Steps Vs Distance?

rozojc

Helli.
I've been walking more lately just to do s bit more and have lately used my Fossil Collider to track things. However, I'm not sure if the data is accurate, something I noticed when I saw the supposed amount of calories burned in a simple walk...

I walked for 34 minutes.
Distance was 3.23 Km
I am about 96Kg and 178cm
The map was mapped with GPS, so I assume the distance is correct
According to the watch, I did 2410 steps (which seems low for the distance) and burned 255 calories (which seems way too high)

Does this data sound off? I'm not sure which part of the data to believe...

cmriverside

Yeah, the steps sound low - I'm not familiar with your tracker, but there are online steps-to-km calculators, or alternately you could measure your stride and calculate it per the distance.

The calories burned may be including your regular RMR (BMR) calories, too. Most trackers don't differentiate between all calories burned and Exercise calories burned during a given time frame.

Many people find calories for exercise to be inflated on electronic devices. The solution is going to be up to you. Use that number, use half that number, use a percentage of that number. Whichever way you choose it isn't going to be 100% accurate and neither will your food tracking. Do your best. Use the same percentage of your Excercise/Collider calories for a month or so, and then you'll have a better idea how close you are. I just used the calories I was given by online calculators and that was close enough for the first 50 pounds of weight loss. It's easy to lose weight when you have a lot to lose. Right now, I wouldn't worry too much about it - learn to log food, that's where you'll get the most info.

It's all a big experiment with a lot of moving parts, but you can lose the weight. Keep at it.

Lietchi

For walking and running I use this calculator:
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

If you want to compare with the active calorie number, then set Energy to Net instead of Gross.

rozojc

cmriverside wrote: »

Yeah, the steps sound low - I'm not familiar with your tracker, but there are online steps-to-km calculators, or alternately you could measure your stride and calculate it per the distance.

The calories burned may be including your regular RMR (BMR) calories, too. Most trackers don't differentiate between all calories burned and Exercise calories burned during a given time frame.

Many people find calories for exercise to be inflated on electronic devices. The solution is going to be up to you. Use that number, use half that number, use a percentage of that number. Whichever way you choose it isn't going to be 100% accurate and neither will your food tracking. Do your best. Use the same percentage of your Excercise/Collider calories for a month or so, and then you'll have a better idea how close you are. I just used the calories I was given by online calculators and that was close enough for the first 50 pounds of weight loss. It's easy to lose weight when you have a lot to lose. Right now, I wouldn't worry too much about it - learn to log food, that's where you'll get the most info.

It's all a big experiment with a lot of moving parts, but you can lose the weight. Keep at it.

Thanks for the reply. My worry is that if the steps are off, then what is the point of me wearing this to track my steps?

I was previously using also my phone and I stopped using the phone because I saw it showed more steps than the watch and assumed the watch should be more trustworthy than Google Fit... Seems I may have been wrong....

The calories shown in the phone app are supposed to be active calories, but again, these also seem off...

I'm beginning to think I should ditch my Fossil watch for something else

If the most "simple thing", step counting, is so off, then I'm not sure the point if using it instead of just Google Fit in my phone...

cmriverside

Yeah, I mean, I lost 80 pounds in 2007-08 using myfitnesspal's numbers. No devices or step trackers. They aren't a necessary thing.

I am also around 178cm and I started at 100kg in weight. After doing this for a while I learned how to use my own numbers as a guide.

All of the trackers/devices/Google Fit/Apple watch/fitbit etc. are just making educated guesses for you based on population data.

Find your own way. It's the only way.

spiriteagle99

Watches generally use arm swing to count steps. If you were walking a dog or pushing a stroller, your arm would swing less, which could undercount the steps. Same if you leave your hands in your pockets.

255 calories for 3 km seems high to me, but it is based on your weight and HR so if you were climbing hills or are out of shape, then the calories could be accurate. As stated above, try eating back some or most of the calories your watch gives and see how well it works for you.

yirara

You can test how many steps you should have gotten if you walk a measured distance a few times at your walking speed and count the steps. I guess around 65-75cm per step might be half realistic, and hence 154-133 steps over 100m. So that would be around 5000-4300 steps over the whole distance. Can't comment on the calories, but yeah, it does seem very high.

yirara

rozojc wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

Yeah, the steps sound low - I'm not familiar with your tracker, but there are online steps-to-km calculators, or alternately you could measure your stride and calculate it per the distance.

The calories burned may be including your regular RMR (BMR) calories, too. Most trackers don't differentiate between all calories burned and Exercise calories burned during a given time frame.

Many people find calories for exercise to be inflated on electronic devices. The solution is going to be up to you. Use that number, use half that number, use a percentage of that number. Whichever way you choose it isn't going to be 100% accurate and neither will your food tracking. Do your best. Use the same percentage of your Excercise/Collider calories for a month or so, and then you'll have a better idea how close you are. I just used the calories I was given by online calculators and that was close enough for the first 50 pounds of weight loss. It's easy to lose weight when you have a lot to lose. Right now, I wouldn't worry too much about it - learn to log food, that's where you'll get the most info.

It's all a big experiment with a lot of moving parts, but you can lose the weight. Keep at it.

Thanks for the reply. My worry is that if the steps are off, then what is the point of me wearing this to track my steps?

I was previously using also my phone and I stopped using the phone because I saw it showed more steps than the watch and assumed the watch should be more trustworthy than Google Fit... Seems I may have been wrong....

The calories shown in the phone app are supposed to be active calories, but again, these also seem off...

I'm beginning to think I should ditch my Fossil watch for something else

If the most "simple thing", step counting, is so off, then I'm not sure the point if using it instead of just Google Fit in my phone...

If you know the distance then you can use the calculator mentioned above and ditch the steps. On MFP for your activity setting only everyday activity should be taken into account and purposeful activities, like this walk logged separately. However, walking in the MFP database is also quite overstated, thus maybe get the (net) calories from the above calculator and make a custom exercise entry.

ninerbuff

Stride matters and well as pace. Shorter people use more steps than taller people with longer legs. Also pace (speed) of how you go will affect time and usage of energy. It takes more energy to jog than walk.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 40 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition