Which is more accurate at recording calories used by activities, Fitbit or MFP?
Options
lpfasciano
Posts: 15 Member
Yesterday, for example, I walked a total of 98 hot, hilly minutes. Fitbit HR says that I used 862 calories. When I log 98 minutes of walking 3.0 mph into MFP, it calculates my calories spent at 414.
The reason I want to know is because I am working oh so hard and am only losing 1/2 pound a week. My stats are this:
I'm 61 years old - female. 5'3" and started keto on July 1
SW: 171.5
CW: 169
GW: 125
Daily I consume: 1400 calories (500 cal deficit) broken into:
5% carbs = 18 g
15% protein = 70 g
80% fats = 117 g
So, if my Fitbit HR records my activity levels correctly, I should be losing at least ONE pound a week and not just 1/2 pound! Are my expectations too high? I feel like I'm swimming as fast as I can but really just essentially treading water.
The reason I want to know is because I am working oh so hard and am only losing 1/2 pound a week. My stats are this:
I'm 61 years old - female. 5'3" and started keto on July 1
SW: 171.5
CW: 169
GW: 125
Daily I consume: 1400 calories (500 cal deficit) broken into:
5% carbs = 18 g
15% protein = 70 g
80% fats = 117 g
So, if my Fitbit HR records my activity levels correctly, I should be losing at least ONE pound a week and not just 1/2 pound! Are my expectations too high? I feel like I'm swimming as fast as I can but really just essentially treading water.
0
Replies
-
I would trust your Fitbit's estimate over MFP's guess at your calorie burn. That's why you got a Fitbit. MFP's exercise estimates are frequently way off (it gives me double what my Fitbit gives me in some cases). In the case of your walk, the MFP formula doesn't take things like hills into account. That can significantly boost your calorie burn.
As far as your weight loss - be patient. One pound a week isn't completely unreasonable, given how much you want to lose, but it could be a bit of a stretch. My current stats aren't too far off from yours (age 59, 5'1", 166 lbs) but I have never been in a hurry on this - my goal was always to get healthier rather than reach a specific goal weight - so I'm quite content with 1/2 pound a week.0 -
Ditto's to above trusting Fitbit usually.
The only caveat to HR-based calorie burn being better since it knew about the hills because of increased HR, is your HR could also have been inflated by 10-15 bpm purely because of the heat or dehydration.
That of course leads to inflated calorie burn.
Depends on how often you've been in heat doing this, how fit, if hydrated well, ect.
Also, was the average speed actually 3mph?
Of course wasn't flat which the database is assuming.
Fitbit's database would give better estimate than MFP's too - you can be exact on the pace.
Just for curiosity - you can go make a Workout Record, enter the start/duration time during sleep time, and put in exact distance that was done - left Fitbit calc the calorie burn from exact pace. Still no hills though, so still not high enough.
But may be interesting compare. Then you can delete it.0 -
Thanks so much for the information! I am acclimated to the heat as well as anybody in Atlanta can be! And I stay hydrated. I drink a LOT of water. I'm in pretty good cardio shape, as well - so I don't think that my Fitbit HR calorie burn was inflated due to dehydration. I am, however, going to clock the exact distance and put in a manual Workout Record like you suggested. Thanks so much. I didn't know I could/should do that!0
-
For some syncing issues - that create a temp workout and delete it - is only way to get Fitbit to send new data over to MFP. I'll usually use a flat 500 calories though for that one.0
