Fitbit vs Treadmill's display of calories burned

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.

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.

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.

Good point, and the HRM I've just got does give an estimate of VO2 max (although my old one didn't).

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.

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.

Thank you for the information!

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.

Thank you for the information!

If you try it, let me know how it goes.

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.

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.

Thank you for the information!

If you try it, let me know how it goes.

I will, thank you! Unfortunately I am pretty sure that shoes are mandatory at the gym for the treadmills. If I had the money I'd spring for a pair of minimalist shoes just to play around with. I am really struggling with what I think are pelvic imbalances, and I suspect part of the problem is the relatively high heel that it seems all but the minimalist shoes come with.

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.

Thank you for the information!

If you try it, let me know how it goes.

I will, thank you! Unfortunately I am pretty sure that shoes are mandatory at the gym for the treadmills. If I had the money I'd spring for a pair of minimalist shoes just to play around with. I am really struggling with what I think are pelvic imbalances, and I suspect part of the problem is the relatively high heel that it seems all but the minimalist shoes come with.

They are mandatory at my gym as well. For "sanitary" reasons. I ran for about 6 months in black socks before anyone noticed. When someone did, I pointed out that my socks, which I only ever wore on the treadmill, were cleaner than her sneakers which had just walked in from the street. And that was that. I bet a shoe store would let you run on their treadmill in your socks while they look at your gait. :-)

PS: OP sorry for the hijack!

Azdak

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.

Gym machines don't need the extraneous data required by HRMs. That's because machines measure actual workload. If you have body weight and actual workload you don't need anything else to accurately estimate calories. When machines err, it's because the algorithms they use for estimating calories have not been adequately validated. HRMs need more data points to try to offset the inherent inaccuracy of their methodology. The extra data points required by HRMs do not prove they are more accurate. Just the opposite -- it shows how much the weakness of the underlying methodology needs to be propped up by mathematical gymnastics.

jonnythan

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.

Gym machines don't need the extraneous data required by HRMs. That's because machines measure actual workload. If you have body weight and actual workload you don't need anything else to accurately estimate calories. When machines err, it's because the algorithms they use for estimating calories have not been adequately validated. HRMs need more data points to try to offset the inherent inaccuracy of their methodology. The extra data points required by HRMs do not prove they are more accurate. Just the opposite -- it shows how much the weakness of the underlying methodology needs to be propped up by mathematical gymnastics.

Maybe for a cycle or elliptical where the motive power comes from the user, but not for a treadmill run by a motor.

Azdak

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.

Gym machines don't need the extraneous data required by HRMs. That's because machines measure actual workload. If you have body weight and actual workload you don't need anything else to accurately estimate calories. When machines err, it's because the algorithms they use for estimating calories have not been adequately validated. HRMs need more data points to try to offset the inherent inaccuracy of their methodology. The extra data points required by HRMs do not prove they are more accurate. Just the opposite -- it shows how much the weakness of the underlying methodology needs to be propped up by mathematical gymnastics.

Maybe for a cycle or elliptical where the motive power comes from the user, but not for a treadmill run by a motor.

Your comment is so vague that I am not entirely clear what you are objecting to but using a treadmill does not change the underlying science. Decades ago when the fundamental research that forms the basis of my comments was done, treadmills were the only methodology available for studying walking or running. The equations derived from treadmill experiments have been tested under land conditions and found to be valid.

crystalhealingrainbow

I noticed with my fitbit, it counted 25 steps to the closet when i counted 8 steps. I also noticed it doesn;t track very well when I am walking around at my work for two hours nonstop after getting all of the cleaning chores done. The tracker doesn't show I excercised for two hours nor does it count the steps very well either. I have tried resetting the tracker. It was given to me by my Mom who decided she didn't want it anymore. I thought it would be a good way of tracking my steps and help me stay focused on my wieght loss which is going slow but I can fit into different size jeans then what I was wearing three months ago. My arms is starting to lose the bat wings look. Which is good.