Fitbit vs Treadmill's display of calories burned

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.

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!

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.

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.