Need help figuring out your TDEE? Get a Fitbit.
Replies
-
Eh, removing my BMR would put me roughly in the 270 range for calories burned in an hour. As it happens, this isn't that far off from what MFP would give me in their cardio (strength training) training option, but it is twice as much as 75-100.
Perhaps the take away is that I could potentially also use a fitbit and just add MFP's suggested calories for weight lifting. I don't necessarily have a problem with my BMF, but it's always nice to have options and compare information.
You misunderstand.
I don't burn 75-100 calories an hour while lifting. Hell, my BMR by itself is in that range.
I said that I add 75-100 calories for the time spent lifting weight. The Fitbit logs calories during that time - it sees me walking around, bending down, warming up on the treadmill, etc. It already calculates those calories. I add 75-100 ON TOP OF what the Fitbit registers for the time spent working out. For a typical lifting session, once I add in the 75-100 calories, I'm generally logging between 260 - 310 calories for the workout.0 -
My BodyMedia Link accurately measures calories burned when weightlifting. Since BM is more than an elaborate motion sensor, it also measures skin temperature, heat flux from muscle exertion, and skin conductivity from sweat. This is all the information it needs to accurately measure calories burned when weightlifting.
I understand some people don't like the arm band, but I don't mind it. People in my gym have asked me about it and I just tell them what it is, then show them the BM app on my phone.
Might confirm those sensors are working well for you - for many they don't.
The galvanic sensor BTW is not a sweat sensor, it's the on/off button to tell when it's on your arm.
Conversation with their support when I left it off my arm after a shower all day, with the band touching the sensor. It thought it was on-body the whole day, with no movement.
Anyway, if you look at your calories burned per min, take a look at your night-time lows when you are sleeping.
Now go find some time you were sitting awake watching TV, movie, or at work just sitting.
The latter should be higher if the sensors are working well for you. If it's the same, several of them are not.
For instance, the heat flux was worthless with me, doing some very specific tests for it. In the gym on flat treadmill with fan staying decently cool, running at certain HR and certain foot turnover and pace.
Then the next day at same pace, same foot turnover, but outside almost 100 temp, doing hills, HR a whole lot higher, and obviously my workload much higher too.
Same calorie burn reported.
When I finally had my biggest calorie burn compared to any exercise happen on a 4 hr cool fall morning doing some chain-saw work cutting down a tree, never a hard effort at all, but because of the vibrating arm it thought I was doing great, I ditched it.
That and you could never replace workout calories with better estimated HRM, unless you remember to remove the device, then you could manually enter your own calories.0 -
For instance, the heat flux was worthless with me, doing some very specific tests for it. In the gym on flat treadmill with fan staying decently cool, running at certain HR and certain foot turnover and pace.
Then the next day at same pace, same foot turnover, but outside almost 100 temp, doing hills, HR a whole lot higher, and obviously my workload much higher too.
Same calorie burn reported.
That actually indicates to me that the BodyMedia is indeed highly accurate. Or, at least, consistent.
Running at the same pace, same foot turnover, you'll be burning about the same calories. Running in the heat doesn't make you burn more calories than running in the cold. Your HR was higher because your body was trying to eliminate heat.
Your heart rate increases sitting outside in the hot sun sweating. But you're not burning more calories. Increased heart rate (but not calorie burn) is a response to heat.0 -
Eh, removing my BMR would put me roughly in the 270 range for calories burned in an hour. As it happens, this isn't that far off from what MFP would give me in their cardio (strength training) training option, but it is twice as much as 75-100.
Perhaps the take away is that I could potentially also use a fitbit and just add MFP's suggested calories for weight lifting. I don't necessarily have a problem with my BMF, but it's always nice to have options and compare information.
You misunderstand.
I don't burn 75-100 calories an hour while lifting. Hell, my BMR by itself is in that range.
I said that I add 75-100 calories for the time spent lifting weight. The Fitbit logs calories during that time - it sees me walking around, bending down, warming up on the treadmill, etc. It already calculates those calories. I add 75-100 ON TOP OF what the Fitbit registers for the time spent working out. For a typical lifting session, once I add in the 75-100 calories, I'm generally logging between 260 - 310 calories for the workout.
Ah, I see now.
Because I'm curious, how did you establish that addition of 75-100? I can see where one could do so with some trial and error, but I didn't know if there was a generally accurate calculator out there.0 -
Eh, removing my BMR would put me roughly in the 270 range for calories burned in an hour. As it happens, this isn't that far off from what MFP would give me in their cardio (strength training) training option, but it is twice as much as 75-100.
