Fitness monitor that measures workouts on inclines?

bethwr1

I really enjoy walking, and I live in an extremely mountainous, hilly part of the country. There is not a flat surface to be found outside of the airport! Is there a fitness tracker that will actually recognize that I'm hill walking instead of just strolling on a flat surface?

SnuggleSmacks

It seems as though Fitbit Flex measures altitude, and therefore can tell if you're climbing stairs, but I could be remembering wrong. And I'm not sure how that translates to hills, but I would think it would be pretty much the same when measuring altitude.

goldmay

Withings Pulse measures elevation in feet.

deansdad101

I really enjoy walking, and I live in an extremely mountainous, hilly part of the country. There is not a flat surface to be found outside of the airport! Is there a fitness tracker that will actually recognize that I'm hill walking instead of just strolling on a flat surface?

Beth;
Other posters have offered various (and pricey) "gizmos" that are (or maybe are) capable of tracking changes in elevation.

So too (depending on the model), is the GPS in your car - and it's probably going to be just as accurate (inaccurate) in calculating the exact number of cals burned on your walks.

Yes, I'm being facetious, but intentionally so. (and hopefully in a humorous manner)

Does it really matter if you are actually "burning" 129 or 184 cals on your walks?

I would suggest that focusing on tracking your actual cals IN (food), body weight daily, and the "trends" (average loss/week over time) is a much better investment of time (and money) than any gizmo with flashing lights, alarms, and a wifi connection.

Once you've nailed down the correct target "cals in" number (and you do not NEED a daily exercise cals out number - the "averages" already built in to most TDEE calculators are as good a guess as any), and assuming that your weekly/monthly exercise routines remain pretty much stable, the results (ave weekly loss) is really all that matters.

Losing at an acceptable rate - keep doing what you are doing.
Not losing, gaining, (or losing at a rate which has changed or with which you are not satisfied) - add or subtract a couple hundred cals to your daily cals in target and stick as close as possible to the new number. After a couple weeks, see how it's working and readjust if necessary.

It really is that simple, KISS, why make it more complicated than it needs to be.

There are, of course, "other" reasons why people love their (insert name of any) fitness trackers.

Some cite the "motivational" benefits of looking at the flashing lights and steps counter (which you can do just fine with a $14 ped).

Others simply have to have all the latest "toys", regardless of what activity they elect to engage themselves in (and many of which end up on the lawn with a "free to a good home" sign - 6 months later),

Some succumb to the "I spent my hard earned bucks on this thing,damn it, and I'm gonna love it - no matter what", mentality,

And a few feel a need to link their FitBit (or any other) readout, or a pic of it, on their facebook page for reasons which I've yet to be able to understand (the pics, or the need to post on FB "I'm heading to the bathroom now to do #x")

But it's your money, your time, and if having a more accurate "guess" at which is closer (129 or 184), really does matter to you - have at it.

brianpperkins

Going up inclines does increase burn relative to flat ground ... however down the hill results in a lower burn than flat terrain (until exceeding a 15% decline). A GPS can recognize the difference ... some models of trackers have altimeters .... if you really want to track altitude changes.

deansdad101

Going up inclines does increase burn relative to flat ground ... however down the hill results in a lower burn than flat terrain (until exceeding a 15% decline). A GPS can recognize the difference ... some models of trackers have altimeters .... if you really want to track altitude changes.

Brian;
I'm not sure (so feel free to correct me where I'm wrong), but I "think" the changes (burn rate at x% incline vs y%) are not linear, and, even if one were to know the absolute difference between the 'bottom" and the "top" of the route (on a round robin route beginning and ending at the same point but not 1/2 one way and the other 1/2 backtracking the first half) - calculating the increased calorie burn would be impossible. (without additional data).

It's not as simple as a 200' change in elevation so 200 up and 200 down = 0 net increase in cal burn.

Our "track" is a 3 mile loop (starts and ends at home and essentially a circle)
In the first mile one reaches the "top" (highest elevation),
Descending back to ground zero (home) is gradual descent that requires the entire 2 miles to equal the change that occurred in the first 1 mile "climb" (lower %, longer distance/time).

I "think" one would have to know the exact number of "steps" (distance) at each increment of inclination/declination i.e. 200 steps x ave step distance @ 5% incline, 150 @ 4%, 500 @ 0, 450 @ 1% decline, etc, etc, etc.

With that info (and probably the variable of "time" at each level and step lengths at each %) , AND with accurate burn rates at each data point, it "should" be possible to develop the algorithm (???)

Doubt it's going to happen anytime soon in a $99 tracker though (if for no other reason than that the tracker would have to be capable of actually measuring changes in step length), and further doubt that even if it did, the difference (vs a flat track) would be worth the effort to calculate.

As an intellectual exercise it's an interesting challenge, as to providing the OP with any "meaningful" info in the real world - not so much.

brianpperkins

It isn't linear but if you look through MFP people tend to focus on the additional caloric burn up hill while completely ignoring the reduced energy requirements for the decline portions. Trying to get to exact numbers is meaningless when talking about nothing more than estimates.

If you really wanted to, you could figure the caloric burn based on slopes, distances, weight, and several other variables for both the incline and decline of your track. I just go on the premise that the difference between expenditures up and down is within the margin of error of the estimates and don't get wrapped around that axle. It lets me focus more on improving speed, distance, endurance, etc.

bkthandler

FitBit one tracks stairs...when I climb hills it does measures stairs (it seems to vary with humidity).

Hiking (with hills) counts as more calories than just walking.

I also find that walking downhill has it's own challenges, good core workout.

deansdad101

It isn't linear but if you look through MFP people tend to focus on the additional caloric burn up hill while completely ignoring the reduced energy requirements for the decline portions. Trying to get to exact numbers is meaningless when talking about nothing more than estimates.

If you really wanted to, you could figure the caloric burn based on slopes, distances, weight, and several other variables for both the incline and decline of your track. I just go on the premise that the difference between expenditures up and down is within the margin of error of the estimates and don't get wrapped around that axle. It lets me focus more on improving speed, distance, endurance, etc.

Brian;
Makes total sense.....thanks

kt2007

The FREE APP RUNKEEPER on your cell phone will track it for you. elevation, by speed, by your measurements, and you can use a HRM with it also. best thing its FREE tracks all kinds of activities.

brianpperkins

The FREE APP RUNKEEPER on your cell phone will track it for you. elevation, by speed, by your measurements, and you can use a HRM with it also. best thing its FREE tracks all kinds of activities.

there is a difference in tracking elevation based on GPS data and accurately calculating calories burned based on those slopes.

SnuggleSmacks

I use a Bodymedia which does not measure elevation, but does measure a number of things besides steps, such as changes in skin temp and moisture, so it can tell how hard you're working. It will therefore measure a higher calorie burn for hills than for a flat surface or decline.