Do you trust your calorie adjustment?
soccerkon26
Posts: 596 Member
I'm nervous to consume all of the calories I get from my adjustment. I'm wondering how accurate it can really be!
2
Replies
-
It's very accurate for some people, it overestimates for others and underestimates for a few. It overestimates for me, but not hugely.
The thing to do is to trust it - for the most part - for at least a month. During that time, be extra scrupulous about logging your food. Log every bite, weigh every bite. Be obsessive about it. A month is a long enough time to even out the day to day weight variations that can make it hard to figure out calories in vs. calories out. What I mean by trusting your Fitbit "for the most part" is that I think it is reasonable to leave some of your adjustment calories uneaten - as long as you're not aiming for an unrealistic weight loss rate to start with (no more than .5 pound a week for every 25 pounds you have to lose).
After a month, you can go to your Fitbit profile page and it will show you a graph of calories in vs. calories out for the past 30 days and also your average values. Using those average values, you can compute your "theoretical" weight loss for that period. Then compare that to your actual weight loss and, assuming you were really good about logging your food, that will tell you how accurate your Fitbit is for you. Because mine overestimates my calorie burn a little (and because being obsessive about accurate food logging isn't good for my mental health), I have a standard "Quick Add Calories" amount that I include as part of my breakfast every day. I could just try to leave that many calories uneaten at the end of every day, but I find that for me it works better this way. The calories in vs. calories out math still works the way I do it.0 -
Thank you for all of your thoughtful responses on my questions!
0 -
Not really. I cant get my head around earning 1000 extra calories for simple walking... I shaved off an inch from my height and stride length hoping it wouldn't give me so many calories, but I still get a boat load every day.
My weight hasn't budged much, either my food logging is woefully inaccurate which is unlikely or my fitbit is over estimating.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Not really. I cant get my head around earning 1000 extra calories for simple walking... I shaved off an inch from my height and stride length hoping it wouldn't give me so many calories, but I still get a boat load every day.
My weight hasn't budged much, either my food logging is woefully inaccurate which is unlikely or my fitbit is over estimating.
That's what I'm nervous about! Hmmm..1 -
1000 extra calories does sound like a lot. Maybe you should bump up your MFP activity level? I had mine set too low and it made every really strange.
Now I only get adjustments if I seriously try and at the most about 400 calories after 5 miles.0 -
firephoenix8 wrote: »1000 extra calories does sound like a lot. Maybe you should bump up your MFP activity level? I had mine set too low and it made every really strange.
Now I only get adjustments if I seriously try and at the most about 400 calories after 5 miles.
The extra 1000 is for around 25,000 steps. I did have it set to lightly active, but then I'd lose a significant amount of calories in the evening, as my exercise/walking usually end around 5pm, and I'm a sloth for the rest of the evening.0 -
Since I just switched from a Flex to a ChargeHR, I don't trust it yet. After 2 days, I am finding my earned cals to be less than before for the same exercises and walking the same number of steps. I think the HRM must be the reason for that. The flex was impressed with all my steps, the ChargeHR not so much. I will say that I am not wearing the two at once but comparing old and new data, so I can't make a direct comparison.0
-
The short answer is no, I don't trust the ChargeHR's calories.
It does well when I'm sitting around at rest or sleeping, usually giving values around or within shouting distance of BMR. It seems to do a pretty good job counting calories on a walk.
Exercise is the first point of contention. Yesterday I did a 7M run with 800' of elevation change in 50:30 @ 133bpm and the fitbit gave me...568 kcal. Interestingly it counted the run distance at 6.87 miles and got 76 floors. Absolutely no chance a hilly run like that is burning under 90 kcal/mile. Same issue with cycling. These for me aren't big issues though because I bring the calorie data over from strava.
Where it really loses me is when I'm doing light stuff but not at total rest. I went back through graphs of previous days and pretty much anytime I'm just standing or lightly moving it just gives me gigantic calorie numbers. I'm 26, 5'8", 150 lbs. Over the past two hours I was either standing or walking very lightly (2-3 mph) around the house talking with my dad. The calorie values it gave me per 15 min segments? 71, 65, 81, 94, 88, 76, 85. That averages out to 80 kcal/15 mins, or 320 kcal/hr. Standing mixed with some very slow walking on occasions does not burn those kinds of calories for a 150lb guy.
2 days ago I spend an hour standing around talking to friends on New Year's Eve and for that hour fitbit gave me 334 kcal for that hour. That would be generous for an hour of brisk walking.
I'm turning the HR off for today and seeing if that drastically alters the estimate.
0 -
This is precisely why i will never get a HR monitor. As the only exercise I do is walking, and not at Olympic athlete speed either
@L_Master can you let us know your results with the your HR switched off? I'd be interested to see if you get a more realistic burn. BTW we are exactly the same weight and height, except I'm nearly 20 years older . You'd have the metabolism of a race horse
0 -
Calories based on pace and weight formula are the most accurate - more than HRM even.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/774337/how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is/p1
If there is good reason NOT to trust them - like you see where there are tons of extra steps, or distance is way off, ect.
But then again - most people have no concept of calories or burns except 1200 calorie crash diets - and Fitbit is first look at potential daily calorie burn they've never seen.
If that is the extent of the experience and concern is coming from that - then trust the Fitbit.
Like extra 1000 calories for 25K steps - and especially if set at Sedentary - of course yes you'll burn more than 1.25 x BMR walking 25K steps!
Also - the HRM based formula isn't used for under-exercise level activity. Step-based is.
The kicker until the Fitbit knows you after a couple weeks is - where is that level initially to switch modes?
I'd suggest if you got 334 kcal standing, where Fitbit would normally give BMR level calorie burn for no moving - then you may have some stats that Fitbit is using wrong.
There is a bug that still crops up - despite the fact of seeing lbs on Fitbit's site, it's using that figure as KG and the energy burn that goes along with that mistake is higher by 2.2 than it normally should be.
It's easy to confirm by looking at the lowest low in daily 5 min graph at sleeping/non-moving time.
That figure / 5 x 1440 should be close to Mifflin BMR you can look up on MFP under Apps - BMR calc.
Sadly that figure is rounded for display on Fitbit - but it still should point out that bug if it's being used.0 -
Calories based on pace and weight formula are the most accurate - more than HRM even.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/774337/how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is/p1
If there is good reason NOT to trust them - like you see where there are tons of extra steps, or distance is way off, ect.
This part I'm pretty confident with. Distance seems good, steps are damn near perfect outside running or walking and indoors seem well within acceptable margins of error.Also - the HRM based formula isn't used for under-exercise level activity. Step-based is.
The kicker until the Fitbit knows you after a couple weeks is - where is that level initially to switch modes?
Now THAT is super interesting. If that's how fitbit works, that's really cool. If only they made stuff like this clear right from the front, but they don't mention that on their website or FAQ anywhere clear.
The other possibility that could be playing in is that the HR doesn't seem to get measured quite right when I'm on the move and being a bit fidgity. Checking my pulse it's usually 60s standing and 70s light walking indoors. Fit often will read around there but with a decent number of spikes up to 90s/100s. Same thing if I press the HR button I'll often seen 80s/90s standing.I'd suggest if you got 334 kcal standing, where Fitbit would normally give BMR level calorie burn for no moving - then you may have some stats that Fitbit is using wrong.
I'll go back in and check this, pretty sure everything is in there correct but I may have made a mistake somewhere.There is a bug that still crops up - despite the fact of seeing lbs on Fitbit's site, it's using that figure as KG and the energy burn that goes along with that mistake is higher by 2.2 than it normally should be.
It's easy to confirm by looking at the lowest low in daily 5 min graph at sleeping/non-moving time.
That figure / 5 x 1440 should be close to Mifflin BMR you can look up on MFP under Apps - BMR calc.
Sadly that figure is rounded for display on Fitbit - but it still should point out that bug if it's being used.
Doesn't seem to be the case for me. My lowest 15 min period's in the night are 17 kcal. So 5.66666 for 5 min block. Divided by 5 is 1.133333 which x 1440 = 1632. Pretty close to the 1652 given to my by MFP.0 -
I've had ones test that switch over point by walking slow enough but keep increasing pace, until the HR goes up high enough an automatic activity record is started with the per sec HR logging.
And then couple weeks later testing again at same pace and higher, and the point was higher.
But gotta test at start of it learning your stats.
With recent upgrade it also tries to decide what the exercise is - different levels of success there ones have experienced.
Not sure if that has changed what was observed though.
But ones have also reported it would switch to workout mode because of high HR, but steps wasn't high enough so it turned back off, probably assuming the high HR was due to other reasons like stress.
I can't recall if that short activity record was left or never synced off device to account.
That would be bad if they kept switching to per sec logging on every little spike high enough.
Does grunting and groaning when you stand up help increase the HR even more? ;-{)
Yes, the bug is definitely not your issue then. Still strange though.0 -
I am nervous about the same thing so I changed my mfp to sedentary instead of lightly active since Fitbit accounts for my entire day. Mfp dropped my calories down by 200 so I will see if this makes a difference.0
-
I would also like to mention that I think my charger hr us fairly accurate regarding my gym exercises. For example, I tend to burn around 450 calories on the elipitical (machine reported) and ha e ignored the mfp account which is usually around 90 or so more. The charger hr typically gives me 360-390 or so for the same exercise. I feel much more comfortable with this number.0
-
Bbeliever215 wrote: »I am nervous about the same thing so I changed my mfp to sedentary instead of lightly active since Fitbit accounts for my entire day. Mfp dropped my calories down by 200 so I will see if this makes a difference.
All this means is that your Fitbit daily adjustment will be higher by about 200 calories - it doesn't change anything at the end of the day except giving you a smaller number to plan on and the be surprised with a bigger adjustment.
But it does improve end of day final adjustments. Read second half of FAQ for what that means.0 -
I use my Charge HR at the gym as well and I constantly check the HR monitor using the machines to compare it to my Charge HR and they are spot on. As for calories burned - I typically go hard core at the gym because I may be addicted but I am burning about 700-800 normally and the Charge HR is going up to 100 more usually which may be accurate or it may be over but it is basing it off my 160 bpm heart rate that I tend to keep because I am still out of shape and still over weight. Thanks for the information on this all though I will keep an eye on this! I definitely have lost a good amount of weight so I am happy with this! 0
-
I am having a hard time with this too - just got a Charger HR, but had been using MFP and Pacer app for about a year before that. With Pacer I would end up getting around 600 extra calories a day and I am pretty active - I work out and walk on average 25 000 steps a day. With Fitbit I earn over 1000 extra calories; yesterday it seemed to do something really strange and said I earned almost 3000 calories from a 25-minute workout and walking 35 000 steps (28km). At 5'6" and 120 lbs, there is no way that I burned that many calories. One particular walk was just over an hour long and apparently burned almost 600 calories. If that was true, and Pacer had been off all that time then I would have had a way harder time maintaining my weight, which I have done for a while now. So I am pretty disappointed because I thought Fitbit would be more accurate.
Anyone have any ideas for settings I could change? The lightly active/etc. settings on MFP don't help enough. Even if I set MFP to say I want to lose a lb a week (I am just wanting to maintain my weight), it doesn't seem to lower the calories enough. The problem is that FItbit seems to vastly overestimate how many calories I burn.0 -
I'm still on the fence. I've just finished a 4.6 Mike walk, yet got no adjustment? Maybe that I'm not understanding how it works. MFP would have given me an extra 400 call for it?0
-
Any tracker you wear is only ever an algorithm estimating, and can't directly measure calorie burn. So it's gonna be a guess.
I had a Flex for a while. Now I have a Charge HR. The calories I get from the Charge HR are about 100/day lower than what I got from the Flex for the same activity at the same time. (I even wore both, on different accounts, to compare for a while). I find the more conservative estimate from the Charge HR is closer to accurate for me, though there are certain types of non-step based activities that no Fitbit can properly measure.
The only way to know how accurate it is for you is to try it for a while and see.0 -
Thanks. I think I've sussed it. It only gives me additional calories once I have passed my 2000 for the day...0
-
treehouseghost wrote: »I am having a hard time with this too - just got a Charger HR, but had been using MFP and Pacer app for about a year before that. With Pacer I would end up getting around 600 extra calories a day and I am pretty active - I work out and walk on average 25 000 steps a day. With Fitbit I earn over 1000 extra calories; yesterday it seemed to do something really strange and said I earned almost 3000 calories from a 25-minute workout and walking 35 000 steps (28km). At 5'6" and 120 lbs, there is no way that I burned that many calories. One particular walk was just over an hour long and apparently burned almost 600 calories. If that was true, and Pacer had been off all that time then I would have had a way harder time maintaining my weight, which I have done for a while now. So I am pretty disappointed because I thought Fitbit would be more accurate.
Anyone have any ideas for settings I could change? The lightly active/etc. settings on MFP don't help enough. Even if I set MFP to say I want to lose a lb a week (I am just wanting to maintain my weight), it doesn't seem to lower the calories enough. The problem is that FItbit seems to vastly overestimate how many calories I burn.
You walked an hour and burned 600 calories - that's only 10 cal/min - that's not unreasonable if it had any ups and downs to it increasing your HR more than level walking would cause.
Did Pacer take in to account inclines? That added a decent amount of calorie burn above flat walking.
And 35K steps is massive - could easily see 3000 calories.
You also need to use the HR-based for about 2 weeks for accuracy to improve based on your fitness level - that's what several of above comments were saying.0 -
Thanks, Heybales - true that Pacer should be less accurate. I think my concern is that I have maintained my weight for a few months using Pacer and eating about 2000 calories a day (and before that lost weight - have been using it a year). Now if I suddenly start to eat 3000/day how could I possibly be maintaining my weight? 35K steps isn't unusual for me, so I have other days to compare it to, and rarely ate more than 2200/day while still maintaining my weight. So I don't know what to think...0
-
But good to know about the accuracy - maybe it will figure itself out in time!0
-
After you have a couple weeks (and your fitness level could still fool it, at least in exercise, daily should be step based) - it will be interesting to see what the average TDEE is.
Considering how many people can eat an extreme fad diet and stop losing, increase their calories and not gain, increase again and not gain - it wouldn't shock me at all that you could have raised your calories to 2000 - but that's still short of what the body could burn as potential TDEE, so you didn't gain.
Which would mean your current TDEE (what you eat and don't change weight on) is suppressed compared to what it could be.
If the Fitbit suggested daily maintenance is only a tad higher after a few weeks of adjustments, I'd suggest testing it out by eating about 200 more daily for a couple weeks at a time, then another week of whatever is left.
You'd have to eat 250 calories over true maintenance for 2 weeks straight to slowly gain 1 lb.
And if strength training - not even fat.
If you gain faster or more - then you proved it's water weight - probably because your muscle glycogen stores were not topped off - proving you were still in a diet compared to potential daily burn.0 -
If you gain faster or more - then you proved it's water weight - probably because your muscle glycogen stores were not topped off - proving you were still in a diet compared to potential daily burn.
I am really interested in reading more about this - any articles from reputable sources anyone can recommend?
0 -
You can catch references to those effects in the details of almost any research study on weight loss where they actually do DEXA scan.
Sometimes in the preamble they'll describe doing 3 scans - start, 2 weeks in, end of study 6-8 weeks or whenever it ends. Specifically so they are getting results that take in to account that fact.
Even others that only do start and finish - when you examine tables on fat mass, water weight, and muscle mass, you'll see what is always lost is is water of decent amount.
Also search for 'wedding cake weight gain syndrome" - where the bridal party starves themselves all week to fit in their dresses - eats 1 piece of cake - and gains 3-5 lbs on Sunday - despite the cake weighed all of 12 oz if that.
I've seen blogs in ancient past discuss that phenomenon with study references, or rather, basic physiology references, because it's been known for a long time.
And of course any comments about low carb diets that are honest with big initial water weight drop talk about it too - like this.
https://8fit.com/blog/glycogen-gluconeogenesis-and-water-weight/0
This discussion has been closed.