What’s everyone’s impression of the new MobileRun feature for Android?
WelshPhil1975
Posts: 138 Member
I accept the explanation they have given for the discrepancy in steps – even though I don’t agree with it in the slightest – but my Active Minutes figures are screwed aswell when I use the app.
I don’t even know which set of data (MobileRun v the actual tracker itself) to trust anymore, and this doesn’t ait well with me atall, seeing as I have totally relied on my One since the day I had it for details about my activity levels.
I don’t even know which set of data (MobileRun v the actual tracker itself) to trust anymore, and this doesn’t ait well with me atall, seeing as I have totally relied on my One since the day I had it for details about my activity levels.
0
Replies
-
When Fitbit's own steps and calorie burn estimate are used and not replaced by a synced in workout, manual workout, or even Fitbit's GPS option, VAM time is about 3.8 mph and about 6x your resting calorie burn.
But when the workout is based on synced or manual entry, then calorie burn must be 6 x resting calorie burn.
That's 6 METS, and that is the CDC's recommendation for VAM level of exercise.
You can view your resting calorie burn in your Fitbit graph for the 5 minute chunks during sleep and any other non-moving time. Do the math for per minute burn. Times your workout time, and that's minimum calorie burn you must meet to get VAM time.
Unless Fitbit's own steps and calorie burn was used, in which case they use speed and calorie burn to decide if VAM.0 -
There's something wonky about the calculation right now, though -- at least for Force owners (we just got a firmware update in the past few days and it's got all kinds of problems, evidently). I'm finding that for unlogged exercise, 6x MET is NOT counting as VAM, but for logged exercise it is?
For instance, I walked this morning at 3mph for 75 minutes, and my Force captured it as about 7.6 cal / minute. My resting rate is just <1.1 cal per minute. So that's comfortably 6 METS, right? But it's logging as active minutes, not VAM.
Meanwhile, yesterday I manually logged a non-step based cardio workout at 7.3 cal / minute. That is showing as VAM and in the green. It's fewer calories per minute and therefore a marginally lower in MET terms (still above 6 METS though), but I'm getting full credit for it.
I know the new algorithm requires you to maintain intensity continuously for 10 minute increments to get VAM credit, and that can affect logged workouts differently from tracker-captured ones. But still, I did walk continuously as a constant rate of speed without stopping. I had my Force in activity mode during my tracker-captured walk this morning and according to the data on the website, I did not drop below 7.5 cal / minute during my walk. Every minute is showing up as having cals / minute above the 6 MET threshold, but no VAM credit for me.0 -
I've only used it on IOS but I stopped using it after about a week. I prefer the tracker's estimation. A fitbit staffer told me that the steps for mobile track are based on the steps detected by the phones accelerometer. The distance is GPS. I found that I would lose a lot of steps when I used it--but I don't usually have my phone in my pocket, it is usually in a pocket in my backpack or purse.
The distance was okay, but my fitbit distance is usually fine anyway. But using mobile track caused me to lose about 200 calories burned a day which would put my allowance at 1200 even on fairly active days. I was losing fine on 1400-1600 on active days at that time. So I felt the calorie burn estimated was too low. It wasn't clear to me whether it was based on the phone counted steps or the GPS distance. I think the steps because the distance was actually pretty much similar to what Fitbit would have tracked anyway. I really don't see the point if you are wearing a tracker. I thought I would like having a GPS map of my routes on my account. I would if it kept the tracker steps and calorie burn. Of course, they may have improved on it since I tried it.
0
