Fitbit vs Treadmill's display of calories burned

msnucerity

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!

SJCon

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

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

My inclination is to always err on the cautious side and use the lower number.

Commander_Keen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fitbit's been really accurate for me.

SJCon

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

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

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

Fitbit isn't used for that. A hrm is.

SLLRunner

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

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

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

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

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.

Followingsea

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 admittedly isn't always great at detecting inclines (particularly slight ones) but it does incorporate age, weight, and gender in its tracking, as well as other factors:

http://blog.fitbit.com/246/

The Fitbit Tracker determines calorie burn by using the *raw* motion data of the user, as obtained from a 3-axis accelerometer. The Tracker looks at the intensity and duration of the accelerometer signal, analyzes patterns, and then determines calorie burn. This general approach to energy expenditure monitoring has roots in the scientific literature dating back to about three decades ago and is still an active area of research in academia and at Fitbit. If you’re interested in learning more about the ongoing state of the field, Staudenmayer, et al. (2009) is a good recent example and van Hees & Ekelund (2009) give a nice overview.

The plural of anecdote is not data, but I personally have found the Fitbit estimated burn to be remarkably reliable. I use it over machines (which I find often over report). I use the numbers to plump up my ego immediately post-workout, then forget them the second I walk away from the machine.

WalkingAlong

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,

What I mean is it doesn't just count steps and assign 'x calories per y steps'. It uses the motion of the accelerometer to estimate what activity you are doing (e.g., running 6mph) and assigns a METS value to your BMR burn for that time, for every moment of the day. So while it doesn't literally 'detect speed' like a radar gun, it should know when you're running vs. walking vs. sprinting, etc.

I wore a Fitbit for all of 2010, hit 10k steps most days, logged all my food and my weight. The deficit based on Fitbit's data predicted I'd lose around 35 lbs. I lost around 35 lbs. That's pretty accurate.

Sabine_Stroehm

I follow my fitbit, which knows how many steps I'm taking at any moment, and knows my age, my typical strides...

The treadmill knows how fast the belt is moving, and the incline and has a few algorithms for my age, weight gender, but the treadmill has no idea how fast *I* am moving, nor how many steps I'm taking.

For example: we have our own treadmill. Sometimes I run "barefoot" (in socks). Sometimes I run shod. I have a nike fit shoe insert that I can also attach to my sock. I know from experience that my sock footed run has a much smaller stride than my shod run. Therefore I do quite a few more steps on the treadmill set at at 5.5 with socks than I do with shoes. Nike captures this data as well. But the treadmill just sees the belt moving at 5.5.

If you have a fitbit, go with that. Fwiw, fitbit and nike+ are pretty close in terms of calorie burn for me.

QuietBloom

I follow my fitbit, which knows how many steps I'm taking at any moment, and knows my age, my typical strides...

The treadmill knows how fast the belt is moving, and the incline and has a few algorithms for my age, weight gender, but the treadmill has no idea how fast *I* am moving, nor how many steps I'm taking.

For example: we have our own treadmill. Sometimes I run "barefoot" (in socks). Sometimes I run shod. I have a nike fit shoe insert that I can also attach to my sock. I know from experience that my sock footed run has a much smaller stride than my shod run. Therefore I do quite a few more steps on the treadmill set at at 5.5 with socks than I do with shoes. Nike captures this data as well. But the treadmill just sees the belt moving at 5.5.

If you have a fitbit, go with that. Fwiw, fitbit and nike+ are pretty close in terms of calorie burn for me.

That's very interesting Sabine. I have been thinking a lot lately about the benefits of 'barefoot' vs shod running. I fear I would not be able to get away with a minimalist shoe because one of my arches is almost flat due to a bad break in college.

changing4life

I use my HRM to determine calories when I am on my treadmill, not what the treadmill says.

Sabine_Stroehm

I follow my fitbit, which knows how many steps I'm taking at any moment, and knows my age, my typical strides...

The treadmill knows how fast the belt is moving, and the incline and has a few algorithms for my age, weight gender, but the treadmill has no idea how fast *I* am moving, nor how many steps I'm taking.

For example: we have our own treadmill. Sometimes I run "barefoot" (in socks). Sometimes I run shod. I have a nike fit shoe insert that I can also attach to my sock. I know from experience that my sock footed run has a much smaller stride than my shod run. Therefore I do quite a few more steps on the treadmill set at at 5.5 with socks than I do with shoes. Nike captures this data as well. But the treadmill just sees the belt moving at 5.5.

If you have a fitbit, go with that. Fwiw, fitbit and nike+ are pretty close in terms of calorie burn for me.

That's very interesting Sabine. I have been thinking a lot lately about the benefits of 'barefoot' vs shod running. I fear I would not be able to get away with a minimalist shoe because one of my arches is almost flat due to a bad break in college.

If you try it, try it on the treadmill. That's where I started. What I did was: run a mile shod to warm up, then slowed the pace of the treadmill down, and ran for just a few minutes socked. Each time I ran (I started this in winter, when I was more likely to be inside) I increased the time I was socked. When spring came, I started running on the artificial turf on the football field (so next to the macadam track) barefoot. That's as far as I got. And I'm happy with that. :-)
I DO run minimal, but I use the Brooks pure connect, which have a bit of an arch. I've been wearing those since they came out. I wear them for both indoor and outdoor runs and can comfortably do 8miles in them.
I tried the new balance minims (which I use for walking to work and daily) but I couldn't run in them.

If you DO try socked running: I found that (don't laugh) the little hospital style socks with the little rubber treads worked best for public treadmills. Not because the belt is slippery, but the sides are. My own treadmill at home isn't slick on the sides.
I found that public treadmills often got hot (the belt). My own doesn't, but the belt is newer and is a tad rough on my feet if I do more than 20 minutes completely barefoot.

JG762

I've wondered the same thing, I have no idea which is 'correct" but I suspect that neither of them is right. Common sense tells me that no too people are the same and everybody is going to burn calories at a different rate. The machines where I'm exercising all are programed to request that you input your weight & age, but your height-stride isn't taken into consideration, it only stands to reason that a longer stride will show different results than a shorter stride etc.
I look at the readings as a guideline and don't take them to seriously, I try to use them to my advantage when I'm exercising by watching them and pushing myself to "earn" 5 more or 10 more,
I wouldn't think it matters to much unless you're planning on eating all of your earned calories, although I'm very new here and I might be wrong.

"The preceding statement is just some guys opinion and it's worth just what you paid for it. LoL

Samstan101

I find my Fitbit calorie burn for an activity is pretty close to that my HRM gives (usually Fitbit is slightly lower). The machines at the gym seem to over-estimate significantly compared to both my HRM & Fitbit. I have set my walking and running stride as well as weight, age etc on my Fitbit and not just left the default settings though.

Runner5AbelTownship

Not sure if it's been mentioned but the more you weigh the more you burn.

SJCon

I find my Fitbit calorie burn for an activity is pretty close to that my HRM gives (usually Fitbit is slightly lower). The machines at the gym seem to over-estimate significantly compared to both my HRM & Fitbit. I have set my walking and running stride as well as weight, age etc on my Fitbit and not just left the default settings though.

Your VO2 has a significant impact on effort/calorie burn so the fitter you are the more you burn for the same HR. I have never seen a Gym machine that takes this into account but the more advanced HRM do. Things will only generally match the closer you come to the "statistical" normal.