Huge diff in calories burned with CHR and One
glassyo
Posts: 7,760 Member
I posted this a few days ago on the fitbit community page but no one cared 
so trying here.
Ok, so I've worn my CHR for 2 full days and this is what's happening.
I walk for exercise. Depending on how fast the songs are on my mp3 player, the speed varies but I don't usually jog and I never run unless it's to catch a light so I won't have to wait to cross the street.
The calories were pretty much the same before I started my walk this morning but 4 hr and 40 mins later (yes, I walk a lot), here are the differences in that time:
CHR: 1,944 calories burned, 34,899 steps, 16.44 miles
One: 1,352 calories burned, 35,121 steps, 17.74 miles
I had the heart rate monitor part off (because yesterday's difference was approximately 1,000 calories with it on), was wearing the CHR on my non dominant hand (settings have it as dominant) 2-3 fingers width up from the wrist, and all settings were the same same on both fitbits (I started a new account specifically for the CHR).
And during last night's walk, I tried wearing it different ways: non dominant hand with the display on the underside of wrist, dominant hand 3 fingers width from wrist, in my pocket, a tiny bit loose on wrist on non dominant hand (all with hrm off) and the calories were ALWAYS more than I was getting with the One.
Now, normally, I would say, "Woo hoo! Now I can exercise less and still eat the same amount!" but, considering I've been gaining and losing the same pound for like a year with the One, I'm thinking no on the extra calories.
So anyone with advice? I like the CHR enough to want to keep it but not if I can't tame the over abundance of calories it's giving me.
so trying here.Ok, so I've worn my CHR for 2 full days and this is what's happening.
I walk for exercise. Depending on how fast the songs are on my mp3 player, the speed varies but I don't usually jog and I never run unless it's to catch a light so I won't have to wait to cross the street.
The calories were pretty much the same before I started my walk this morning but 4 hr and 40 mins later (yes, I walk a lot), here are the differences in that time:
CHR: 1,944 calories burned, 34,899 steps, 16.44 miles
One: 1,352 calories burned, 35,121 steps, 17.74 miles
I had the heart rate monitor part off (because yesterday's difference was approximately 1,000 calories with it on), was wearing the CHR on my non dominant hand (settings have it as dominant) 2-3 fingers width up from the wrist, and all settings were the same same on both fitbits (I started a new account specifically for the CHR).
And during last night's walk, I tried wearing it different ways: non dominant hand with the display on the underside of wrist, dominant hand 3 fingers width from wrist, in my pocket, a tiny bit loose on wrist on non dominant hand (all with hrm off) and the calories were ALWAYS more than I was getting with the One.
Now, normally, I would say, "Woo hoo! Now I can exercise less and still eat the same amount!" but, considering I've been gaining and losing the same pound for like a year with the One, I'm thinking no on the extra calories.
So anyone with advice? I like the CHR enough to want to keep it but not if I can't tame the over abundance of calories it's giving me.
0
Replies
-
Same thing with me! I just switched and the Charge HR is showing about 400 more calories burned than the One, but I haven't exercised at all yet today. So I'd love to hear some advice as well!0
-
I am having the same deal. I have been using my CHR for about month and the calories it says I burn is way above my One ever calculated. At this point I do not trust the calories burned and have thought about going back to the One. Please post anything you find out.0
-
Well, I'd emailed customer support and they apparently took a look at my account and the only advice I got so far was to reset the CHR. Which, of course, I'd already done.
I'm just glad I'm not alone anymore!
I just find it really weird that I was getting that difference of calories when the steps on the CHR were lower (altho not by much) than the One and the heart rate monitor was off.0 -
Are you logging any specific exercises? Whether through mfp, the button on the device, or manually on fitbit?
Since I've upgraded to the Charge HR, I notice that the exercise records are duplicating, which is why I'm getting a bunch of extra credit. I've just emailed fitbit support, haven't heard back yet.
You can make the adjustment smaller/more reasonable by upping your base activity level on MFP, but I agree it shouldn't be *that* different from the One.0 -
Nah, since all my exercise is walking, I set everything (fitbit and mfp) to sedentary and let the fitbit do its thing.
