How accurate is you activity tracker?
lporter229
Posts: 4,907 Member
I ask this question for those in maintenance, because I assume you have a pretty good idea of what your TDEE is if you have been in maintenance for a while.
I recently upgraded my Garmin to a model with a daily activity tracker, my first, and I am finding it to be a bit out of line with my own calculations regarding calorie burn. I have been in maintenance for over 5 years with very little fluctuations in my weight. I use a basic TDEE method to calculate my calorie intake, which includes exercise. I exercise regularly and adjust my TDEE upwards when my training load increases. I log, although admittedly not with pin point accuracy. I can go into more detail about my tracking habits if needed, but the bottom line is that I have noticed that Garmin is calculating my calorie expenditure to be way less than my own calculations. Either I am over estimating what I am eating, or Garmin is just plain off.
I was wondering what your experience has been with activity trackers. Are they accurate for you? Will they make adjustments over time? Currently I do not have my Garmin synced with MFP, so it doesn't have any input for my calorie intake. Is there a value in doing this? If I sync the two and also input my weight over time, will the Garmin "learn" my calorie burn and adjust accordingly? I fully intend to keep doing what I am doing, but it always bothers me at the end of the day when I see one number on my watch and a different number in MFP. FWIW, I have had my Garmin for about 1 month.
Thanks in advance for any input!
I recently upgraded my Garmin to a model with a daily activity tracker, my first, and I am finding it to be a bit out of line with my own calculations regarding calorie burn. I have been in maintenance for over 5 years with very little fluctuations in my weight. I use a basic TDEE method to calculate my calorie intake, which includes exercise. I exercise regularly and adjust my TDEE upwards when my training load increases. I log, although admittedly not with pin point accuracy. I can go into more detail about my tracking habits if needed, but the bottom line is that I have noticed that Garmin is calculating my calorie expenditure to be way less than my own calculations. Either I am over estimating what I am eating, or Garmin is just plain off.
I was wondering what your experience has been with activity trackers. Are they accurate for you? Will they make adjustments over time? Currently I do not have my Garmin synced with MFP, so it doesn't have any input for my calorie intake. Is there a value in doing this? If I sync the two and also input my weight over time, will the Garmin "learn" my calorie burn and adjust accordingly? I fully intend to keep doing what I am doing, but it always bothers me at the end of the day when I see one number on my watch and a different number in MFP. FWIW, I have had my Garmin for about 1 month.
Thanks in advance for any input!
0
Replies
-
For a 1 month period where my food logging (what I ate was major effect) was spot on, and I was training for a triathlon.
I replaced the Fitbit estimated workout calories with better estimate.
By the end of the month, weight lost was under 5% of what the math showed.
And that's exactly why I wanted it - for the non-workout calorie burn estimates. daily life changes as seasons change.
It's potential for accuracy depends on if it sees distance for daily walking pace as pretty accurate.
And for workouts is the HR-based calorie burn formula being used on appropriate workouts - steady-state aerobic with some HR for 2-4 min constant.
If it's used for inappropriate workouts (lifting, intervals, non-aerobic or HR moving constantly) - how much of your weekly time is that a part of.
Meaning - if you do 1 hr x 6 days a week of the inappropriate workouts, and are otherwise very sedentary (less than 4K steps outside exercise) - than good chance of bad estimates on average.
If you do 45 min x 3 days weekly and are super active anyway - inaccuracy is minor blip.
And since the tracker is merely reporting to MFP total calorie burn - yes MFP will be attempting to correct itself all the time.
Obviously, it's not all exercise, that's just where it happens to be.
You could have huge workout and be super lazy/tired and get no adjustment increase.
You have no workout and be very active and have big adjustment.
The Garmin may be like the Fitbit, in that it watches your HR constantly to get a better idea of resting HR, which is used in estimating exercise calorie burn in the HR-based formula. Considering this was a Garmin method anyway, it's likely it is.
It may also be trying to tell where that exercise level starts to begin using that formula.
First couple weeks it could be using HR-based when you are really doing daily activity but HR went up a little bit - that lower range of aerobic is not as accurate as the big span in the middle.
The only benefit to syncing with MFP is if you want to keep that same deficit daily - but you eat different amounts daily - which could work better for certain types of workouts (long run or bike ride).
But then again - you may prefer to plan to a constant daily eating goal - by doing a Garmin weekly average TDEE running avg - like 3 week average. So
Then you can leave out weeks you know are not average - sick, spring cleaning home/yard, vacation, ect.
But the Garmin has better potential for estimating TDEE with almost infinite levels than you guessing between 5 rough levels - and usually those levels are only about exercise, not daily life.3 -
I had a fitbit and now have an apple watch. It is stable, even if it's not correct. I watched my net calories for a few weeks - eating up to my net goal if I was hungry. I watched how the scale reacted. Then I adjusted my calories until I was stable. It's worked well for almost six years.
The way it measures movement and steps depends on how much and how quickly you move. I had to adjust my calories when I went from the fitbit to the watch. But that's a fairly stable characteristic, so once you adjust for it, you can count on its accuracy. My husband takes smaller steps than me, so when we walk together he gets 30% more steps than I do (and is allowed more calories). His adjustment would be different than mine.
The dumb problem I have is that I wear it on my wrist and play and banjo and a frame drum. THAT will throw my calories off.1 -
I typically burn about 300-500 more cals per day than my Fitbit gives me credit for. I don't think I'll be purchasing another tracker when this one breaks.3
-
I typically burn about 300-500 less than my Fitbit says - either that or I am consistently underestimating how much I eat by that amount.1
-
I had a fitbit and now have an apple watch. It is stable, even if it's not correct. I watched my net calories for a few weeks - eating up to my net goal if I was hungry. I watched how the scale reacted. Then I adjusted my calories until I was stable. It's worked well for almost six years.
The way it measures movement and steps depends on how much and how quickly you move. I had to adjust my calories when I went from the fitbit to the watch. But that's a fairly stable characteristic, so once you adjust for it, you can count on its accuracy. My husband takes smaller steps than me, so when we walk together he gets 30% more steps than I do (and is allowed more calories). His adjustment would be different than mine.
The dumb problem I have is that I wear it on my wrist and play and banjo and a frame drum. THAT will throw my calories off.
My logic (which is off sometimes ;P) tells me that smaller steps for the same distance means harder work to get there, so it should allow more calories?
Fur example, I have a Pomeranian and when she walks with us, she looks like she is running because she had to take so many more strides than us.
I think A calorie increase is correct.0 -
Curious about how accurate everyone is as it would be nice to just trust fitbit and MFP calorie estimates in maintenance. I tracked my TDEE on a spreadsheet for almost a year and it came out to about 1850 avg to maintain. If I set my Cals in to 1500 and have MFP count exercise cals, then Fitbit AND MFP are pretty close to agreement on daily Cals burned. Also those that have switched from Fitbit to Apple Watch or Garmin, I have heard the watch gives you less of a daily expenditure. I have to be careful because Fitbit gives me a lot of activity for horseback riding (steps and active minutes) so most of the time I just count the time I spend running/cals vs all the extras from fitbit.0
-
I had a fitbit and now have an apple watch. It is stable, even if it's not correct. I watched my net calories for a few weeks - eating up to my net goal if I was hungry. I watched how the scale reacted. Then I adjusted my calories until I was stable. It's worked well for almost six years.
The way it measures movement and steps depends on how much and how quickly you move. I had to adjust my calories when I went from the fitbit to the watch. But that's a fairly stable characteristic, so once you adjust for it, you can count on its accuracy. My husband takes smaller steps than me, so when we walk together he gets 30% more steps than I do (and is allowed more calories). His adjustment would be different than mine.
The dumb problem I have is that I wear it on my wrist and play and banjo and a frame drum. THAT will throw my calories off.
My logic (which is off sometimes ;P) tells me that smaller steps for the same distance means harder work to get there, so it should allow more calories?
Fur example, I have a Pomeranian and when she walks with us, she looks like she is running because she had to take so many more strides than us.
I think A calorie increase is correct.
The formulas for calorie burn from steps is very accurate - and it has nothing to do with number of steps - but rather distance covered.
Since treadmill walking/running is the most used thing in exercise research - the formula's are very accurate.
It's about distance, time (so pace), and weight moved. That's it.
Steps is merely a means to calculate distance to throw into that formula.
I'm betting the higher calorie burn is not because of more steps - but higher weight.
Though, more steps with in accurate stride length does allow for more overall error too, compared to fewer steps.
But no - more steps doesn't mean harder work, it means less muscle engagement per stride so less calorie burn. But more steps.
And yes - your dog is running compared to you - but don't imagine she burned more because of those more steps. How much lighter is she?1 -
For a 1 month period where my food logging (what I ate was major effect) was spot on, and I was training for a triathlon.
I replaced the Fitbit estimated workout calories with better estimate.
By the end of the month, weight lost was under 5% of what the math showed.
And that's exactly why I wanted it - for the non-workout calorie burn estimates. daily life changes as seasons change.
It's potential for accuracy depends on if it sees distance for daily walking pace as pretty accurate.
And for workouts is the HR-based calorie burn formula being used on appropriate workouts - steady-state aerobic with some HR for 2-4 min constant.
If it's used for inappropriate workouts (lifting, intervals, non-aerobic or HR moving constantly) - how much of your weekly time is that a part of.
Meaning - if you do 1 hr x 6 days a week of the inappropriate workouts, and are otherwise very sedentary (less than 4K steps outside exercise) - than good chance of bad estimates on average.
If you do 45 min x 3 days weekly and are super active anyway - inaccuracy is minor blip.
And since the tracker is merely reporting to MFP total calorie burn - yes MFP will be attempting to correct itself all the time.
Obviously, it's not all exercise, that's just where it happens to be.
You could have huge workout and be super lazy/tired and get no adjustment increase.
You have no workout and be very active and have big adjustment.
The Garmin may be like the Fitbit, in that it watches your HR constantly to get a better idea of resting HR, which is used in estimating exercise calorie burn in the HR-based formula. Considering this was a Garmin method anyway, it's likely it is.
It may also be trying to tell where that exercise level starts to begin using that formula.
First couple weeks it could be using HR-based when you are really doing daily activity but HR went up a little bit - that lower range of aerobic is not as accurate as the big span in the middle.
The only benefit to syncing with MFP is if you want to keep that same deficit daily - but you eat different amounts daily - which could work better for certain types of workouts (long run or bike ride).
But then again - you may prefer to plan to a constant daily eating goal - by doing a Garmin weekly average TDEE running avg - like 3 week average. So
Then you can leave out weeks you know are not average - sick, spring cleaning home/yard, vacation, ect.
But the Garmin has better potential for estimating TDEE with almost infinite levels than you guessing between 5 rough levels - and usually those levels are only about exercise, not daily life.
Thank you for the input!1 -
I have both a FitBit and a Motiv Ring. I've been using the FitBit for well over 4 years now, and just received the Motiv Ring last September. BOTH pieces took a couple of months to "settle" and then they've been fairly accurate ever since.1
-
My Apple Watch overestimates. By quite a bit. But it appears to do so consistently (I burn about 60 to 70%the calories it suggests I should.)0
-
My fitbit is either spot on accurate (based on cardio primarily - I don't use it for lifting), or it is inaccurate by about as much as I am on my logging.
I don't really know for sure. Since both are based on estimates, I'm either spot on on both, or equally in error on both.2 -
I’ve been watching every calorie burn estimate and calorie ingested very closely in 2018 since I went to maintenance because I seem to have a VERY low calorie allotment. (1370 ish per day, and that includes my moderate activity and strength training which I do not separately record.). The Apple Watch says I should usually have about 1800 without any recorded exercise — so that would be for the Apple Watch active plus resting calories on days I do not actively record a workout ).
So I discounted the 400 ish calories Apple Watch over estimates and watched my heavy cardio weeks (swimming, indoor Exercycle, rebounder workouts, hula hoop and lots of brisk 1.5 mile walks to/from work. ). If Apple Watch gave me 2000 extra calories in a week, I ate about 1200 to 1300 and sure enough that was keeping my weight stable.
So I’ve used the .75% of Apple Watch resting calories and .70% active calories to determine my maintenance allowance. It appears (3+ months) to be spot on. Excepting the effects of a planned fast in January and unplanned troubles this month (food poisoning and tooth extraction) my weight has been very stable if I assume the Apple Watch overestimates 1/3 to 1/4 of my calories.0 -
I’ve been watching every calorie burn estimate and calorie ingested very closely in 2018 since I went to maintenance because I seem to have a VERY low calorie allotment. (1370 ish per day, and that includes my moderate activity and strength training which I do not separately record.). The Apple Watch says I should usually have about 1800 without any recorded exercise — so that would be for the Apple Watch active plus resting calories on days I do not actively record a workout ).
So I discounted the 400 ish calories Apple Watch over estimates and watched my heavy cardio weeks (swimming, indoor Exercycle, rebounder workouts, hula hoop and lots of brisk 1.5 mile walks to/from work. ). If Apple Watch gave me 2000 extra calories in a week, I ate about 1200 to 1300 and sure enough that was keeping my weight stable.
So I’ve used the .75% of Apple Watch resting calories and .70% active calories to determine my maintenance allowance. It appears (3+ months) to be spot on. Excepting the effects of a planned fast in January and unplanned troubles this month (food poisoning and tooth extraction) my weight has been very stable if I assume the Apple Watch overestimates 1/3 to 1/4 of my calories.
Wait you MAINTAIN on 1370 with exercise? Now that just doesn’t sound right. How much do you weigh? I have never heard of someone having to maintain on so low unless they are severely underweight.6 -
I’ve found my Apple Watch is pretty accurate. Machines even when calibrated to my height and weight tell me I burn 1000 but going by watch I burn only 300. Huge difference and I am way more inclined to believe the watch. Walking 9 miles gives me about 350 ish as well,0
-
I checked it out one week and compared my food logging to what my fitbit said I burned. The estimated weight loss, based on the calorie deficit was 2.7 pounds. I actually lost 3.5 pounds that same week.
That is accurate enough. I do not eat back my exercise calories, so my activity tracker is solely to make sure I'm getting a handle on how much activity I do. I don't use it to adjust my daily eating. But I do look at the data and compare it to my results.
Kinda like how you look at your speedometer and expect to be near, but not exactly at the indicated speed.
I don't see my fitbit as a calibrated, high precision instrument any more than I expect my speedometer to be the same. I expect it to be in the neighborhood and that is all.
1 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »
I’ve been watching every calorie burn estimate and calorie ingested very closely in 2018 since I went to maintenance because I seem to have a VERY low calorie allotment. (1370 ish per day, and that includes my moderate activity and strength training which I do not separately record.). The Apple Watch says I should usually have about 1800 without any recorded exercise — so that would be for the Apple Watch active plus resting calories on days I do not actively record a workout ).
So I discounted the 400 ish calories Apple Watch over estimates and watched my heavy cardio weeks (swimming, indoor Exercycle, rebounder workouts, hula hoop and lots of brisk 1.5 mile walks to/from work. ). If Apple Watch gave me 2000 extra calories in a week, I ate about 1200 to 1300 and sure enough that was keeping my weight stable.
So I’ve used the .75% of Apple Watch resting calories and .70% active calories to determine my maintenance allowance. It appears (3+ months) to be spot on. Excepting the effects of a planned fast in January and unplanned troubles this month (food poisoning and tooth extraction) my weight has been very stable if I assume the Apple Watch overestimates 1/3 to 1/4 of my calories.
Wait you MAINTAIN on 1370 with exercise? Now that just doesn’t sound right. How much do you weigh? I have never heard of someone having to maintain on so low unless they are severely underweight.
Yeah, I appear to be an outlier. It sucks but that is what the data says since January. I seem to still be losing at the rate of approximately 1/2 pound a month, but at that small a rate it could even be noisy data so I’m still being very cautious. 52 yo, about 5”3, 143 pounds- no where even close to underweight - actually on the BMI border overweight/normal.1 -
I’m starting to think my Apple Watch is low on some active calories. I do the elliptical a few times a week and it seems really low for those workouts. I’m in maintenance and am still losing a little weight. Also the AW does not sync all active calories (step + exercise) with MFP so that’s a problem too. I’m thinking of buying a different device and see if the results are different.0
-
Today I walked a half marathon with my uncle. I walked 16 miles total over the day and my Apple Watch only gives me 617 calories burned. I definitely think it is on the low side of estimates.0
-
I think it is a little low as well because according to today’s results it only gave me 39 calories per mile.ITUSGirl51 wrote: »I’m starting to think my Apple Watch is low on some active calories. I do the elliptical a few times a week and it seems really low for those workouts. I’m in maintenance and am still losing a little weight. Also the AW does not sync all active calories (step + exercise) with MFP so that’s a problem too. I’m thinking of buying a different device and see if the results are different.
0 -
ITUSGirl51 wrote: »I’m starting to think my Apple Watch is low on some active calories. I do the elliptical a few times a week and it seems really low for those workouts. I’m in maintenance and am still losing a little weight. Also the AW does not sync all active calories (step + exercise) with MFP so that’s a problem too. I’m thinking of buying a different device and see if the results are different.
Correct, Apple does not send the total daily calorie burn on each sync - they send something else.
And because MFP was built to do the math receiving a total calorie burn - not some subset based on who knows what - the math is wrong.
I'm guessing either MFP did tell them they were doing it wrong, but were so thrilled at the time they got Apple to be willing to sync so let it slide - or Apple refused to fix it like all other activity trackers and said take it or leave it.2 -
I've used various activity trackers (started w/BodyMedia Fit after that it was different Garmin or Fitbit devices - currently using Fitbit Blaze) since starting maintenance 7+ yrs ago and found all of them to be reasonable accurate for my calorie burn UNTIL I started major peri symptoms 3+ yrs ago.
0 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »
Wait you MAINTAIN on 1370 with exercise? Now that just doesn’t sound right. How much do you weigh? I have never heard of someone having to maintain on so low unless they are severely underweight.
In order for me to keep my blood pressure under control and normal, I have to be at 110 pds. I'm 5'3, and 53 yo. In order for me to maintain, I have to have to walk 3 miles a day, 5 days a week on top of my daily steps and eat no more than 1200 cals. For some of us it sucks.0 -
I had a fitbit and now have an apple watch. It is stable, even if it's not correct. I watched my net calories for a few weeks - eating up to my net goal if I was hungry. I watched how the scale reacted. Then I adjusted my calories until I was stable. It's worked well for almost six years.
The way it measures movement and steps depends on how much and how quickly you move. I had to adjust my calories when I went from the fitbit to the watch. But that's a fairly stable characteristic, so once you adjust for it, you can count on its accuracy. My husband takes smaller steps than me, so when we walk together he gets 30% more steps than I do (and is allowed more calories). His adjustment would be different than mine.
The dumb problem I have is that I wear it on my wrist and play and banjo and a frame drum. THAT will throw my calories off.
My logic (which is off sometimes ;P) tells me that smaller steps for the same distance means harder work to get there, so it should allow more calories?
Fur example, I have a Pomeranian and when she walks with us, she looks like she is running because she had to take so many more strides than us.
I think A calorie increase is correct.
The formulas for calorie burn from steps is very accurate - and it has nothing to do with number of steps - but rather distance covered.
Since treadmill walking/running is the most used thing in exercise research - the formula's are very accurate.
It's about distance, time (so pace), and weight moved. That's it.
Steps is merely a means to calculate distance to throw into that formula.
I'm betting the higher calorie burn is not because of more steps - but higher weight.
Though, more steps with in accurate stride length does allow for more overall error too, compared to fewer steps.
But no - more steps doesn't mean harder work, it means less muscle engagement per stride so less calorie burn. But more steps.
And yes - your dog is running compared to you - but don't imagine she burned more because of those more steps. How much lighter is she?
I would have to disagree with this. Why? I take many more steps than the average person because I am much shorter (and lighter) than the average person. If you and I put the same effort per stride mine would be much smaller. You taking longer strides does not mean you are working harder! I just about have to run to keep up with someone over 6 foot.
I burn less because I weigh less. This is why the formula takes height and weight into consideration. It is to calculate the average stride for someone that height.3 -
If I believed my Fitbit charge 2, I should have gained at least 30 lbs back, but only gained back 20ish, so mine underestimates.0
-
I track various ways - watch and apps. I don't completely trust any of them because I can track with my watch, a couple of of apps and then use direct entry of my speed and time in mfp and get 4 different calories totals for the same long walk. I edit the entries and I am really using them to give me rough estimates. It didn't matter so much while I was losing, but it makes it is a pain in maintenance because my activity level varies from day to day and I can't just come up with a number that is about right for the total. That's end game - how many calories do I eat and stay the same weight?0
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »I had a fitbit and now have an apple watch. It is stable, even if it's not correct. I watched my net calories for a few weeks - eating up to my net goal if I was hungry. I watched how the scale reacted. Then I adjusted my calories until I was stable. It's worked well for almost six years.
The way it measures movement and steps depends on how much and how quickly you move. I had to adjust my calories when I went from the fitbit to the watch. But that's a fairly stable characteristic, so once you adjust for it, you can count on its accuracy. My husband takes smaller steps than me, so when we walk together he gets 30% more steps than I do (and is allowed more calories). His adjustment would be different than mine.
The dumb problem I have is that I wear it on my wrist and play and banjo and a frame drum. THAT will throw my calories off.
My logic (which is off sometimes ;P) tells me that smaller steps for the same distance means harder work to get there, so it should allow more calories?
Fur example, I have a Pomeranian and when she walks with us, she looks like she is running because she had to take so many more strides than us.
I think A calorie increase is correct.
The formulas for calorie burn from steps is very accurate - and it has nothing to do with number of steps - but rather distance covered.
Since treadmill walking/running is the most used thing in exercise research - the formula's are very accurate.
It's about distance, time (so pace), and weight moved. That's it.
Steps is merely a means to calculate distance to throw into that formula.
I'm betting the higher calorie burn is not because of more steps - but higher weight.
Though, more steps with in accurate stride length does allow for more overall error too, compared to fewer steps.
But no - more steps doesn't mean harder work, it means less muscle engagement per stride so less calorie burn. But more steps.
And yes - your dog is running compared to you - but don't imagine she burned more because of those more steps. How much lighter is she?
I would have to disagree with this. Why? I take many more steps than the average person because I am much shorter (and lighter) than the average person. If you and I put the same effort per stride mine would be much smaller. You taking longer strides does not mean you are working harder! I just about have to run to keep up with someone over 6 foot.
I burn less because I weigh less. This is why the formula takes height and weight into consideration. It is to calculate the average stride for someone that height.
Disagree with what, since there are many details you are commenting to?
Because - research and science says otherwise, but I also think you are reading the context wrong and misunderstanding what was being commented on.
It was about dog and many steps it does, despite being lighter.
If you and I "put the same effort per stride" (ie energy or calorie burn) MY distance would be shorter than normal to match your effort because indeed I weigh more. Think about it.
Because yes - me taking longer strides while moving more mass does mean I'm working harder per stride. Not per a set distance, per stride.
But I take less strides to hit a set distance.
But you are correct you burn less because you weigh less - not sure why you would think I said otherwise.2 -
ITUSGirl51 wrote: »I’m starting to think my Apple Watch is low on some active calories. I do the elliptical a few times a week and it seems really low for those workouts. I’m in maintenance and am still losing a little weight. Also the AW does not sync all active calories (step + exercise) with MFP so that’s a problem too. I’m thinking of buying a different device and see if the results are different.
The Watch is low for me, too -- not on active, as much as on resting. It reads about 20 percent low for me.
0 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »I had a fitbit and now have an apple watch. It is stable, even if it's not correct. I watched my net calories for a few weeks - eating up to my net goal if I was hungry. I watched how the scale reacted. Then I adjusted my calories until I was stable. It's worked well for almost six years.
The way it measures movement and steps depends on how much and how quickly you move. I had to adjust my calories when I went from the fitbit to the watch. But that's a fairly stable characteristic, so once you adjust for it, you can count on its accuracy. My husband takes smaller steps than me, so when we walk together he gets 30% more steps than I do (and is allowed more calories). His adjustment would be different than mine.
The dumb problem I have is that I wear it on my wrist and play and banjo and a frame drum. THAT will throw my calories off.
My logic (which is off sometimes ;P) tells me that smaller steps for the same distance means harder work to get there, so it should allow more calories?
Fur example, I have a Pomeranian and when she walks with us, she looks like she is running because she had to take so many more strides than us.
I think A calorie increase is correct.
The formulas for calorie burn from steps is very accurate - and it has nothing to do with number of steps - but rather distance covered.
Since treadmill walking/running is the most used thing in exercise research - the formula's are very accurate.
It's about distance, time (so pace), and weight moved. That's it.
Steps is merely a means to calculate distance to throw into that formula.
I'm betting the higher calorie burn is not because of more steps - but higher weight.
Though, more steps with in accurate stride length does allow for more overall error too, compared to fewer steps.
But no - more steps doesn't mean harder work, it means less muscle engagement per stride so less calorie burn. But more steps.
And yes - your dog is running compared to you - but don't imagine she burned more because of those more steps. How much lighter is she?
I would have to disagree with this. Why? I take many more steps than the average person because I am much shorter (and lighter) than the average person. If you and I put the same effort per stride mine would be much smaller. You taking longer strides does not mean you are working harder! I just about have to run to keep up with someone over 6 foot.
I burn less because I weigh less. This is why the formula takes height and weight into consideration. It is to calculate the average stride for someone that height.
Disagree with what, since there are many details you are commenting to?
Because - research and science says otherwise, but I also think you are reading the context wrong and misunderstanding what was being commented on.
It was about dog and many steps it does, despite being lighter.
If you and I "put the same effort per stride" (ie energy or calorie burn) MY distance would be shorter than normal to match your effort because indeed I weigh more. Think about it.
Because yes - me taking longer strides while moving more mass does mean I'm working harder per stride. Not per a set distance, per stride.
But I take less strides to hit a set distance.
But you are correct you burn less because you weigh less - not sure why you would think I said otherwise.
If you and I were the same weight but you were a foot taller would we burn the same calories walking a mile?0 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »I had a fitbit and now have an apple watch. It is stable, even if it's not correct. I watched my net calories for a few weeks - eating up to my net goal if I was hungry. I watched how the scale reacted. Then I adjusted my calories until I was stable. It's worked well for almost six years.
The way it measures movement and steps depends on how much and how quickly you move. I had to adjust my calories when I went from the fitbit to the watch. But that's a fairly stable characteristic, so once you adjust for it, you can count on its accuracy. My husband takes smaller steps than me, so when we walk together he gets 30% more steps than I do (and is allowed more calories). His adjustment would be different than mine.
The dumb problem I have is that I wear it on my wrist and play and banjo and a frame drum. THAT will throw my calories off.
My logic (which is off sometimes ;P) tells me that smaller steps for the same distance means harder work to get there, so it should allow more calories?
Fur example, I have a Pomeranian and when she walks with us, she looks like she is running because she had to take so many more strides than us.
I think A calorie increase is correct.
The formulas for calorie burn from steps is very accurate - and it has nothing to do with number of steps - but rather distance covered.
Since treadmill walking/running is the most used thing in exercise research - the formula's are very accurate.
It's about distance, time (so pace), and weight moved. That's it.
Steps is merely a means to calculate distance to throw into that formula.
I'm betting the higher calorie burn is not because of more steps - but higher weight.
Though, more steps with in accurate stride length does allow for more overall error too, compared to fewer steps.
But no - more steps doesn't mean harder work, it means less muscle engagement per stride so less calorie burn. But more steps.
And yes - your dog is running compared to you - but don't imagine she burned more because of those more steps. How much lighter is she?
I would have to disagree with this. Why? I take many more steps than the average person because I am much shorter (and lighter) than the average person. If you and I put the same effort per stride mine would be much smaller. You taking longer strides does not mean you are working harder! I just about have to run to keep up with someone over 6 foot.
I burn less because I weigh less. This is why the formula takes height and weight into consideration. It is to calculate the average stride for someone that height.
Disagree with what, since there are many details you are commenting to?
Because - research and science says otherwise, but I also think you are reading the context wrong and misunderstanding what was being commented on.
It was about dog and many steps it does, despite being lighter.
If you and I "put the same effort per stride" (ie energy or calorie burn) MY distance would be shorter than normal to match your effort because indeed I weigh more. Think about it.
Because yes - me taking longer strides while moving more mass does mean I'm working harder per stride. Not per a set distance, per stride.
But I take less strides to hit a set distance.
But you are correct you burn less because you weigh less - not sure why you would think I said otherwise.
If you and I were the same weight but you were a foot taller would we burn the same calories walking a mile?
In theory and formula, close enough. In actual walking with changing terrain, even less.
While you read through this - bear in mind their example is 4 meters/sec - 9 mph - not sure who is walking that fast - but if you take extremes anything can be made to look significant.
You'll also notice in their example paragraph they can't do their math right using their own conversion figures. (17 ml/kg/min / 3.5 = 4.86 METS) (they did the 2nd one right, 3rd is wrong again).
https://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-weight-loss/a20790314/how-height-affects-calorie-burning/
But let's take a reasonable walk:
150 lb person - 68 kg.
Speedy 4 mph walk - 1.79 m/s for 1 hr, not just 1 mile to really see the difference.
5 ft - 1.52 m & 6 ft - 1.83 m.
383 cal & 343 cal = 40 cal difference per hr. As much inaccuracy potential in a food label for 200 cal item.
Now, same 5 ft height, 30 lb difference 120 & 150.
306 & 383 = 77 cal difference per hr.
So in principle while you may have burned more than taller heavier walking companion per lb of weight moved.
In reality you burned less because of the smaller weight.
So as I said, moving more mass a longer stride burns more per stride.
Obviously you do a plot of that and you can find that heavier taller person and light shorter person burn the same.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions