Fitbit vs Treadmill's display of calories burned

Options
msnucerity
msnucerity Posts: 333 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hi All

I'm just wondering if anyone else is finding a rather large discrepancy between what the treadmill or other cardio machine says you've burned vs your fitbit?

Last night I jogged lightly on the treadmill for about 25min. The treadmill displayed that I burned about 270 calories; my fitbit says I burned 385.

Which do you trust? (my inclination is towards my fitbit but thought I'd see what the rest of the MFP community has found). It certainly felt like I could have burned 385 calories- I was huffing and puffing like madness when I was done!

Thanks all & Happy New Year!
«1

Replies

  • SJCon
    SJCon Posts: 224
    Options
    Machines in general take other factors into account besides the simple count of "steps" like fitbit does. Their can be incline, speed resistance etc.If you input age, weight, gender then I would take the machine number sice it probably considers more than just a step movement.
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Options
    The fitbit includes your RMR, treadmills don't. 115 calories for 25 mins is probably a bit high to be JUST your RMR, but the discrepancy might not be as big as you think.
  • howardheilweil
    howardheilweil Posts: 604 Member
    Options
    My inclination is to always err on the cautious side and use the lower number.
  • Commander_Keen
    Commander_Keen Posts: 1,179 Member
    Options
    I noticed the same issue with an HRM and the treadmill.
    I would use the numbers on the HRM, since I can program weight, DOB, etc..
  • ARDuBaie
    ARDuBaie Posts: 379 Member
    Options
    You can't go by how much you hug and puff or sweat when it comes to calories burned. I have used a fit it, treadmill with calorie burn, and polar heart monitor. All gab e different readings for the same exercise. I wore the fit it and monitor while walking on the treadmill. If you want accuracy, buy a heart monitor. I believe that is the only way to get an accurate reading on calories burned.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    If you're going to wear the Fitbit, and I recommend that you do, just stick with what it says over what the machine says.
  • epazia
    epazia Posts: 126 Member
    Options
    Is this a public treadmill or one of your own. The public one would have to be set to you individually to get the best readings. I would go with which ever You trust the most. I walk with a pedometer that gives me ridiculously high calories burned, but my fit bit tends to fix that late at night by removing the calories from its estimate that I did not burn in its measurements or vice versa, I am loosing so I think the two together are working ok.
  • msnucerity
    msnucerity Posts: 333 Member
    Options
    It's a public treadmill at my gym where it asks my weight and no other stats (I don't like to use the heart-rate handle-bars since I find it distracting)

    I've disabled the Calorie Estimation on my fitbit if that makes any difference. (Just that some of the discrepancies between the machine and the fitbit can be upwards of 200 calories)
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    Machines in general take other factors into account besides the simple count of "steps" like fitbit does. Their can be incline, speed resistance etc.If you input age, weight, gender then I would take the machine number sice it probably considers more than just a step movement.
    The Fitbit doesn't just use steps count. It detects speed as well. Though you're right that it doesn't detect resistance, including incline. But if you're just using a treadmill without raising the incline, it should be a fairly good estimate for most people.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    My experience with the fitbit et al is that they are not very useful for exercise calories. If you can input weight and if you don't hold on the handrail, treadmill numbers are reasonably accurate-- in this case, likely more accurate than HRMs or any other devices.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    The Fitbit's been really accurate for me.
  • SJCon
    SJCon Posts: 224
    Options

    The Fitbit doesn't just use steps count. It detects speed as well.

    Not sure where you got that idea, they don't claim that on their website. It detects movement on three axis but it doesn't track actual speed. It doesn't even measure distance, it just calculates it from the number of steps times the default or user input stride. They say you may get steps in a car but it is not from the speed of the car. It is a pedometer with an altimeter and a website to translate,
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options

    The Fitbit doesn't just use steps count. It detects speed as well.

    Not sure where you got that idea, they don't claim that on their website. It detects movement on three axis but it doesn't track actual speed. It doesn't even measure distance, it just calculates it from the number of steps times the default or user input stride. They say you may get steps in a car but it is not from the speed of the car. It is a pedometer with an altimeter and a website to translate,

    The device estimates speed and distance using stride and gait.
  • smbyrd13
    smbyrd13 Posts: 52 Member
    Options
    I use a heart rate monitor and for a mile run (9:40 pace) I burned 97 cal according to my heart rate monitor and 130 cal based on the treadmill...I tend to go with the lower number just to be safe! Do you know how far you jogged? You burn around 100 cal/mile, a little less if you're going slowly.
  • qtgonewild
    qtgonewild Posts: 1,930 Member
    Options
    Fitbit isn't used for that. A hrm is.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    I noticed the same issue with an HRM and the treadmill.
    I would use the numbers on the HRM, since I can program weight, DOB, etc..
    I wear my HRM not run on the treadmill, and the only difference between the two numbers is that the treadmill is ALWAYS at least 150 calories higher than my Polar FT7. My HRM reading is much more accurate than the machine.
  • jhloves2knit
    jhloves2knit Posts: 268 Member
    Options
    The Fitbit One's calories burned that transfer to my MFP diary seem awfully high, higher than the MFP estimates for exercise. I just don't usually eat back the calories burned since I don't think they're accurate.
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Options
    FitBit is pretty darn accurate, so I would just let it do it's thing. I don't even enter exercise into MFP anymore, unless it is something the FitBit cannot track like weight lifting.

    Cardio machines almost always way over estimate calories burned, FYI.
  • Flyer69
    Flyer69 Posts: 100 Member
    Options
    Then MFP gives you a different number yet again.
    Anything that does NOT include your AGE and WEIGHTT can NOT be ACCURATE!
    I have used MFP numbers, which are lower then the numbers the machines give me.
    The Fitbit Flex is about par with the machines, however my Polar HRM is quite a bit lower.
    If I just use the cardio machines I would be a lot lower but interestingly my HRM gives me a lot more calories when I am doing weights or weights machines then the calorie count I get from MFP.
    I agree though as you are doing it for yourself I would certainly use the lowest number, which will serve you best if you are trying to loose weight.
  • GlutenFreeWench
    GlutenFreeWench Posts: 127
    Options
    Heart rate monitor is the only way you're going to be accurate.

    Fitbit is going to be *more* accurate than the treadmill (doesn't have your rmr, etc)

    There's a reason I always wear my polar when I'm working out and want a good count.

Categories