks - eating up to my net goal if I was hungry. I watched how the scale reacted. Then I adjusted my calories until I was stable. It's worked well for almost six years.
The way it measures movement and steps depends on how much and how quickly you move. I had to adjust my calories when I went from the fitbit to the watch. But that's a fairly stable characteristic, so once you adjust for it, you can count on its accuracy. My husband takes smaller steps than me, so when we walk together he gets 30% more steps than I do (and is allowed more calories). His adjustment would be different than mine.
The dumb problem I have is that I wear it on my wrist and play and banjo and a frame drum. THAT will throw my calories off.
My logic (which is off sometimes ;P) tells me that smaller steps for the same distance means harder work to get there, so it should allow more calories?
Fur example, I have a Pomeranian and when she walks with us, she looks like she is running because she had to take so many more strides than us.
I think A calorie increase is correct.
The formulas for calorie burn from steps is very accurate - and it has nothing to do with number of steps - but rather distance covered.
Since treadmill walking/running is the most used thing in exercise research - the formula's are very accurate.
It's about distance, time (so pace), and weight moved. That's it.
Steps is merely a means to calculate distance to throw into that formula.
I'm betting the higher calorie burn is not because of more steps - but higher weight.
Though, more steps with in accurate stride length does allow for more overall error too, compared to fewer steps.
But no - more steps doesn't mean harder work, it means less muscle engagement per stride so less calorie burn. But more steps.
And yes - your dog is running compared to you - but don't imagine she burned more because of those more steps. How much lighter is she?
I would have to disagree with this. Why? I take many more steps than the average person because I am much shorter (and lighter) than the average person. If you and I put the same effort per stride mine would be much smaller. You taking longer strides does not mean you are working harder! I just about have to run to keep up with someone over 6 foot.
I burn less because I weigh less. This is why the formula takes height and weight into consideration. It is to calculate the average stride for someone that height.
Disagree with what, since there are many details you are commenting to?
Because - research and science says otherwise, but I also think you are reading the context wrong and misunderstanding what was being commented on.
It was about dog and many steps it does, despite being lighter.
If you and I "put the same effort per stride" (ie energy or calorie burn) MY distance would be shorter than normal to match your effort because indeed I weigh more. Think about it.
Because yes - me taking longer strides while moving more mass does mean I'm working harder per stride. Not per a set distance, per stride.
But I take less strides to hit a set distance.
But you are correct you burn less because you weigh less - not sure why you would think I said otherwise.
If you and I were the same weight but you were a foot taller would we burn the same calories walking a mile?0 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »I had a fitbit and now have an apple watch. It is stable, even if it's not correct. I watched my net calories for a few weeks - eating up to my net goal if I was hungry. I watched how the scale reacted. Then I adjusted my calories until I was stable. It's worked well for almost six years.
The way it measures movement and steps depends on how much and how quickly you move. I had to adjust my calories when I went from the fitbit to the watch. But that's a fairly stable characteristic, so once you adjust for it, you can count on its accuracy. My husband takes smaller steps than me, so when we walk together he gets 30% more steps than I do (and is allowed more calories). His adjustment would be different than mine.
The dumb problem I have is that I wear it on my wrist and play and banjo and a frame drum. THAT will throw my calories off.
My logic (which is off sometimes ;P) tells me that smaller steps for the same distance means harder work to get there, so it should allow more calories?
Fur example, I have a Pomeranian and when she walks with us, she looks like she is running because she had to take so many more strides than us.
I think A calorie increase is correct.
The formulas for calorie burn from steps is very accurate - and it has nothing to do with number of steps - but rather distance covered.
Since treadmill walking/running is the most used thing in exercise research - the formula's are very accurate.
It's about distance, time (so pace), and weight moved. That's it.
Steps is merely a means to calculate distance to throw into that formula.
I'm betting the higher calorie burn is not because of more steps - but higher weight.
Though, more steps with in accurate stride length does allow for more overall error too, compared to fewer steps.
But no - more steps doesn't mean harder work, it means less muscle engagement per stride so less calorie burn. But more steps.
And yes - your dog is running compared to you - but don't imagine she burned more because of those more steps. How much lighter is she?
I would have to disagree with this. Why? I take many more steps than the average person because I am much shorter (and lighter) than the average person. If you and I put the same effort per stride mine would be much smaller. You taking longer strides does not mean you are working harder! I just about have to run to keep up with someone over 6 foot.
I burn less because I weigh less. This is why the formula takes height and weight into consideration. It is to calculate the average stride for someone that height.
Disagree with what, since there are many details you are commenting to?
Because - research and science says otherwise, but I also think you are reading the context wrong and misunderstanding what was being commented on.
It was about dog and many steps it does, despite being lighter.
If you and I "put the same effort per stride" (ie energy or calorie burn) MY distance would be shorter than normal to match your effort because indeed I weigh more. Think about it.
Because yes - me taking longer strides while moving more mass does mean I'm working harder per stride. Not per a set distance, per stride.
But I take less strides to hit a set distance.
But you are correct you burn less because you weigh less - not sure why you would think I said otherwise.
If you and I were the same weight but you were a foot taller would we burn the same calories walking a mile?
In theory and formula, close enough. In actual walking with changing terrain, even less.
While you read through this - bear in mind their example is 4 meters/sec - 9 mph - not sure who is walking that fast - but if you take extremes anything can be made to look significant.
You'll also notice in their example paragraph they can't do their math right using their own conversion figures. (17 ml/kg/min / 3.5 = 4.86 METS) (they did the 2nd one right, 3rd is wrong again).
https://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-weight-loss/a20790314/how-height-affects-calorie-burning/
But let's take a reasonable walk:
150 lb person - 68 kg.
Speedy 4 mph walk - 1.79 m/s for 1 hr, not just 1 mile to really see the difference.
5 ft - 1.52 m & 6 ft - 1.83 m.
383 cal & 343 cal = 40 cal difference per hr. As much inaccuracy potential in a food label for 200 cal item.
Now, same 5 ft height, 30 lb difference 120 & 150.
306 & 383 = 77 cal difference per hr.
So in principle while you may have burned more than taller heavier walking companion per lb of weight moved.
In reality you burned less because of the smaller weight.
So as I said, moving more mass a longer stride burns more per stride.
Obviously you do a plot of that and you can find that heavier taller person and light shorter person burn the same.2 -
It is consistent, if not accurate. I wear it every day (and have one type or another for 8 years). I am a consistent logger and tracker. Because of that, if I hit the numbers that keep me balanced, I stay balanced. Both may be wrong, but they work together.0
-
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »
I think it is a little low as well because according to today’s results it only gave me 39 calories per mile.ITUSGirl51 wrote: »I’m starting to think my Apple Watch is low on some active calories. I do the elliptical a few times a week and it seems really low for those workouts. I’m in maintenance and am still losing a little weight. Also the AW does not sync all active calories (step + exercise) with MFP so that’s a problem too. I’m thinking of buying a different device and see if the results are different.
I use an Apple Watch now too. It is less accurate than my fitbit zip was because I walk with my hands in my pocket. It is also very bad at registering slow steps (as is everything). I spent 6 hours walking in a museum the other day and it gave me like 1000 steps - and I was exhausted. I've read studies saying that's true for everything. OTOH, it is much better at differentiating strolling from walking from brisk walking in terms of calories because it counts heart rate.
1 -
I find my Apple Watch low as well. It gives me a TDEE without exercise of around 1800...I maintain weight on at least 2,200 calories on my non-active days and around 2,500 on my active days. I use it more for a motivator of meeting my move goal for the day.1
-
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Today I walked a half marathon with my uncle. I walked 16 miles total over the day and my Apple Watch only gives me 617 calories burned. I definitely think it is on the low side of estimates.
Conventional wisdom is that your incremental burn when walking is about 30% of your body weight per mile. A 150 pound person would burn just under 50 calories per mile more than they would have burned otherwise. Your watch might not be too far off.
My Garmin is pretty reasonable with calorie estimates. Resting calories seem pretty much in line with MFP and the USDA supertracker. Activity calorie estimates are a little high but they're not completely out of the ballpark. I'd guess that they're accurate to within 15%-20%.1 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Today I walked a half marathon with my uncle. I walked 16 miles total over the day and my Apple Watch only gives me 617 calories burned. I definitely think it is on the low side of estimates.
Conventional wisdom is that your incremental burn when walking is about 30% of your body weight per mile. A 150 pound person would burn just under 50 calories per mile more than they would have burned otherwise. Your watch might not be too far off.
My Garmin is pretty reasonable with calorie estimates. Resting calories seem pretty much in line with MFP and the USDA supertracker. Activity calorie estimates are a little high but they're not completely out of the ballpark. I'd guess that they're accurate to within 15%-20%.
MMW gives me over 100 calories per mile at 4+ mph. I thought it was too high and usually either edit it or don't start tracking until I am a mile or two into a 4-5 mile walk. It sounds like it is even further off than that.0 -
CarvedTones wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Today I walked a half marathon with my uncle. I walked 16 miles total over the day and my Apple Watch only gives me 617 calories burned. I definitely think it is on the low side of estimates.
Conventional wisdom is that your incremental burn when walking is about 30% of your body weight per mile. A 150 pound person would burn just under 50 calories per mile more than they would have burned otherwise. Your watch might not be too far off.
My Garmin is pretty reasonable with calorie estimates. Resting calories seem pretty much in line with MFP and the USDA supertracker. Activity calorie estimates are a little high but they're not completely out of the ballpark. I'd guess that they're accurate to within 15%-20%.
MMW gives me over 100 calories per mile at 4+ mph. I thought it was too high and usually either edit it or don't start tracking until I am a mile or two into a 4-5 mile walk. It sounds like it is even further off than that.
Depends on the purpose of the figure. MMW is probably right on compared to any other formula, which I'm sure they are using.
For example, manually logging workouts that will end up going to activity tracker needs to contain the base calories like MMW would provide. So if an MMW workout ends up going to activity tracker, it needs the full amount.
But on MFP by itself no syncing, a more accurate assessment would be as described by @dx2jx2 - only the calories above and beyond already accounted for.
And actually, MFP is accounting/expecting for more than BMR level burn, but rather the estimated daily burn.
That's why the MFP (and some for others) database for walking is actually right on - as far as calories burned during that chunk of time.
But when you subtract off what MFP expected you to burn already, not nearly as much left over.
Hence the common advice to only count 1/2 of estimated calorie burn, from observation on any lower level workout calorie burn - absolutely true.
Sadly MFP so easily could correct this, since they have all the figures already.
Perhaps at this point they figure so many activity trackers synced to accounts, no need.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 936 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions