Fit bit accuracy
georgiamaxine1
Posts: 77 Member
How accurate is the fit bit blaze? It says I burn 2,700 calories typically is it very accurate? Thanks
0
Replies
-
I don't know about the blaze but I have a Fitbit Charge HR 2 and it's extremely accurate.4
-
I have the blaze and I've found it to be very accurate.1
-
I should have kept the link to that video...
Some lab did a test of 4 units: the Apple watch, a fitbit, Microsoft Pulse and a garmin.
In order from most accurate to least:
1. Microsoft Pulse
2. Apple Watch
3. Fitbit
4. garmin3 -
My Fitbit calculates a very high calorie number for me, so no, not accurate.1
-
Fitbit and maybe others require you to setup the appropriate stride length to be more accurate. can we ever really know exactly how accurate. some say yes, takes some number crunching over time AND some very accurate logging to understand what your body is doing and if its accurate. IMO.1
-
Some people say it is. Only way to know for sure (for you) is to experiment. Try eating what mfp tells you based on your fitbit steps and if you lose weight then it's accurate4
-
It is my understanding that most modern devices are pretty accurate at counting things like walking or running, but very inaccurate for calculating calories burned for things like strength training or kettle balls or cardio classes.3
-
I've caught my fitbit one tracking steps while riding in the car but I think its only because I'm holding the button down to check because it doesn't show up when I check online in the evening.
Depending on your height, weight and activity level 2,700 isn't too hard to get to. At 5'5 and 220lbs my BMR is 1765cal. then you add simple daily going ons plus what ever workout and I'm typically around 2,600cal a day (I'm not that active yet).
Side note I was in a group where we actually had our true BMRs tested and mine was 20% higher then the average in other words no slow metabolism excuse for me but also why going too far into a generally suggested deficit had me starving and dizzy all the time.
0 -
I have the alta HR and I get around a 2,600 burn/day. I think it's fairly accurate but still trying to figure that out. I have my MFP diary set to sedentary so sometimes it adds in an additional 1,000 cals/day to eat. I know I am unable to lose if I eat all of these back so still trying to find that sweet spot.0
-
Gave Beth 1,000 steps driving home from the last hike we did. Bigly accurate! The best!0
-
Tried30UserNames wrote: »It is my understanding that most modern devices are pretty accurate at counting things like walking or running, but very inaccurate for calculating calories burned for things like strength training or kettle balls or cardio classes.
This is why I like the HR monitor... even if you're not taking steps it's calculating your burn based upon your heart rate which is super accurate.
2 -
cushman5279 wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »It is my understanding that most modern devices are pretty accurate at counting things like walking or running, but very inaccurate for calculating calories burned for things like strength training or kettle balls or cardio classes.
This is why I like the HR monitor... even if you're not taking steps it's calculating your burn based upon your heart rate which is super accurate.
Heart rate isn't super-accurate for those things though. It's best when you're doing steady-state cardio.5 -
IT will vary person to person, depending on habits/model. But best way to know? Track data for 4, 8, 12 weeks. IF you lose as expected, yours is fairly accurate. If you lose faster, your Fitbit is underestimating calories burned. Or the opposite if you lose slower.
This presupposes accurate logging, of course.
For me, my Fitbit is accurate. If I eat under what it shows, I lose weight. I'm in maintenance so I am not trying to lose weight.
If you don't know, assume a 5-10% error rate to err on the side of caution. If your Fitbit says you burned 2500, assume 2250. And leave 250 calories behind.1 -
ps my Fitbits HR function is NOT super accurate depending on what I'm doing. Too often it shows no reading, or will show 60-something when I'm in the middle of a brisk walk going uphill.2
-
I have noticed that, on my Charge 2, though my husband's stride is clearly longer than mine, he routinely gets more steps when we walk together. A mile for me will be 2200 steps and for him 2600, for instance. We've never manually set the stride length, but walk outside and their GPS feature should take care of that as we've had them for 3 months or more. We also noticed that he got a number of steps driving. He holds the wheel in his left hand and the car needs alignment, so the wheel shakes slightly. The vibration gave him steps. Once he took it off, that stopped so it was definitely the vibration.
Is the HR accurate? Maybe. Clearly better than what the elliptical and treadmills my local Y show...as they'll have me at 60 beats one second then 179 then zero. All things considered, I like my Fitbit as a tool to keep me moving, but I don't consider it 100% accurate.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »It is my understanding that most modern devices are pretty accurate at counting things like walking or running, but very inaccurate for calculating calories burned for things like strength training or kettle balls or cardio classes.
This is why I like the HR monitor... even if you're not taking steps it's calculating your burn based upon your heart rate which is super accurate.
Heart rate isn't super-accurate for those things though. It's best when you're doing steady-state cardio.
Really? Could have fooled me! My last Rank test in Muay Thai calculated the hell out of my calorie burn. I wasn't moving my feet too much... just dancing around really, as MMA folks do. The calorie burn based on my heart rate (HIIT), was off the charts!
0 -
cushman5279 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »It is my understanding that most modern devices are pretty accurate at counting things like walking or running, but very inaccurate for calculating calories burned for things like strength training or kettle balls or cardio classes.
This is why I like the HR monitor... even if you're not taking steps it's calculating your burn based upon your heart rate which is super accurate.
Heart rate isn't super-accurate for those things though. It's best when you're doing steady-state cardio.
Really? Could have fooled me! My last Rank test in Muay Thai calculated the hell out of my calorie burn. I wasn't moving my feet too much... just dancing around really, as MMA folks do. The calorie burn based on my heart rate (HIIT), was off the charts!
calorie burns are going to be an estimate no matter what you do/what you use. its going to be more accurate(but still have a percentage of being off by a bit) for those who do steady state cardio. heart rate is great if you are training for something and want to know where your heart rate is,but other than that it can say you burn more than you did.Not to mention that fitbits also take your BMR(what your body burns by being alive) and adds that to your exercise calories. if heart rate had anything to do with calories burned,then those who have a naturally high heart rate would burn big calories just sitting still. or if you were scared,had a heart attack,etc.
0 -
cushman5279 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »It is my understanding that most modern devices are pretty accurate at counting things like walking or running, but very inaccurate for calculating calories burned for things like strength training or kettle balls or cardio classes.
This is why I like the HR monitor... even if you're not taking steps it's calculating your burn based upon your heart rate which is super accurate.
Heart rate isn't super-accurate for those things though. It's best when you're doing steady-state cardio.
Really? Could have fooled me! My last Rank test in Muay Thai calculated the hell out of my calorie burn. I wasn't moving my feet too much... just dancing around really, as MMA folks do. The calorie burn based on my heart rate (HIIT), was off the charts!
That a HRM records calorie burn for certain activities doesn't establish that the calories recorded are particularly accurate. That's a whole different thing.
0 -
StaciMarie1974 wrote: »ps my Fitbits HR function is NOT super accurate depending on what I'm doing. Too often it shows no reading, or will show 60-something when I'm in the middle of a brisk walk going uphill.
same here when exercising a lot of times it will show no heart rate, sometimes when Im even sitting still. I tell hubby"well according to my fitbit Im dead" lol.0 -
cushman5279 wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »It is my understanding that most modern devices are pretty accurate at counting things like walking or running, but very inaccurate for calculating calories burned for things like strength training or kettle balls or cardio classes.
This is why I like the HR monitor... even if you're not taking steps it's calculating your burn based upon your heart rate which is super accurate.
Yup. I burned 1,800 calories on the couch last night, just by watching a scary movie!1 -
cushman5279 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cushman5279 wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »It is my understanding that most modern devices are pretty accurate at counting things like walking or running, but very inaccurate for calculating calories burned for things like strength training or kettle balls or cardio classes.
This is why I like the HR monitor... even if you're not taking steps it's calculating your burn based upon your heart rate which is super accurate.
Heart rate isn't super-accurate for those things though. It's best when you're doing steady-state cardio.
Really? Could have fooled me! My last Rank test in Muay Thai calculated the hell out of my calorie burn. I wasn't moving my feet too much... just dancing around really, as MMA folks do. The calorie burn based on my heart rate (HIIT), was off the charts!
Yes, really. Your heart is a pump that supplies oxygen to your cells. It will beat faster when you're exercising, or when you're stressed, or dehydrated, or if you've had a lot of caffeine.1 -
The longer you wear it and enter your data the more accurate it becomes1
-
cushman5279 wrote: »Tried30UserNames wrote: »It is my understanding that most modern devices are pretty accurate at counting things like walking or running, but very inaccurate for calculating calories burned for things like strength training or kettle balls or cardio classes.
This is why I like the HR monitor... even if you're not taking steps it's calculating your burn based upon your heart rate which is super accurate.
You should know that using an HRM anything other than steady state cardio, for calorie burn, is pretty meaningless.0 -
I have been wearing my Fitbit One for 3 years, and it is very accurate for me. I lose/gain/maintain as expected...
I think it is confusing to some, the total calories that are reported by the Fitbit is your TDEE, not "additional" calories burned. Example, if mine says 2,000 calories, that does not mean I earned 2,000 exercise calories, it means my total for the say (including BMR, etc) is 2,000 calories. That confused me in the beginning but once you understand that it can make better sense.5 -
Charge HR 2 and pretty accurate here too!0
-
It says I walk at least 300 steps when I am sleeping. Granted I do get up to go to the bathroom once or twice. But hubs has never accused me of thrashing about in bed. So, IDK.0
-
I've caught my fitbit one tracking steps while riding in the car but I think its only because I'm holding the button down to check because it doesn't show up when I check online in the evening.
Depending on your height, weight and activity level 2,700 isn't too hard to get to. At 5'5 and 220lbs my BMR is 1765cal. then you add simple daily going ons plus what ever workout and I'm typically around 2,600cal a day (I'm not that active yet).
Side note I was in a group where we actually had our true BMRs tested and mine was 20% higher then the average in other words no slow metabolism excuse for me but also why going too far into a generally suggested deficit had me starving and dizzy all the time.
How many steps are you averaging? I got only 6k yesterday and fitbit said I burned just over 3000 calories. It wanted me to eat an additonal 700 calories. Does this seem comparable to you? I'm new to both fitbit and MFP.0 -
I've caught my fitbit one tracking steps while riding in the car but I think its only because I'm holding the button down to check because it doesn't show up when I check online in the evening.
Depending on your height, weight and activity level 2,700 isn't too hard to get to. At 5'5 and 220lbs my BMR is 1765cal. then you add simple daily going ons plus what ever workout and I'm typically around 2,600cal a day (I'm not that active yet).
Side note I was in a group where we actually had our true BMRs tested and mine was 20% higher then the average in other words no slow metabolism excuse for me but also why going too far into a generally suggested deficit had me starving and dizzy all the time.
How many steps are you averaging? I got only 6k yesterday and fitbit said I burned just over 3000 calories. It wanted me to eat an additonal 700 calories. Does this seem comparable to you? I'm new to both fitbit and MFP.
to know what calories you burn from walking its pounds x distance walked x.3.see if that gives you a more accurate calorie burn and see if it coincides with the fitbit. (if you wear it all night.write down the number of calories burned as soon as you wake up).0 -
Thanks for all of your help! I have my fit but linked to mfp but don't understand how it works? Does it link your steps/calories burned to mfp?0
-
All the innacuracies mentioned are possible.
Your food logging quality is just as big, if not bigger, of a potential issue.
Many foods routinely report their calories per portion as less than what their macros add up to. In part because of fiber and in part by taking advantage of regulations to make themselves look as the less caloric option.
As such I often calculate calories by adding up macros as opposed to using the lower MFP total calorie figure.
I recently looked into a special snowflake's data via MFP and Fitbit and concluded that for them, using a total of three different Charge HR devices in an approximately 690 day time period, based on their logging, 3500 Cal per lb, and deriving total calories from macros, their tdee was overestimated by ~2% to ~4%.
Or, on a putative TDEE of just over 3K calories a day they saw a ~60 to ~120 Cal discrepancy that was not supported by changes to their trending weight as per www.trendweight.com
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15FAp44ZZtjlhdX3x8CCg1kVsGBk14--8XGcAtzvLmc4/edit?usp=drivesdk
Unfortunately it cannot be broken by individual bands; but the 2% and 4% time frames were definitely based on different Charge HR devices.
Tl;dr: your results are unlikely to be crazy off the wall if your logging is generally good and you use a trending weight app to evaluate your progress. Assume accurate to 5% or so, adjust based on your results over time.
4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions