I, too, was shocked by how many calories Fitbit was saying I could eat. But I eat all my adjustments, lost the weight, and have maintained for nine months. Which means my Fitbit burn = TDEE.

Trust your Fitbit for several weeks, then reevaluate your progress. We should all be looking for the maximum number of calories at which we lose weight—never the minimum.

PAZlady wrote: »

Thanks for this post. I just got my fitbit Charge yesterday and was totally shocked at the calories per day it gave me. On MFP I've been trying to stay around 1500 per day and haven't lost anything in months but according to fitbit I can eat an additional 300 per day and lose. It doesn't seem right.

Also my daily steps seems really high so far also. Does it know when I'm actually walking or just when my arm moves (i.e. in the shower shaving or washing / drying my hair)? Thanks for any answers.

I guess I'll just try for a week or so and see if I can get the hang of it.
Do you guys just use MFP and sync through that or do you also go to the fitbit site and look at those stats as well?

Make sure you tell it whether it's on your dominant hand. That reduces the amount of false steps that it will report. Depending on the movement, it can tell the difference between general movement and walking, so the step count should usually be pretty accurate on that front.

The other way to increase step accuracy is to make sure to measure your stride length and add it to your settings. The stickies have information on how to do this. I've found this to greatly improve its step accuracy and reduce the amount of false steps, because it better knows how long a stride should be.

Ok I will throw some figures out on this too...I too get massive "cash back"....so had my FB Charge HR for 8 ish weeks now....love it BTW.....but I do get laods back to eat....this week has been the worst....here is my example...

I work in a factory...making and wrapping chocolate....I also maintain the machines....it is a hard nights graft some times...well I did a proper nights work on Thurdays....in total I did just short of 18000 steps for the day......double my usual over the last 7 weeks (been office working for that time) anyways my adjustment was 3877....giving me 5427 calories to eat for the day......I am 5'10 41 yrs old....240lbs......if I ate 5400 calories I would be hugeeeee......

I have found my FB to over estimate every day.....unless someone can explain 5400 calories for a 17 stone bloke.....

Oh and before you jump.....I do weigh my food....90% of time...only meals I cannot weigh are at work...one meal a night 4 nights a week at the most......some nights I take my own...I weigh condiments and butter etc....and I log fluids......so I log accurately...I am an engineer...who lives on data every day....to me false data is no good to wipe my *kitten* on...so please trust me I log accurately.....

fatjon73 wrote: »

Ok I will throw some figures out on this too...I too get massive "cash back"....so had my FB Charge HR for 8 ish weeks now....love it BTW.....but I do get laods back to eat....this week has been the worst....here is my example...

I work in a factory...making and wrapping chocolate....I also maintain the machines....it is a hard nights graft some times...well I did a proper nights work on Thurdays....in total I did just short of 18000 steps for the day......double my usual over the last 7 weeks (been office working for that time) anyways my adjustment was 3877....giving me 5427 calories to eat for the day......I am 5'10 41 yrs old....240lbs......if I ate 5400 calories I would be hugeeeee......

I have found my FB to over estimate every day.....unless someone can explain 5400 calories for a 17 stone bloke.....

Oh and before you jump.....I do weigh my food....90% of time...only meals I cannot weigh are at work...one meal a night 4 nights a week at the most......some nights I take my own...I weigh condiments and butter etc....and I log fluids......so I log accurately...I am an engineer...who lives on data every day....to me false data is no good to wipe my *kitten* on...so please trust me I log accurately.....

If I remember correctly, you mentioned previously that you can't wear your Charge HR on your wrist at work, so you've devised a way to wear it on your ankle. (If I'm remembering incorrectly, then... never mind.) Anyway, if that is the case, I wonder if you've used some kind of independent method (such as a chest strap monitor worn at the same time) to confirm that the heart rate detected on your ankle worn Charge HR is accurate. The reason I ask is that I tried wearing mine in my bra when I went shopping. A quick check trying this approach at home seemed to give reasonable HR values, so I wore it that way on a shopping trip and on an exercise walk. When I looked at the heart rate detected during those activities it was clearly inaccurate. It was mostly way too high. So, I got an inflated calorie burn for those periods. (Now, I turn off the HR function and put the Fitbit in my pocket when I go shopping.)

beirutbomber wrote: »

Hi fat john 73 , yep I can see how your calorie burn can be so high using the charge HR . 17 stones, in my language is 107 kg. for your height it's probably a little too heavy. Jon, your heart rate is working overtime to maintain your load. Though you run around a lot it's quite possible that your resting heart rate is still too high. The charge HR and all heart rate monitors use your heart beat to calculate your calorie consumption. In your case it's quite possible that when you do run around at work your heart rate is too high. Fat Jon 73, you need to get your resting heart rate down, both for resting and running around. The best way to do this is to see your doctor FIRST and embark on an exercise and diet regime that will get you there first. I hope this helps you out

Actually, you need a high enough HR and enough steps for HR based calculations to kick in.
Otherwise it's more accurate step based that is used.
Even if you hit the activity button, if HR and steps isn't high enough, the activity logging is stopped according to several that tested for me.

And I could still see moving that mass around all night logging that big of a calorie burn.

BUT - were the distance from that steps decently accurate? If not, may have calculated bigger burn than reality.

heybales wrote: »

fatjon73 wrote: »

Ok I will throw some figures out on this too...I too get massive "cash back"....so had my FB Charge HR for 8 ish weeks now....love it BTW.....but I do get laods back to eat....this week has been the worst....here is my example...

I work in a factory...making and wrapping chocolate....I also maintain the machines....it is a hard nights graft some times...well I did a proper nights work on Thurdays....in total I did just short of 18000 steps for the day......double my usual over the last 7 weeks (been office working for that time) anyways my adjustment was 3877....giving me 5427 calories to eat for the day......I am 5'10 41 yrs old....240lbs......if I ate 5400 calories I would be hugeeeee......

I have found my FB to over estimate every day.....unless someone can explain 5400 calories for a 17 stone bloke.....

Oh and before you jump.....I do weigh my food....90% of time...only meals I cannot weigh are at work...one meal a night 4 nights a week at the most......some nights I take my own...I weigh condiments and butter etc....and I log fluids......so I log accurately...I am an engineer...who lives on data every day....to me false data is no good to wipe my *kitten* on...so please trust me I log accurately.....

8 hrs at avg 3 mph for 107 kg is about 3000 calorie burn.
So if it thought you walked 24 miles, 3000 added on to your normal day is probably right on for 5400 daily burn.

Now - I'm betting unlikely you could walk 3 mph for 8 hrs at work to reach 24 miles.
So if Fitbit thought you got anywhere near that distance, either you had extra weight you were carrying that fooled it and actually makes it a decent estimate still, or the distance for stride is off for you and therefore the calorie burn is off too.

You have access to treadmill?

I do all my training on a treadmill.......bought it about 5 yrs ago.....following a car crash...to use for walking.....I put on 3 stone following the crash.....found MFP and lost 5 stone then./........I am now back for round 2...lol

So my routine now.....I use the treadmill to walk still mainly.....used to do what I thought was OK...walk fast walks...little runs at 7mph to get heart up etc.....but nothing set....just me playing really........this time round I have been working upto starting a c25k for a few weeks and I started that 3 weeks ago.....I repeated week 1 to let my wife join me...and about to start week 3 tomorrow...I do my treadmill work 4 times a week now.....adding weights on 2 or 3 off days....I know for me my cardio work is more important for health at present....so I am focusing on getting that right.......so far so good.....the regular routine is helping me loads with exercise and knowing what I am doing is working......my goal is to be able to run 1 mile without stopping or dying at the end of it...lol.....

I have had my FB for 7 weeks now....and after 4 weeks I did input my stride length....as suggested by someone when asking about my adjustment concerns.....my stride length entered was around 1.9 feet....I measured this using the treadmill.....I walked for a specific distance...then divided that by my steps......so I do believe my stride length is set correctly....

I have played with it on my ankle and wrist on the treadmill....and I get roughly the same HR and distance etc........so its seems good to me....the treadmill also has a polar HR hand on it.....this is usually higher than my FB....but its the same when on wrist or ankle......


Nancy....
If I remember correctly, you mentioned previously that you can't wear your Charge HR on your wrist at work, so you've devised a way to wear it on your ankle. (If I'm remembering incorrectly, then... never mind.) Anyway, if that is the case, I wonder if you've used some kind of independent method (such as a chest strap monitor worn at the same time) to confirm that the heart rate detected on your ankle worn Charge HR is accurate. The reason I ask is that I tried wearing mine in my bra when I went shopping. A quick check trying this approach at home seemed to give reasonable HR values, so I wore it that way on a shopping trip and on an exercise walk. When I looked at the heart rate detected during those activities it was clearly inaccurate. It was mostly way too high. So, I got an inflated calorie burn for those periods. (Now, I turn off the HR function and put the Fitbit in my pocket when I go shopping.)

Good memory...I do wear my FB on my ankle at work......I have tried it in several places to fin a good spt...and I do believe my ankle is actually more accurate than my wrist....I have done the same activity with it in both places and found my wrist gave more steps......due to the fact I talk with my hands a lot....lol.....very animated...lol......so I believe my ankle misses this and is more accurate.....

The reason I chose ankle...the FB measures blood flow through an artery if I have read correctly.....and the ankle is very similar in build to the wrist.....a junction that has all bits running closer together......so in essence is the same.....I find I can wear it closer / tighter there too....again meaning there is no movements of the FB to give false results......

I have enquired about this and many believe it is just as good as the wrist....I hope I am right.....

Here is a snip from that high day...for info..............5.4 miles walked.....my job involves bending, lifting turning small steps....and walking between machines... I am on the go for 9 hrs......




I am set in MFP to Sedentary....it give me a base of 1550 a day...then add my adjustment......



My resting according to FB....is 65 to 69 highest so far....(apart from this week....I started with a cold on Monday....my resting rate jumped to 74 by Tue.....)



My stride length could be the issue...it is the only thing that explains my adjustment issue......

I figure thou...if it give me a false figure every day......then I will soon be able to understand the figures still...as there should still be a trend but I can work out then how much over by too.....so can adjust accordingly......

Hope this answers anyone's queries.....

heybales wrote: »

The FAQ in the stickies has the process for measuring the stride length you should use, using a treadmill.

But, I think you should test the device on ankle theory for seeing all steps, it only picked up about 1/2 the steps for me - which makes perfect sense.

The device is impact sensitive, each impact is a step.
But walking with it on your ankle, it's only going to see the impact of 1 leg hitting the ground, but Fitbit counts a stride as each foot hitting.
But because walking has a foot on the ground all the time, picture the fact that as the non-device leg impacts down, the device leg is still on the ground, not getting that impact.

I'd just confirm on a walk outside sometime, note the steps it says, then count 100 steps of that foot, and look at the count again.
It should be 200 higher if it's was seeing steps of both feet, but I'm betting like mine, it'll be might close to 100.

You should also pretend like you are Maxwell Smart and have a shoe phone when checking that count. Actually talk to the shoe. See how many people notice. ;-)

I will have a go at this, this week.....and post results.....but.......if I understand right......if it only see's one leg impact, your saying though that my Fitbit will undercount on my ankle????......giving my an adjustment lower than it should be..........so you think I should of had more than the 5400 to eat the other day....????

Here is how I wear it.....if it helps.....

Here is a snip of my last 2 treadmill workouts......Today I did exactly the same routine on the treadmill as I did yesterday....Yesterday on wrist (weights in-between) today on Ankle........they seem as close as possible to me......apart from distance.......its 0.2 of a mile out....but steps taken are similar and burn similar......

Basically, if you're obese and around 5''1-5"5, it is not uncommon for you to burn 3000 in a day if you exercise vigorously. I think the calculations are pretty accurate. The more you weigh, the more calories you burn throughout the day. The Charge HR is great because it goes by your heart rate readings. If you exercise, then your daily calories for MFP will be higher, a lot higher. I try to stay at or under 2000 consumed a day, no matter what (granted that doesn't always happen.) Some days ( on my good workout days) I burn over 4000 calories! I start thinking I can eat more but then I don't because I want to lose weight, so I try not to eat the extra calories that MFP adds on. You can if you want and if your're starving you should. But for weight loss, you have to eat less than you burn. So aim for high calorie burn and always eat 500-1000 calories less than you burn to lose weight.

Got a fitbit Charge HR for Christmas from the brother as part of a fun challenge for the family to stay connected and have some fun seeing who can get the most steps/calories burned.

Been wearing it to see what I think about it's metrics. Step counting seems to be pretty good.

My question is how do calories stack up. It feels a little high to me. Today I did just over 30k steps, with no non-walking exercise (i.e. cycling, weight training, etc.) and it gives me 3,945 so far with probably another 80 or so to come over the next couple hours before midnight. Which seems high.

Assuming I walk at 3.5mph and 120 steps/minute, that's 14.5 miles for the day. Less if I walk a little slower. Now, 10 of those miles were at a brisk walk over hilly terrain (10 mile walk, 1100ft elevation change), which leaves 4.5 flat miles. At 5'8" 150lb I'm no giant, and likely looking at 1500-2000 kcal for BMR estimate. That leaves 2-2.5k kcal from these 14.5 miles of walking, which is 140 kcal/mile...higher than most running estimates for people my size running.

Is this overestimation, or is there something I'm failing to account for in how fitbit is arriving at it's 4000 kcal number?

@heybales

heybales wrote: »

That's sound about right for for 30K steps if not a tad high - it should be higher than just BMR and exercise though.
Those running estimates are for flat and huge rough figure.

Agree about the running estimates, but 140kcal/mile is high for a running estimate, and nearly double a typical walking estimate for a guy my size. Where I walk is very hilly, 100-150 ft/mile average elevation change, but my sense is that is still a bit high.

It will be interesting to see to what extent it changes over time. I'll be logging my food as meticulously as possible so hopefully that way even if I find the fitbit is off one way or the other I'll know from energy balance which way and how much.

heybales wrote: »

it'll be as decent an estimate as you can get for steady-state aerobic exercise where HR is the same for 2-4 min - the only time the HR formula for calorie burn is valid.

Probably as good an estimate as I can get for walking. It's hopeless for cycling though, underestimating by well over 40%. Rode for 2 hours the other day at HR avg 126 and the fitbit gave me just over 1300kcal for the ride, or 650 kcal/hr...an almost comical 36% lower figure than the actual 2,017 calories burned.

Honestly, it's odd to me fitbit tries to calculate calories from HR in the first place. HR by itself is a meaningless number when to calories burned, because you can't know someones output at a given HR. Either they are trying to estimate a VO2 (no clue how) or they are just assuming a very vanilla average fitness individual at a given height/weight.

Not a problem by any means, as I sync with strava with automatically brings the data over, just interesting that it lowballs massively on rides but if anything might be highballing me walking.

Seems high at first glance for 2lbs a week if you go by the general estimate. I could see TDEE being around or slightly north of 3000 though for those stats.

L_Master wrote: »

Probably as good an estimate as I can get for walking. It's hopeless for cycling though, underestimating by well over 40%. Rode for 2 hours the other day at HR avg 126 and the fitbit gave me just over 1300kcal for the ride, or 650 kcal/hr...an almost comical 36% lower figure than the actual 2,017 calories burned.

Honestly, it's odd to me fitbit tries to calculate calories from HR in the first place. HR by itself is a meaningless number when to calories burned, because you can't know someones output at a given HR. Either they are trying to estimate a VO2 (no clue how) or they are just assuming a very vanilla average fitness individual at a given height/weight.

All the HRM makers have had calorie estimates for a long while now - so that's not unusual.
Shoot - Polar has cheapened many of their models from nicer actual HRM functions and basically just left them calorie counters.

Because actually there is a good correlation between HR and calories burned for exactly the type of activity I mentioned - and only that.

But it appears to me Fitbit is using what Polar and Garmin uses (though different studies).

You estimate VO2max from resting HR, BMI, and level of weekly exercise. All stats the Fitbit knows. Along with estimated HRmax. Accuracy isn't half bad, better than sub-maximal VO2 tests actually.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16168867

But that's why it takes a week or two for both Fitbit and Garmin to adjust figures. Polar is self-selected exercise level.

Polar and Garmin adds on to it, which I doubt Fitbit can get through it's method of reading HR, is Heart Rate Variability (HRV), which is used to get better estimate of HRmax.

I've actually created a form in spreadsheet that does exactly the same thing, then it uses a Polar funded research study formula to get the calorie burn - again public domain to use since public study. Polar's current formula is not the same of course, being secret.
www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

But mine takes into account a potentially better estimate of HRmax.
HRM tab is self-contained, the Garmin tab shares their method and study. The whole spreadsheet was done before the daily activity trackers became popular, and better initial estimates were desired.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Amt7QBR9-c6MdGVTbGswLUUzUHNVVUlNSW9wZWloeUE

And totally just as accurate for cycling. Because 1000 an hr for that low of a HR sounds like big inflated burn wherever that estimate came from.