Is my Fitbit giving me too many calories.
Options
Replies
-
That's interesting ...I'm going to re-measure my stride length. I'm keen to see if it makes any difference.
I think based on the feedback above, I just need to give it some time and log food very accurately.
I need also to stop going out to gorgeous Italian restaurants like we did last night!!!
Thanks all for your comments x
0 -
Stride length definitely affects your mileage—I'm not sure about your burn. I never bothered to calibrate mine, and I lost the weight & have maintained just fine.
Here's how to calibrate your stride: http://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/How-do-I-measure-and-adjust-my-stride-length0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Oops i effed up the kgs to lbs conversion! I'm 65kgs which equals 143lbs. Altho I doubt 3 extra pounds would make a huge difference...
I checked carefully today!
My BMR is 1,349.
On the sedentary setting, I have a projected burn of 1,686.
With 10,000 steps on FitBit, I get an actual burn of right at 1,700.
That lines up pretty well with 274 calories being the expected burn for 10,000 steps at my weight and at a pretty slow speed...and yet that appears to assume that I'm asleep any moment that I'm not actually walking.
It's definitely not overestimating, but it is pretty depressing to have a sleepy day and watch my calories plummet into oblivion! Too bad my hips and knees won't tolerate brisker walking. I've been averaging what I walked at Disney World to keep up the calories, though. :P
But what puzzles me is that people who are walking, not running, and about my weight seem to be getting MUCH larger positive adjustments.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Maybe I just walk harder than you @MamaBirdBoss
Seriously, I would like to find out the answer to this. I'm thinking stride length doesn't come into play here?
Actually, stride length could be a factor. As I understand it, if your stride length isn't close to right, then your calorie burn will be off. Plus, how you walk is important. If your steps are higher impact then your Fitbit will interpret them as being longer and as having a higher burn rate. If your steps are more shuffling, then they'll be interpreted as shorter and as having a lower burn rate.
See the FAQ for how to set stride length. Since I don't have easy access to a treadmill, I've used my own approach of just tweaking it by comparing walks of known length (as measured by Map My Walk) to what my Fitbit computes. It's pretty close for walks that aren't too strenuous and/or aren't too hilly.
My stride length is still on the default for my height. They give me 4.3 miles per 10k steps. I have a treadmill, but it's cheap so insanely inaccurate.0 -
I don't know if this helps, but I walk 123 steps per minute.0
-
christinev297 wrote: »I've got my stride length set at 85cm which I think converts to 33.5ish inches
That would be part of it. Mine's about 28-30", somewhere in there. Paying closer attention to the treadmill, it's a tiny bit more (I actually swing my leg out over the part that doesn't move) but not too much.
My legs are kinda short.
Anyhow, FB gives me 4.3 miles to the 10k steps, which seems pretty close to accurate.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I don't know if this helps, but I walk 123 steps per minute.
When I'm on my treadmill, mine's usually just above 100 per minute. I walk while I type.
So that means 200 minutes for 20k steps. :P0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Oops i effed up the kgs to lbs conversion! I'm 65kgs which equals 143lbs. Altho I doubt 3 extra pounds would make a huge difference...
I checked carefully today!
My BMR is 1,349.
On the sedentary setting, I have a projected burn of 1,686.
With 10,000 steps on FitBit, I get an actual burn of right at 1,700.
That lines up pretty well with 274 calories being the expected burn for 10,000 steps at my weight and at a pretty slow speed...and yet that appears to assume that I'm asleep any moment that I'm not actually walking.
It's definitely not overestimating, but it is pretty depressing to have a sleepy day and watch my calories plummet into oblivion! Too bad my hips and knees won't tolerate brisker walking. I've been averaging what I walked at Disney World to keep up the calories, though. :P
But what puzzles me is that people who are walking, not running, and about my weight seem to be getting MUCH larger positive adjustments.
It's not just walking vs. running. It's the impact of the steps. So, you could stomp around quite slowly and your Fitbit would estimate a relatively high burn. Or, you could shuffle quite quickly and you'd get a low burn.
I think you said that you walk on a treadmill while you type. If you have a wrist worn tracker (Flex, Charge, Charge HR, Surge) then that is going to affect both the number of steps seen and the intensity of the steps. It's going to miss steps and the steps it does see will appear less intense than they actually are. I'm also inclined to think that even with a One or a Zip, which isn't worn on the wrist, you're going to be taking relatively gentle steps while you type. I don't have a treadmill desk, but I do have a standing desk and when I'm just reading things I'll walk in place. But when I'm typing, I can't put a lot of energy into steps.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Oops i effed up the kgs to lbs conversion! I'm 65kgs which equals 143lbs. Altho I doubt 3 extra pounds would make a huge difference...
I checked carefully today!
My BMR is 1,349.
On the sedentary setting, I have a projected burn of 1,686.
With 10,000 steps on FitBit, I get an actual burn of right at 1,700.
That lines up pretty well with 274 calories being the expected burn for 10,000 steps at my weight and at a pretty slow speed...and yet that appears to assume that I'm asleep any moment that I'm not actually walking.
It's definitely not overestimating, but it is pretty depressing to have a sleepy day and watch my calories plummet into oblivion! Too bad my hips and knees won't tolerate brisker walking. I've been averaging what I walked at Disney World to keep up the calories, though. :P
But what puzzles me is that people who are walking, not running, and about my weight seem to be getting MUCH larger positive adjustments.
It's not just walking vs. running. It's the impact of the steps. So, you could stomp around quite slowly and your Fitbit would estimate a relatively high burn. Or, you could shuffle quite quickly and you'd get a low burn.
I think you said that you walk on a treadmill while you type. If you have a wrist worn tracker (Flex, Charge, Charge HR, Surge) then that is going to affect both the number of steps seen and the intensity of the steps. It's going to miss steps and the steps it does see will appear less intense than they actually are. I'm also inclined to think that even with a One or a Zip, which isn't worn on the wrist, you're going to be taking relatively gentle steps while you type. I don't have a treadmill desk, but I do have a standing desk and when I'm just reading things I'll walk in place. But when I'm typing, I can't put a lot of energy into steps.
Nope,l I have a One, and it's definitely accurate!
The wrist ones don't really work with treadmill desks at all.
I also walk VERY softly. I have bad joints, so I've learned to cushion everything.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Oops i effed up the kgs to lbs conversion! I'm 65kgs which equals 143lbs. Altho I doubt 3 extra pounds would make a huge difference...
I checked carefully today!
My BMR is 1,349.
On the sedentary setting, I have a projected burn of 1,686.
With 10,000 steps on FitBit, I get an actual burn of right at 1,700.
That lines up pretty well with 274 calories being the expected burn for 10,000 steps at my weight and at a pretty slow speed...and yet that appears to assume that I'm asleep any moment that I'm not actually walking.
It's definitely not overestimating, but it is pretty depressing to have a sleepy day and watch my calories plummet into oblivion! Too bad my hips and knees won't tolerate brisker walking. I've been averaging what I walked at Disney World to keep up the calories, though. :P
But what puzzles me is that people who are walking, not running, and about my weight seem to be getting MUCH larger positive adjustments.
Good stats - I've seen others report about the same thing - 10K is Sedentary.
Which sheds like on sedentary. And on mothers that may have desk job but get 15K merely from more activity at home after work, and why they are Lightly Active easily.
You are correct about not overestimating, in general.
When not moving, no steps seen - you are given your sleeping calorie burn - BMR. Daily 5 min graph shows that fact out.
But you obviously burn more than that merely being awake, called RMR.
You also burn more than that standing.
You also burn more than that when processing food eaten - about 10% of calories eaten.
Yep - it underestimates to possibly a fair degree depending on what your day is.
I'm sure they have a decent idea that food logging is off - and balance occurs anyway.
Then you have people underestimate food eaten to compensate for what they have heard in inaccurate logging - which is usually when people by memory log foods, no weighing even done.
Impact of steps because of bigger stride and more distance covered - more calorie burn per step, bigger adjustments.
Calorie burn on steps is based on time and distance, therefore pace, and weight.
Those are very accurate formulas in research studies.
Time is obviously accurate - it's the distance that could be the kicker though - hence the stride length benefiting from manual entry rather than default sometimes.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »I also walk VERY softly. I have bad joints, so I've learned to cushion everything.
That explains why you get such a low calorie burn from the same number of steps as other people who seem to have fairly similar stats regarding height, weight, age, etc.
My knees are definitely problematic, my feet aren't great and I have had some hip trouble in the past. However, losing weight seems to have helped my hips, my feet are okay at the moment and I've found ways to keep my knees from giving me too much trouble while still getting enough exercise.0 -
20k gives me something CLOSE to "lightly active" stats.0
-
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »I also walk VERY softly. I have bad joints, so I've learned to cushion everything.
That explains why you get such a low calorie burn from the same number of steps as other people who seem to have fairly similar stats regarding height, weight, age, etc.
My knees are definitely problematic, my feet aren't great and I have had some hip trouble in the past. However, losing weight seems to have helped my hips, my feet are okay at the moment and I've found ways to keep my knees from giving me too much trouble while still getting enough exercise.
I'm 140lbs now. It's part of the reason I want to be 125lbs, max. Any extra weight, and my body just doesn't want to work.0 -
Fitbit will also keep track of how fast you're walking, and give you more for faster. That's why they have the "intense" "moderate" etc levels.
10k steps, with me set to sedentary, will give me about 400 extra calories, so I figure 10k steps isn't really sedentary, it's "lightly active" for someone of my height/weight. I keep it on sedentary tho, just in case I have a lazy weekend or I'm too busy at work to take my walks.0 -
Angierae75 wrote: »Fitbit will also keep track of how fast you're walking, and give you more for faster. That's why they have the "intense" "moderate" etc levels.
10k steps, with me set to sedentary, will give me about 400 extra calories, so I figure 10k steps isn't really sedentary, it's "lightly active" for someone of my height/weight. I keep it on sedentary tho, just in case I have a lazy weekend or I'm too busy at work to take my walks.
I've got the zip. It doesn't have any options for intense or moderate
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I've got the zip. It doesn't have any options for intense or moderate.
Steps on the Fitbit online dashboard (not the app) are green, orange, or red to show how quickly you were moving. Top left in the first picture: https://blog.fitbit.com/fitbit-dashboard-updated-with-weekly-activity-and-more/0 -
editorgrrl wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I've got the zip. It doesn't have any options for intense or moderate.
Steps on the Fitbit online dashboard (not the app) are green, orange, or red to show how quickly you were moving. Top left in the first picture: https://blog.fitbit.com/fitbit-dashboard-updated-with-weekly-activity-and-more/
ah ok yep, know what you mean. I've never taken much notice of that graph. But will do now
0 -
editorgrrl wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I've got the zip. It doesn't have any options for intense or moderate.
Steps on the Fitbit online dashboard (not the app) are green, orange, or red to show how quickly you were moving. Top left in the first picture: https://blog.fitbit.com/fitbit-dashboard-updated-with-weekly-activity-and-more/
Yup, that's what I meant. Thanks!0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »But what puzzles me is that people who are walking, not running, and about my weight seem to be getting MUCH larger positive adjustments.
I run 5k 3 times a week, and I do a lot of walking on the other days (sometimes the same days). I burn LOTS more calories walking than running because I can do it longer. A 5k takes just over half an hour and I burn about 600 calories. I can walk ALL DAY, though . . . Just a few days ago I walked 23 miles and had several thousand calories added to my burn.0