Perhaps the take away is that I could potentially also use a fitbit and just add MFP's suggested calories for weight lifting. I don't necessarily have a problem with my BMF, but it's always nice to have options and compare information.
You misunderstand.
I don't burn 75-100 calories an hour while lifting. Hell, my BMR by itself is in that range.
I said that I add 75-100 calories for the time spent lifting weight. The Fitbit logs calories during that time - it sees me walking around, bending down, warming up on the treadmill, etc. It already calculates those calories. I add 75-100 ON TOP OF what the Fitbit registers for the time spent working out. For a typical lifting session, once I add in the 75-100 calories, I'm generally logging between 260 - 310 calories for the workout.
Ah, I see now.
Because I'm curious, how did you establish that addition of 75-100? I can see where one could do so with some trial and error, but I didn't know if there was a generally accurate calculator out there.
I know I'm burning more energy squatting 200 lbs than squatting no pounds. No idea how much, really. I've done some research, but there's very little out there to give any indication.
So it's really just sort of a guesstimate. But it feels about right. 200 just seems way too high, so I shot for something lower.0 -
It suggests to me what I've always suspected (after owning one)... that the extra sensors on the BM are used for non-calorie things like sleep tracking, turning off/on and making you feel like you've got something so much better than an accelerometer on.For instance, the heat flux was worthless with me, doing some very specific tests for it. In the gym on flat treadmill with fan staying decently cool, running at certain HR and certain foot turnover and pace.
Then the next day at same pace, same foot turnover, but outside almost 100 temp, doing hills, HR a whole lot higher, and obviously my workload much higher too.
Same calorie burn reported.
That actually indicates to me that the BodyMedia is indeed highly accurate. Or, at least, consistent.
Running at the same pace, same foot turnover, you'll be burning about the same calories. Running in the heat doesn't make you burn more calories than running in the cold. Your HR was higher because your body was trying to eliminate heat.
Your heart rate increases sitting outside in the hot sun sweating. But you're not burning more calories. Increased heart rate (but not calorie burn) is a response to heat.
Jonny- I didn't keep my BM long and it was 4 years ago so maybe they've improved (though they look the same) but it gave me readings very similar to my Fitbit, which did prove accurate to me over many months of tracking all the inputs/outputs.
Since Jawbone owns BodyMedia, you'd think if those extra sensors add so much, they'd add them to the Up bands in some form. I think they know full well there is a 'sporty' market and a 'Biggest Loser' market. And the BL market is more likely to pay a monthly fee for something they feel is more technical than a Wiimote or pedometer.0 -
I just got my Fitbit Flex, put it on and haven't taken it off, except to charge it. I love this little brain on my arm. It helps me keep track of my steps and syncs automatically to my laptop. I like the fact that it tracks my sleep also. I didn't realize what kind of pattern I was getting into at night and why I wasn't feeling rested in the morning until now. If anything my wrist band reminds me to think about what I am going to eat, why I am eating what I am eating. I am slowly learning what all the numbers mean and I know this is a process. My Fitbit was the best Christmas gift I could have received!
0 -
For instance, the heat flux was worthless with me, doing some very specific tests for it. In the gym on flat treadmill with fan staying decently cool, running at certain HR and certain foot turnover and pace.
Then the next day at same pace, same foot turnover, but outside almost 100 temp, doing hills, HR a whole lot higher, and obviously my workload much higher too.
Same calorie burn reported.
That actually indicates to me that the BodyMedia is indeed highly accurate. Or, at least, consistent.
Running at the same pace, same foot turnover, you'll be burning about the same calories. Running in the heat doesn't make you burn more calories than running in the cold. Your HR was higher because your body was trying to eliminate heat.
Your heart rate increases sitting outside in the hot sun sweating. But you're not burning more calories. Increased heart rate (but not calorie burn) is a response to heat.
No, my HR was massively higher (prior day was recovery type run) because I was doing hills specifically at pace. So HR was actually all over the place, but on average 30 higher if I recall. And yes, heat-elevated HR is corrected for some inaccuracy. For the flat run warmup before I reached the hills, probably about 5 higher.0 -
I was doing hills specifically at pace.
Ah, well clearly adding hills to the mix would make you burn more.0 -
OK, please do some more math for me. I got my FitBit One for Christmas. I started a spreadsheet on 01 January to track stuff.
IIFYM.com TDEE for no exercise calories is 1605
MFP maintain sedentary is 1670
BMR is 1338
I set MFP for .5 loss per week. It gave me 1430 calories. FitBit (set at .5 pounds for loss) gave me 1567 calories. My average caloric intake for the past 9 days is 1353. I have actually lost 1.2 pounds in 9 days. Average calories burned per day is 257.
I'm guessing my MFP TDEE is the 1670? How do I know what my FitBit TDEE is?0 -
Bump to read later. What I've read so far has me interested in purchasing a Fitbit.0
-
The fitbit one estimates your TDEE just like every website does with your vital stats. Then it divides that by 24 and uses that value when you're not doing anything. It's just a glorified pedometer so it can only measure what a pedometer can. It does vertical too, which is a bonus.
A heart rate monitor is way more accurate.
I agree ^ I have a fitbit and I wish I would have got a HRM for more accuracy0 -
The fitbit one estimates your TDEE just like every website does with your vital stats. Then it divides that by 24 and uses that value when you're not doing anything. It's just a glorified pedometer so it can only measure what a pedometer can. It does vertical too, which is a bonus.
A heart rate monitor is way more accurate.
I agree ^ I have a fitbit and I wish I would have got a HRM for more accuracy
More accuracy when?0 -
OK, please do some more math for me. I got my FitBit One for Christmas. I started a spreadsheet on 01 January to track stuff.
IIFYM.com TDEE for no exercise calories is 1605
MFP maintain sedentary is 1670
BMR is 1338
I set MFP for .5 loss per week. It gave me 1430 calories. FitBit (set at .5 pounds for loss) gave me 1567 calories. My average caloric intake for the past 9 days is 1353. I have actually lost 1.2 pounds in 9 days. Average calories burned per day is 257.
I'm guessing my MFP TDEE is the 1670? How do I know what my FitBit TDEE is?
MFP considers your TDEE the 1670, which is based exclusively on the settings you enter.
When you say Fitbit gave you 1567 calories, is that your starting for each day (based on your settings) or is that what it's calculating based on actual activity for each day?
To find what Fitbit is calculating your TDEE at, you just need to review each completed day and take an average.
At 9 days in, you don't have a large enough data set to apply your actual loss and intake against your Fitbit data to see if it's accurate. I'd estimate you need at LEAST 6 weeks for that to be a worthwhile exercise, maybe 4 weeks if you didn't really change your habits when you started using it (and therefore didn't have much of an initial water weight loss).0 -
Bump0
-
Great news! I got mine for Christmas. On totally lazy days, I burn about 1800, but I don't have many of those days. My average for last week was 1967. My goal is 2164, so I'm trying to get it higher on a regular basis. All it takes to get there is 30 minutes of good, hard exercise but most days so far I've just been walking to meet my step goal.
Glad to hear it's been useful for you. I hope it helps me too!!!0 -
I have a fitbit that I used to have connected here. I found the synchronization between fitbit and MFP to be unreliable. Some days it worked as it should but some days it not. Is there a trick that I missed?0
-
@bekahlou ... when you go to the Fitbit website, in the top right corner you will see your profile picture. Click on it and it will take you to a summary page. Here you'll have your average daily burn for the last 30 days. If you are logging food in MFP and have connected the two, it will also show your intake and give you a 30-day average there too (once you've had it for 30 days that is *Ü*). Your daily numbers are graphed, and I TRY to keep those lines from touching (making sure my burn is higher than my intake).
I am a huge Fitbit fan ... I have a HRM too and I appreciate it's feedback for specific exercise sessions, but love the Fitbit for it's ease, convenience and comfort (I still am always painfully aware of my HRM every moment I have it on). I pretty much wear mine 24/7. Unlike a plain pedometer, the Fitbit's wireless syncing and chronological visual display of steps is so motivational to me.0 -
I set MFP for .5 loss per week. It gave me 1430 calories. FitBit (set at .5 pounds for loss) gave me 1567 calories. My average caloric intake for the past 9 days is 1353. I have actually lost 1.2 pounds in 9 days. Average calories burned per day is 257.
I'm guessing my MFP TDEE is the 1670? How do I know what my FitBit TDEE is?
Your FitBit TDEE is what they call "Calories Burned". It will vary each day based on how active you are. FitBit will subtract 250 calories from it's estimate of your total daily burn based on your activity level, but it will adjust throughout the day. When I first started using FitBit, the numbers it gave me and MFP gave me were somewhat different, but after adjusting settings on both to match (changed from sedentary to lightly active and then active) and adjusting my calorie goal in MFP to about 250 less than the average Calories Burned from FitBit over a period of several weeks, they now are usually within 30 calories of each other.0 -
Bumping for later read0
-
OK, please do some more math for me. I got my FitBit One for Christmas. I started a spreadsheet on 01 January to track stuff.
IIFYM.com TDEE for no exercise calories is 1605
MFP maintain sedentary is 1670
BMR is 1338
I set MFP for .5 loss per week. It gave me 1430 calories. FitBit (set at .5 pounds for loss) gave me 1567 calories. My average caloric intake for the past 9 days is 1353. I have actually lost 1.2 pounds in 9 days. Average calories burned per day is 257.
I'm guessing my MFP TDEE is the 1670? How do I know what my FitBit TDEE is?
MFP considers your TDEE the 1670, which is based exclusively on the settings you enter.
When you say Fitbit gave you 1567 calories, is that your starting for each day (based on your settings) or is that what it's calculating based on actual activity for each day?
To find what Fitbit is calculating your TDEE at, you just need to review each completed day and take an average.
At 9 days in, you don't have a large enough data set to apply your actual loss and intake against your Fitbit data to see if it's accurate. I'd estimate you need at LEAST 6 weeks for that to be a worthwhile exercise, maybe 4 weeks if you didn't really change your habits when you started using it (and therefore didn't have much of an initial water weight loss).
Yes, 1567 is what Fitbit says I should eat to lose .5 per week.
thanks0 -
Regarding the pedometer (e.g. FB) vs. HRM arguments.
Neither are right. You need both an HRM for "exertion not related to walking" (e.g. push-ups) AND a pedometer for the 7/24 calorie burns which are mostly (say 70% as a wild guess) related to walking.
So, IMHO, trying to decide which is best for all activities is a futile effort since they do different things (i.e. you are comparing apples and oranges).
You need both...if you want to capture most of the EE part of TDEE (BMR excepted).0 -
Regarding the pedometer (e.g. FB) vs. HRM arguments.
Neither are right. You need both an HRM for "formal exercise not related to walking" (e.g. push-ups) AND a pedometer for the 7/24 calorie burns which are mostly (say 70% as a wild guess) related to walking.
So, IMHO, trying to decide which is best for all activities is a futile effort since they do different things (i.e. you are comparing apples and oranges).
You need both...if you want to capture most of the EE part of TDEE.
The calorie expenditure calculated by an HRM during a push-up session will be horribly inaccurate. HRMs are good at estimating calorie burn only during steady-state cardio that lasts a significant amount of time when your VO2max is known.
They are not meant to estimate calorie burn during resistance training in any capacity.0 -
Ill hav to read this later thanks0
-
I stand corrected. Thank you!...
You need both...if you want to capture most of the EE part of TDEE.The calorie expenditure calculated by an HRM during a push-up session will be horribly inaccurate. HRMs are good at estimating calorie burn only during steady-state cardio that lasts a significant amount of time when your VO2max is known.
They are not meant to estimate calorie burn during resistance training in any capacity.0 -
So I have the new Fitbit Force and love it already; have had it for about 4 weeks now. I synced it with MFP and it adjusts my calories up each; so when it shows my new calorie goal for the day on MFP, is that taking into account my weight loss goals on here?0
-
I do love my Fitbit One but I wish I would have purchased a heart rate monitor instead. I may go back and get a Polar FT7 watch with a chest strap.0
-
So I have the new Fitbit Force and love it already; have had it for about 4 weeks now. I synced it with MFP and it adjusts my calories up each; so when it shows my new calorie goal for the day on MFP, is that taking into account my weight loss goals on here?
Yes, it should be. MFP gives you the calorie adjustment based on the difference between how many calories Fitbit says you are burning versus how many MFP expected you to burn.0 -
So i'm sure at some point this was asked, I just don't have the time or energy to scan all 11 pages of comments. What exactly does the fitbit track? Is it a high tech pedometer? I guess i'm not understanding how a thing clipped to your waist can tell how long/how well you have slept, or how many calories you burned doing high impact exercise (other than by tracking steps)0
-
So i'm sure at some point this was asked, I just don't have the time or energy to scan all 11 pages of comments. What exactly does the fitbit track? Is it a high tech pedometer? I guess i'm not understanding how a thing clipped to your waist can tell how long/how well you have slept, or how many calories you burned doing high impact exercise (other than by tracking steps)
Well the real answer is that no one quite knows. They don't make the algorithm public.
The device has a 3-axis accelerometer in it. This means it can measure motion, to a pretty high degree of precision, in 3 dimensions. The software translates this motion, via said unknown algorithm, into energy expenditure. It clearly tracks steps, and it can also determine speed to some extent.
There's nothing all that mysterious about burning calories. It takes a certain amount of energy to accelerate a human body of a given mass in a given direction. The Fitbit tracks this and somehow calculates calorie consumption from it. It seems to do it surprisingly well.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions