Garmin and TDEE problems
Options
Replies
-
ehaleyhoward2778 wrote: »When you say adjust are you referring to stats settings?
I meant adjust your intake/expenditure accordingly, but yes, adjusting your stats accomplishes this if you adhere to them. TresaAswegan laid it out pretty well:TresaAswegan wrote: »If your activity is usually consistent (meaning you don't sporadically exercise simply for the sake of a calorie burn on a whim to get more food - sounds like you are pretty consistent though) just eat according to how your body is responding, over what your activity tracker suggests.
I also use a fitbit and have had a Garmin for a while, fitbit likes to say I burn 3000+ calories a day. Through consistent logging and monitoring my weight I've determined 2600 calories to be pretty darn close to my maintenance calories. Since I know this via how my body is actually responding to my activity and intake, I mostly ignore fitbits calorie burn. I can take this information and say I need to eat about 2100 calories a day if I want to lose around a pound per week. I monitor my progress over the course of several weeks, and adjust if necessary.
Your high and low calorie burn days will average out.
If you know how you've recently responded to eating 2000 calories, decide where you need to be based on that. (If you're feeling really lost, there are some decent online calculators that can help give you an idea, but it comes down to consistency in tracking and adjusting according to how your body responds.)
I know this isn't typically how MFP suggests logging, but being someone very consistent with my workouts, I've found it so much simpler to do it this way.... If that makes sense!
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »They've actually done some research on the accuracy of different trackers compared to more reliable measures. Of the ones they sampled, Vivofit underestimated (~200) while Fitbit overestimated (~200).
That was a really small study:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-fitness-trackers-idUSKCN0WN1PD
Given the variability between BMR in people to begin with, the rate of error seen in such a small sample isn't anything to lay at the feet of the trackers since their algorithms are likely working off the known averages to begin with.
The other thing to mention is that trackers are adjustable, and that there's no need to ignore your tracker data if results don't meet with what you're getting. Adjust it until they sync up since, again, it's using averaged data, and you're not necessarily average.
I've had to adjust mine, and I know others on here who have adjusted theirs. They can be very useful devices if utilized to their full potential.
I like and trust my Fitbit Charge HR and scale. This small study was made with Fitbit Flex. Also I do not wear fitbit all the time (taking it off for sauna, shower, swimming, sleeping) so there cannot really be 100% accuracy but I do not expect it to be 100%, just approximate
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »They've actually done some research on the accuracy of different trackers compared to more reliable measures. Of the ones they sampled, Vivofit underestimated (~200) while Fitbit overestimated (~200).
That was a really small study:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-fitness-trackers-idUSKCN0WN1PD
Given the variability between BMR in people to begin with, the rate of error seen in such a small sample isn't anything to lay at the feet of the trackers since their algorithms are likely working off the known averages to begin with.
The other thing to mention is that trackers are adjustable, and that there's no need to ignore your tracker data if results don't meet with what you're getting. Adjust it until they sync up since, again, it's using averaged data, and you're not necessarily average.
I've had to adjust mine, and I know others on here who have adjusted theirs. They can be very useful devices if utilized to their full potential.
Agreed, it is a very small study. That doesn't mean that it should be disregarded. It was also very well controlled. It's hard to achieve that sort of control in larger studies. This is how science works - baby steps
Original Article - http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2500062
Good writeup of said article - http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/how-accurate-is-your-wearables-calorie-count
I also never suggested that trackers weren't useful and recommended in a later comment to keep using one because they are, as you say, useful tools. I have worn my Vivofit every day for 2+ years and love it. But OPs original question was regarding the different estimates between different trackers, and I think this study does a great job of answering it.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You can adjust either your stats settings or something like your stride length. I don't know anything about Garmins, so I'm not sure what settings they have.
Fitbit has a pretty big product line, but, for the most part, they all work the same way, just add features in the more expensive models. I mean, the One goes in your pocket, most go on your wrist, some of them measure HR and some don't, some give you phone notifications and some don't, but, for the most part, they all measure steps using a motion sensor. I don't know if the GPS one works differently or not.
Garmin's line is more varied. I'm looking through my profile and settings in their web app, and as far as I can tell, there's no way to set a stride length. They use the same web site for all devices.
The way my particular Garmin (Fenix 3) works, it measures your stride length using the motion sensor and GPS when you walk and run with it. It "remembers" your average stride length at different cadences and uses that to estimate how far you walked when it's just counting steps without GPS.
I don't know how the ones without GPS do it, they probably just guess based on your height.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You can adjust either your stats settings or something like your stride length. I don't know anything about Garmins, so I'm not sure what settings they have.
Fitbit has a pretty big product line, but, for the most part, they all work the same way, just add features in the more expensive models. I mean, the One goes in your pocket, most go on your wrist, some of them measure HR and some don't, some give you phone notifications and some don't, but, for the most part, they all measure steps using a motion sensor. I don't know if the GPS one works differently or not.
Garmin's line is more varied. I'm looking through my profile and settings in their web app, and as far as I can tell, there's no way to set a stride length. They use the same web site for all devices.
The way my particular Garmin (Fenix 3) works, it measures your stride length using the motion sensor and GPS when you walk and run with it. It "remembers" your average stride length at different cadences and uses that to estimate how far you walked when it's just counting steps without GPS.
I don't know how the ones without GPS do it, they probably just guess based on your height.
I believe that's how Fitbit does it, yeah.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You can adjust either your stats settings or something like your stride length. I don't know anything about Garmins, so I'm not sure what settings they have.
Fitbit has a pretty big product line, but, for the most part, they all work the same way, just add features in the more expensive models. I mean, the One goes in your pocket, most go on your wrist, some of them measure HR and some don't, some give you phone notifications and some don't, but, for the most part, they all measure steps using a motion sensor. I don't know if the GPS one works differently or not.
Garmin's line is more varied. I'm looking through my profile and settings in their web app, and as far as I can tell, there's no way to set a stride length. They use the same web site for all devices.
The way my particular Garmin (Fenix 3) works, it measures your stride length using the motion sensor and GPS when you walk and run with it. It "remembers" your average stride length at different cadences and uses that to estimate how far you walked when it's just counting steps without GPS.
I don't know how the ones without GPS do it, they probably just guess based on your height.
I have a VivoActive and can set my stride length for walking. Not for running though.
I'm finding the VAHR to be pretty accurate. I has a VSHR and had issues with using activities where it would double up the calories burned so now my wife has it strictly as a step counter. With the one I have now, I'm within 10% of my chest strap when comparing calories burned to what GC pushes through to MFP for an activity. For example, this mornings treadmill session gave me 329 cals in MFP and Polar says 319.
I'm not sure if @NorthCascades above is correct or not, but it did take some playing with the activity level in GC to get my results this close.
As an aside, the Vivoactive is far better (in my opinion) than the Vivosmart.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
My Fenix 3 (high end Garmin multisport GPS watch) seriously overestimates my walking calories but it's 11 to 13 % low for cycling calories every time, because I use a power meter and it just changes the label from kJ to kCal.
I don't find it overestimates walking on mine. Seems quite comparable to METs values at a given speed. Have you compared it to those values.
0 -
How do you set your stride length?
For the record, here's a run I did, you can see how the stride length changes from one moment to the next:
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1164644001
Same thing for hiking:
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1387292588
We hiked across a boulder field so some of the stride length values look a little crazy.0 -
Device settings > User settings and about halfway down the page. But I can set it only for walking and it may be just for indoor (no gps). I'm not sure about that. I can't set it for running. I think I could on the VSHR as I didn't have the + so no gps. You may not be able to change it if yours is a pure outdoor running watch (I think).NorthCascades wrote: »How do you set your stride length?
0 -
Well mine is a hiking watch too.
So you set it in the device itself, not through the Connect site or mobile app?0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
My Fenix 3 (high end Garmin multisport GPS watch) seriously overestimates my walking calories but it's 11 to 13 % low for cycling calories every time, because I use a power meter and it just changes the label from kJ to kCal.
I don't find it overestimates walking on mine. Seems quite comparable to METs values at a given speed. Have you compared it to those values.
I have not. I'll give you some examples, though:
* My lunch walk yesterday was 2.3 miles, 152 feet of elevation gain, 55 minutes, and credited with 334 calories.
* Some errands I ran on Sunday came to 6.4 miles, 295 feet of gain, 1 hour 33 mins, and 455 calories.
* More errands, 4.4 miles, 141 feet of gain, 1 hour 27 mins, 546 calories.
At my weight I should be burning somewhere around 75 kCal per mile.0 -
Interesting. Currently trying to figure out whether to go Garmin or TomTom as an upgrade to Fitbit, not that I follow their calorie estimates that closely, but interesting to read. Since I imagine I might have similar issues. I use it more as a monitor and motivator.0
-
Soccermavrick wrote: »Interesting. Currently trying to figure out whether to go Garmin or TomTom as an upgrade to Fitbit, not that I follow their calorie estimates that closely, but interesting to read. Since I imagine I might have similar issues. I use it more as a monitor and motivator.
After reading this thread, I'd go for a fitbit. Garmin sounds a tad complicated to use.1 -
Editing to simplify.
You have your own data. Go with them.
Calculate a day or two using both Fitbit and Garmin and you now have a conversion factor that you can apply.
Use that conversion factor and act accordingly. At the end of 4-6 weeks re-calculate and keep refining.
The quality of your own food logging, intensity of exercise and a host of other figures can affect the numbers. It really doesn't matter as you can dynamically make SMALL adjustments to lead you to where you need to be.
If you think fitbit was +10% and garmin is -10%... then you already know where you're at 0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
My Fenix 3 (high end Garmin multisport GPS watch) seriously overestimates my walking calories but it's 11 to 13 % low for cycling calories every time, because I use a power meter and it just changes the label from kJ to kCal.
I don't find it overestimates walking on mine. Seems quite comparable to METs values at a given speed. Have you compared it to those values.
I have not. I'll give you some examples, though:
* My lunch walk yesterday was 2.3 miles, 152 feet of elevation gain, 55 minutes, and credited with 334 calories.
* Some errands I ran on Sunday came to 6.4 miles, 295 feet of gain, 1 hour 33 mins, and 455 calories.
* More errands, 4.4 miles, 141 feet of gain, 1 hour 27 mins, 546 calories.
At my weight I should be burning somewhere around 75 kCal per mile.
Much has to do with the speed of the walk.
Scoobys calculator uses the corrected METs values. Try entering your stats there and see how it lines up. His calculations give a higher burn than the F3.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calories-burned/
I walked 7.1k today at 7.2km/H in 59min and the F3 gave me 418 calories.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Well mine is a hiking watch too.
So you set it in the device itself, not through the Connect site or mobile app?
On the connect site. Not sure how on the app, but on the site it's device setting >User setting.
I'm really thinking if you don't see it, it's because yours uses the gps for anything it does whereas the VAHR has activities with the GPS turned off (like walking indoors).0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
My Fenix 3 (high end Garmin multisport GPS watch) seriously overestimates my walking calories but it's 11 to 13 % low for cycling calories every time, because I use a power meter and it just changes the label from kJ to kCal.
I don't find it overestimates walking on mine. Seems quite comparable to METs values at a given speed. Have you compared it to those values.
I have not. I'll give you some examples, though:
* My lunch walk yesterday was 2.3 miles, 152 feet of elevation gain, 55 minutes, and credited with 334 calories.
* Some errands I ran on Sunday came to 6.4 miles, 295 feet of gain, 1 hour 33 mins, and 455 calories.
* More errands, 4.4 miles, 141 feet of gain, 1 hour 27 mins, 546 calories.
At my weight I should be burning somewhere around 75 kCal per mile.
Much has to do with the speed of the walk.
Scoobys calculator uses the corrected METs values. Try entering your stats there and see how it lines up. His calculations give a higher burn than the F3.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calories-burned/
I walked 7.1k today at 7.2km/H in 59min and the F3 gave me 418 calories.
For the record, that calculator overestimates fairly seriously for cycling, compared to a direct force power meter.0 -
I went trail running on Sat. with my Garmin Fenix 3 HR. While some may think the Garmin comes in low on calories, my workout syncs with Strava. Strava seems to calculate calorie burn independently, but using the data it got from Garmin (HR, distance, time, elevation change). Garmin figured 1,601 calories while Strava figured 1,311 calories burned during the same time period. That's 290 calories and around 20% (more or less, depending on which you use as the base).
I'm aware that one may question whether the wrist-based HR is the best (as compared to the chest strap I don't have), and one may argue that the Garmin is not idea for trail running (as compared to a running power meter that I don't have); the fact is still that the data used to calculate calorie burn is the same in both programs. Even if the starting data is wrong, it is at least consistent across both platforms.
If Garmin is calculating too low, then Strava must calculate extremely low on calorie burn.
*Note: 290 calories would be about twice my RMR during that time period, so even if Garmin includes that and Strava doesn't, then Garmin is still estimating higher than Strava.0 -
@midwesterner85 I wouldn't put too much stock in running power meters at this point. They're very much in their infancy, people haven't quite figured out how to crack the nut yet. Cycling power meters use strain gauges to measure torque. Running power meters use accelerometers and algorithms. They're not direct force measurements. More akin to a Newton iBike than to a PowerTap.1
-
I got the Vivosmart HR for Christmas and have worn it consistently. I've noticed my burn is significantly different when I "log" an activity vs when I don't. For instance, I used the "other"workout setting to track a lifting session followed up with 15 minutes of HIIT. That day I hit 7800 steps. My activity burn was 750 calories. I did essentially the same workout a couple days later but didn't use the tracking function. Overall steps 8200. Activity burn 370 calories.
I've been weighing and consistently logging food for a few weeks and just connected my Garmin with MFP. I'm nursing and keeping my calories at 2000. At the end of the month, I'll go back and see if my Garmin burn cals were accurate=weight loss.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions