Also, if you're going to trust your fitbit numbers, then your food logging must be spot on. Because you won't lose weight if you're underestimating your calories, and may gain or maintain if you are also eating back your exercise calories

Most people find that both MFP and Fitbit over estimate calories. I don't eat more than half my calories back. But try not to do it al all...

KeatsNan wrote: »

Hi I'm averaging 12 - 14k steps per day for those calories. I weigh 5ft 1" and 139lbs.
I'm pretty accurate with my food intake.

I'm 5' even, 120 lbs, and I get around 400 calories for 10k steps in a day.

I generally eat back all of them, leaving 50-100 to make up for logging inaccuracies.

I've lost 20lbs doing this. I'm maintaining for a little while as actively trying to lose weight at present would be a bad choice. I'm still eating back just about all the calories and it's still working.

~Lyssa

MamaBirdBoss wrote: »

christinev297 wrote: »

How many steps have you done to earn those calories?
So far today I've done 16,200 steps, which is nearly 14kms, and earned 720 extra calories. I'm 5"8 and 140lbs

I'm 140lbs and 5'6" and I only get 460 calories from 20k steps! I'm on sedentary, too!

i don't understand how our burns are so significantly different? ?

I was going to say age makes a difference, but I see you're a little older than her, so that can't be it, lol. I am trying to get at least 10,000 but closer to 12,000 per day and I average MFP saying I have 300-400 exercise calories doing that. I am 65, so that might be part of it. Also, I have noticed I get more if I have a general busy day of walking, rather that doing a long walk am & pm & not much in between.

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?

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.

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?

Steps are not equal calorie burn. Even your own.

The stride length setting is not the distance used for every single step.
It's the basis for figuring out what the actual stride length was but adjusting it, so if stride length setting is right in the middle of your normal range of walking from daily to exercise - there is better chance it's adjusting correctly. But it can only slide so far you might say and remain good accuracy.
If you have stride length setting for short office walks - then your exercise pace will be off. And vice-versa.

2 woman, same stats on everything so their resting metabolism is the same, can get the exact same steps in.
But one was serious walking steps, one was grocery store slow shuffle steps.

There will be a difference in calorie burn between them. That is added to an otherwise totally equal day, and the adjustment is understandably different between them.

I average 14000 steps between 5:30 AM and 4:00 PM for work, usually hitting 10k around noon. I usually add another 2-5k by the time I go to bed. The first 10 k is where I earn the extra calories. It is a lot more steps per minute than the rest of the day. I think intensity is a major factor.

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-length

NancyN795 wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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.