I'm not sure about changing the activity level on mfp. Wouldn't that just be fooling myself that the calorie difference isn't as huge as it really is?0 -
Aaaaaaaaaaaand I just got another email from them suggesting the dominant hand setting/wearing on non dominant hand thing as well as suggesting putting in stride length (which I've also done altho not really sure how accurate my calculation was).
Which, again, I've already done. Because I know to search forums before asking for help.
And now they want to see if I'm eligible for a replacement.0 -
ColwellCat wrote: »Are you logging any specific exercises? Whether through mfp, the button on the device, or manually on fitbit?
Since I've upgraded to the Charge HR, I notice that the exercise records are duplicating, which is why I'm getting a bunch of extra credit. I've just emailed fitbit support, haven't heard back yet.
You can make the adjustment smaller/more reasonable by upping your base activity level on MFP, but I agree it shouldn't be *that* different from the One.
That adjustment has nothing to do specifically with the workout, as it's the total daily difference between MFP and Fitbit.
Are you sure you are getting duplicate records that actually add calories?
Some people create an activity record using the button.
And then proceed to manually log the workout too in MFP or Fitbit for some odd reason.
That does NOT double the calories, as the activity record is merely a viewing of stats for that time.
The manually entered workout replaces the stats that are actually used in daily totals.0 -
@glassyo - I'd suggest testing the calorie burn for a section of time, or comparing a past record, with something more accurate.
For walking flat, the formulas for calorie burn are more accurate than HRM, and that's what Fitbit is actually attempting to use on the non-HR devices, if the distance is correct.
So if this was treadmill where you know the distance, use this. Gross option like Fitbit would report.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
Compare that to an activity record where you trust the distance.
I'm betting your HR is way out of line compared to what the assumptions are based on age and BMI.
So the HRM based calorie burn is way off too.
Something as simple as the fact that if HRmax is assumed to be well below what it really is, you get inflated calorie burn.
For example, if real HRmax is 180, but HRM assumes it 160, and you did a workout with avgHR of 160 - not hard to see why HRM would assume huge calorie burn, when obviously it's not.0 -
I mostly walk outside and the music I listen to while walking averages 3 mph. I'm NOT happy with the number I got on that website! It basically told me 200 calories to the One's 300 per hour. But, unfortunately, that completely explains why I've more or less maintained weight for the past year. (Which I am soooooooooooo not complaining about. It's much better than the 30 lbs I gained after hitting a plateau on Weight Watchers and doing research on how to get out of it.)
I actually don't have that much to lose anymore and should be going for 1/2 lb per week weight loss but I'm a creature of habit and can't get away from the 3500 calorie deficit.
And test for HRMax. That will probably help with the CHR #s.
And get my head out of my butt and start doing more strength training. Because I suck and know I should be doing more but don't really enjoy it so....
*sigh* I'm gonna miss eating 2500 calories a day.
Speaking of which, they're sending me a new one (uh, CHR....not butt). They deemed the one I have now defective.0 -
You did use the Gross option, right, not the NET option?
Outside walking with inclines would make bigger burn too.
True, if little to lose, it's better to make a wise choice and attempt a slow loss, rather than attempt unwise choice and body forces slow on you anyway.
Just reminder in case you don't know - you must manually log Weights on Fitbit, or Strength training on MFP, since the HR devices will inflate calorie burn, the non-HR devices will deflate calorie burn badly. Database is better in either case.0 -
Yeah, I used gross.
But now I'm wondering why the extra 100 calories on the fitbit.
I'm 5'2" and 123ish lbs. There are a few sections on my walk that have slight inclines but I don't really feel like I'm exerting myself. Maybe sweaty if it's really hot out tho.
I read the message boards enough that I pretty much know what to do...I just don't do it. I'm a creature of habit. And lazy. And like to eat so go for the daily cardio calorie burn instead of the strength training burn more calories in the long run method. 0 -
Is Fitbit correct with the distance?
If it thought you went further, that would explain it.
Also, you could have a walking style that creates more impact, making the device think you are going up in to air more, which requires more calories.
Toe walkers comes to mind.
But that seems like a stretch for just 1 hr of walking time, so must be something else.0 -
I'll play with the distance on my next walk and see if it's close. I'm not confident I set my stride right. I pretty much just used a measuring tape in my apartment. Plus the stride changes depending on the speed of the song since I take smaller steps if the song is fast.
I would not doubt your walking style theory since I'm a heel striker and again, depending on the speed of the song, the impact is a lot harder on the ground.
Are toe walkers like ballerinas because I can barely stay in balance with both feet fully on the ground!
Btw, heybales, thanks for helping me to try to figure all this out. 0 -
Ok, so this is what walking a mile came up with. I basically logged from the corner of a street to the corner of the other street one mile away (per the freeway signs).
Steps 2,385 Distance 1.21 miles Duration 19:00 Calories 89 cals0 -
Ok, so this is what walking a mile came up with. I basically logged from the corner of a street to the corner of the other street one mile away (per the freeway signs).
Steps 2,385 Distance 1.21 miles Duration 19:00 Calories 89 cals
Woh, that is bad for the distance being off.
Does calories compare correctly to that formula site?
Now compared to apartment with tape measure (not a good method at all), that is much better stats to use to adjust stride length.
Now, doing a pace that is purposeful, but not up to exercise level, would be even better.
Somewhere between strolling in stores, to exercise level, would be best.
Because the Fitbit will try to adjust currently used stride length based on the entered stride length and on impact seen and expected.
But if you entered in a stride length based on fast exercise level walking, that means when it adjusts down for shopping stroll, it's probably not enough and it'll be overestimating for the bigger % of the day.
But here's the math on what you do. I'd go ahead and manually adjust the stride length again to this.
Then go do that route again with merely a purposeful pace, not fast exercise.
See if the distance is still correct. If not, do the math again.
Then just leave it alone.
1.21 miles x 5280 ft / 2385 steps = 2.68 ft per step
So change stride length to 2 ft.
0.68 decimal ft x 12 inches = 8.16 decimal inches.
0 -
I'll do that mile again tonight without the music to guide me. That's gonna be hard! I tend to walk slow without music.
For that "1.21" mile, the website gave me 36 calories.
Fitbit already had my stride length at 2 ft for walking and nothing input for running. I redid the measuring tape test again (I know...I know) and pretty much came up with 2 ft again. I was taking normal, pacing my apartment without music to guide me steps.
I also logged a different mile outside with the fitbit just for kicks and came up with:
2,568 steps 1.32 miles 20:00 95 cals
That was fun! 0 -
Tonight's purposeful walk sans music yielded this:
2,382 steps 1.17 miles 19:00 86 cals
Compared to Saturday's with music:
2,385 steps 1.21 miles 19:00 89 cals
I also did a couple 100 steps tests:
75 steps 0.03 miles 1:00 4 cals
61 steps 0.02 miles 1:00 3 cals
So basically I have no idea if I should lower the stride, raise it, or keep it the same and suffer that my numbers will never match up again.
And I STILL have to work with the new CHR fitbit is sending me!
0 -
Tonight's purposeful walk sans music yielded this:
2,382 steps 1.17 miles 19:00 86 cals
Compared to Saturday's with music:
2,385 steps 1.21 miles 19:00 89 cals
I also did a couple 100 steps tests:
75 steps 0.03 miles 1:00 4 cals
61 steps 0.02 miles 1:00 3 cals
So basically I have no idea if I should lower the stride, raise it, or keep it the same and suffer that my numbers will never match up again.
And I STILL have to work with the new CHR fitbit is sending me!
I gave the math above to calculate what you need to change it to based on another walk.
Just reread that post.0 -
To update, I received my new CHR yesterday and wore it for my morning workout. The good news is it wasn't grossly overestimating the calorie burn and the hrm part seemed to be in the same area when I tested the workout with my polar hrm. The bad news is it's now on par with my Fitbit One numbers which, as I've learned, were also out of whack. 0
This discussion has been closed.