Runkeeper vs. FitBit Flex - Calories burned????

pkingfox
pkingfox Posts: 25
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi - I currently use FB Flex 24/7 and have found that my calories burned via Runkeeper appear to be running about 100 cals. higher than what FB shows for fast walking......Any ideas about which one might be the more accurate number? I have just let FB calc my burns cals just to keep it consistent - but I would love to know what my accurate burn might be.....Please help if you know or if you have any thoughts on this. Thanks - Patti

Replies

  • donnaleighh
    donnaleighh Posts: 178 Member
    Hi there - I don't have the flex but I do have an ultra and I trust it for walking - I use a HRM for anything over a wander with the wonderdog :)

    Personally I would go with the lower burn for recording activity ...

    Also you might be interested in this comparison between the FB one and flex - it is really interesting simply because it compares across the FB products as opposed to comparing them with others on the market ..

    http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/05/fitbit-flex-review-peer-pressure-sucks/

    Hope this helps and doesn't muddy the water further :) Donna

    Edited to add the link :)
  • pyrowill
    pyrowill Posts: 1,163 Member
    I have a fitbit, Runkeeper and a heart rate monitor. I trust the HR monitor completely. And the closest one to that afterwards is RK. My fitbit is always way off so I don't use it anymore.
  • pkingfox
    pkingfox Posts: 25
    Thanks guys......I am sad that FB is so off......does anyone know if Nike Fuel Band or Jawbone UP are any more accurate? I want one I can wear day in day out 24/7 - sleep monitor, activity monitor etc.
  • pyrowill
    pyrowill Posts: 1,163 Member
    You can still use the fitbit for everything else it is used for. Just don't pay attention to the calorie part of it. You can still use the sleep function and the step function.
  • donnaleighh
    donnaleighh Posts: 178 Member
    Pkingfox ... its really not that it is 'off' - its more about really being clear what a FB does and does not do - the FB is a pedomater/activity tracker - but it is not a HRM. If you want to be tracking your normal daily activity then it is excellent - if you want to measure actual calories burned during more intense exercise then use a HRM as well.

    To answer your question about the FB compared to other devices ... here is an answer ....

    http://www.getgrok.com/2013/01/a-comparative-review-28-days-with-the-fitbit-one-jawbone-up-nike-fuelband-and-bodymedia-link/\\

    I hope this helps.. DL
  • Tyree985
    Tyree985 Posts: 22 Member
    I purchased a heart rate monitor because the calories burned were so off. They both were off by at least 100 calories.
  • pyrowill
    pyrowill Posts: 1,163 Member
    Pkingfox ... its really not that it is 'off' - its more about really being clear what a FB does and does not do - the FB is a pedomater/activity tracker - but it is not a HRM. If you want to be tracking your normal daily activity then it is excellent - if you want to measure actual calories burned during more intense exercise then use a HRM as well.

    To answer your question about the FB compared to other devices ... here is an answer ....

    http://www.getgrok.com/2013/01/a-comparative-review-28-days-with-the-fitbit-one-jawbone-up-nike-fuelband-and-bodymedia-link/\\

    I hope this helps.. DL

    But it is that it is 'off'. If you do a 30 minute walking activity and tell your FB to go into activity mode it gives an innaccurate reading for most people. I even contact Fitbit on this matter and they effectively said 'everyone is different'. Well they were 150 calories over for me after a 30 minute walk. If they were that much over such a short time, over a whole day I figured they've be massively over. No thanks.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Pkingfox ... its really not that it is 'off' - its more about really being clear what a FB does and does not do - the FB is a pedomater/activity tracker - but it is not a HRM. If you want to be tracking your normal daily activity then it is excellent - if you want to measure actual calories burned during more intense exercise then use a HRM as well.

    To answer your question about the FB compared to other devices ... here is an answer ....

    http://www.getgrok.com/2013/01/a-comparative-review-28-days-with-the-fitbit-one-jawbone-up-nike-fuelband-and-bodymedia-link/\\

    I hope this helps.. DL

    But it is that it is 'off'. If you do a 30 minute walking activity and tell your FB to go into activity mode it gives an innaccurate reading for most people. I even contact Fitbit on this matter and they effectively said 'everyone is different'. Well they were 150 calories over for me after a 30 minute walk. If they were that much over such a short time, over a whole day I figured they've be massively over. No thanks.

    Sorry you had bad luck with it.

    For me, personally (I have a zip), the calorie burn seems to be underestimated. So far since I've had it, I've lost 6.1lbs (using it's calorie burn, HRM, and 500 cal deficit) even though, according to the data on fitbit.com, I should have only lost 2.3lbs. I use a HRM for any cardio exercise that isn't walking. So for me the combination of my fitbit and HRM is working.
  • Kst76
    Kst76 Posts: 935 Member
    If it is only off with a 100 - 200 calories , to me that is minor. If I do 2 hours of walking at 3.5 mph and my burn is 600 vs 800 calories, i take either one. It wont make a huge difference unless you absolutely have to eat back all your excersise calories.

    I

Categories