Need help figuring out your TDEE? Get a Fitbit.
Options
Replies
-
I've worn a Ultra, then a One for the last 2 years. I bought it knowing it would not cover all calorie burn activities, but would get me a better TDEE without me having to do any mental work or just trust that the FB or MFP "activity level" was accurate enough.
As stated by the OP, the FB adjusts the daily TDEE estimate from your "keyed activity level" (e.g. sedentary) giving you a more accurate net calories result. This allowed me to eat back calories daily to around a 500 calorie deficit, without me feeling hungry.
I've learned dieting is easy for me, if the calorie deficit is smallish (<500 kcal/day).
Thus, slow and steady as she goes (aye aye Cap'n).........got me to my destination without floundering on some obese reef!0 -
This makes me sad because I asked for a fitbit one for christmas and didn't get one. I've wanted it for so long, I'm going to have to save up myself. I do a lot of walking for work and it would be insanely helpful for those days.0
-
I won't buy one because it doesn't know how much I burn from a weight lifting session. I lift 4 days a week and that is my primary form of exercise. I also do cardio here and there, but lifting is my main thing, so it's useless to me. It's a shame because on all other fronts, it seems pretty legit.
Lifting doesn't burn that many calories. I add 75-100 calories per session depending on how much I do.
So I'm genuinely curious about that because here's my Leg Day 1 from this week. The data is from my Body Media Fit. I've left out of the warm up and cool down cardio from the selected range. Exercises included: DLs, Good Mornings, Standing Leg Curls, Seated Leg Press and Dumbbell Side Bends. For me, this is a decent amount of calories.
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.
It's not a glorified pedometer. There's no reason in the world to think that it's less accurate than an HRM and a million reasons an HRM is far less accurate.
However, this thread is not about HRM vs Fitbit. The Fitbit is a device designed to be worn 24/7 in order to give you a TDEE. HRMs are not.
This thread is about how people struggling to figure out their TDEE can make it a lot easier by getting a Fitbit and removing most of the guesswork.
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.0 -
I won't buy one because it doesn't know how much I burn from a weight lifting session. I lift 4 days a week and that is my primary form of exercise. I also do cardio here and there, but lifting is my main thing, so it's useless to me. It's a shame because on all other fronts, it seems pretty legit.
Lifting doesn't burn that many calories. I add 75-100 calories per session depending on how much I do.
So I'm genuinely curious about that because here's my Leg Day 1 from this week. The data is from my Body Media Fit. I've left out of the warm up and cool down cardio from the selected range. Exercises included: DLs, Good Mornings, Standing Leg Curls, Seated Leg Press and Dumbbell Side Bends. For me, this is a decent amount of calories.
Is your BMR included in that number? I am assuming it is, so an estimate of about 200 calories seems in line with what others are saying they estimate when using a FitBit.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.
The armband makes the BM a total nonstarter for me. That is definitely not something I'm interested in wearing the rest of my life, period.
I'd be interested for someone to take several months' worth of their BM data and compare it to "actual" calories burned (calculated from calorie intake and weight change over time) to see how close it got. Several people have done this for their Fitbits, but I haven't seen anyone do it for the BM.0 -
Jonny is the poster above mine who originally made the statement that lifting doesn't burn that many calories. (He's also the OP, but that's unrelated.)I won't buy one because it doesn't know how much I burn from a weight lifting session. I lift 4 days a week and that is my primary form of exercise. I also do cardio here and there, but lifting is my main thing, so it's useless to me. It's a shame because on all other fronts, it seems pretty legit.
Lifting doesn't burn that many calories. I add 75-100 calories per session depending on how much I do.
Lifting is also my primary form of exercise. FitBit still tracks how "active" you are during your lifting sessions, but you're correct that it won't track the exact amount of calories you burn because you're lifting. However, as Jonny said, lifting doesn't burn that many calories. I eat according to FitBit's estimate of my TDEE and ignore whatever pittance of calories are burned during weight-lifting.
Interesting. I know that's very true. I used to think I burned 200, but later I think it was less because I was maintening on what I thought was a very small deficit. But, I cheat too. So, I have a lot of variables to contend with. Lol. I probably burn 100 to 200 per session, depending. Some days, like yesterday, I decided to do super sets in rapid sucession with short breaks in between. When I do that, I feel like I burn a lot more because there's a cardio aspect to it. But, meh! Whatever.
Hmmm. I like your method. I don't know who Jonny is, didn't bother reading everything. I've read a *kitten*-ton of stuff about fitbit. I've been thinking about it for a while. I like the idea of not worrying too much about the actual lifting burns. Just chalk that up to body sculpting or something, not cals burned.
I am so glad I got this FitBit One. It's the easiest and most consistently accurate way I've found of tracking TDEE. The way I see it, however many calories I burn during lifting is incidental since it's so low. I also consider that this may offset any logging discrepancies that may occur for whatever reason. And, finally, yes, I basically consider any calories burned lifting to be more geared towards body composition than fat loss, even though the two are pretty much the same thing.0 -
I won't buy one because it doesn't know how much I burn from a weight lifting session. I lift 4 days a week and that is my primary form of exercise. I also do cardio here and there, but lifting is my main thing, so it's useless to me. It's a shame because on all other fronts, it seems pretty legit.
Lifting doesn't burn that many calories. I add 75-100 calories per session depending on how much I do.
Lifting is also my primary form of exercise. FitBit still tracks how "active" you are during your lifting sessions, but you're correct that it won't track the exact amount of calories you burn because you're lifting. However, as Jonny said, lifting doesn't burn that many calories. I eat according to FitBit's estimate of my TDEE and ignore whatever pittance of calories are burned during weight-lifting.
Interesting. I know that's very true. I used to think I burned 200, but later I think it was less because I was maintening on what I thought was a very small deficit. But, I cheat too. So, I have a lot of variables to contend with. Lol. I probably burn 100 to 200 per session, depending. Some days, like yesterday, I decided to do super sets in rapid sucession with short breaks in between. When I do that, I feel like I burn a lot more because there's a cardio aspect to it. But, meh! Whatever.
Hmmm. I like your method. I don't know who Jonny is, didn't bother reading everything. I've read a *kitten*-ton of stuff about fitbit. I've been thinking about it for a while. I like the idea of not worrying too much about the actual lifting burns. Just chalk that up to body sculpting or something, not cals burned.
I think you'd like it Jerry, especially since you run. You and I have similar geek profiles, and the FitBit makes mine happy.0 -
I won't buy one because it doesn't know how much I burn from a weight lifting session. I lift 4 days a week and that is my primary form of exercise. I also do cardio here and there, but lifting is my main thing, so it's useless to me. It's a shame because on all other fronts, it seems pretty legit.
Lifting doesn't burn that many calories. I add 75-100 calories per session depending on how much I do.
So I'm genuinely curious about that because here's my Leg Day 1 from this week. The data is from my Body Media Fit. I've left out of the warm up and cool down cardio from the selected range. Exercises included: DLs, Good Mornings, Standing Leg Curls, Seated Leg Press and Dumbbell Side Bends. For me, this is a decent amount of calories.
(image omitted for space)
Is your BMR included in that number? I am assuming it is, so an estimate of about 200 calories seems in line with what others are saying they estimate when using a FitBit.
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.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.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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions