How do I know which is right

rabbitjb wrote: »

BarbieAS wrote: »

rabbitjb wrote: »

BarbieAS wrote: »

rabbitjb wrote: »

CassidyScaglione wrote: »

@rabbitjb That's better, but still odd, don't you have different stride lengths when out walking for fitness vs ambing around the house? I do. What about going uphill, or walking on icy ground, or along a steep slope? It just doesn't seem like an incredibly accurate way of keeping track.

Not significantly ...it's an estimate ..all numbers in fitness and weight loss (including calories in) are estimates

BarbieAS wrote: »

rabbitjb wrote: »

CassidyScaglione wrote: »

unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?

Fitbits ask you to enter your stride length, that's how

Actually, both the Samsung phones and Fitbits have accelerometers, which measure the movement of the device in several directions (as in forwards/backwards/up/down/side to side) and, based on how it's programmed, determines when it believes you have taken a step. It's not based on distance at all. Fitbit asks for your stride length to fine tune the "miles traveled" measurement that it gives you in addition to the step count. I also have short legs, so while most people need about 2,000 steps per mile, I'm more like 2200-2250. But my steps would still counted accurately even if I didn't correct my stride.

I don't dispute that but it's irrelevant to the question she asked which was how does it convert steps measured into distance travelled from person to person. The answer is stride length as I said. Measurement of steps with my Fitbit has proved accurate enough for me over time

No, she asked how "step counters that base steps on distance traveled supposed to work?" Taken in context with the rest of what she said, to me that means "how does a step counter that measures how far you walked and then converts it into steps actually do that accurately?" The answer to which is "they don't do it that way at all, because, no, that wouldn't be accurate."

I was answering this ...

CassidyScaglione wrote: »

unless they know the length of your legs, how the hell are step counters that base steps on distance travelled supposed to work anyways? I mean, i know that they ask for height, but so what? I'm 5'6" but i have very short legs compared to my frame ( to the degree that i can be shorter than someone when standing next to them, and taller than them sitting down) So how accurate can any of them possibly be?

So was I.

Base steps on distance traveled = come up with the number of steps that you took based on the distance you traveled = not how a Fitbit or a phone with an accelerometer work. If a device did work that way, then, yes, you could use stride length to back into that, technically.

I appreciate this is a semantic discussion (and I have nothing vested in this apart from killing time until it is time to go out to the cinema)

But my thought process is ...Fitbit counts strides based on the motion sensors, Fitbit multiplies strides X stride length to get distance travelled ... we are saying the same thing:)

We are. We both understand how Fitbit works and have that part right, I'm not arguing that at all. But the way the girl asked the question, I think you technically gave her bad info.

She asked how counters that base steps on distance traveled worked. You said "stride length," which, when answering that specific question, means that counters that base steps on distance traveled worked by measuring the distance traveled and useing stride length to back into the number of steps taken, which we both know isn't how it works. My answer was that step counters DON'T base steps taken on distance traveled, they base distance traveled on steps taken (and stride length), which is measured using an accelerometer.

You're right, it's semantics to a degree, but I just want to make sure the poster has an accurate answer to her question (I'm just killing time at work on a Friday afternoon myself! )

The first set of miles in the time you mentioned would be a nice, quickish pace. Like maybe when you are shopping yet hurrying a bit for the whole hour. The next time and miles would be more like a very leisurely stroll.

Perceived effort depends on what shape you are in, but I just mean compared to how friends and family walk, if that makes sense. The second one is slower than you'd walk in with folks from the car to the store, for instance. Or that might just be my crowd But they'd prefer that pace if it went on for a whole hour, lol. I hope that helps a bit, anyway