Does my diary look ok

amusedmonkey wrote: »

That estimation was MET-based. I find it a little bit hard to believe that slow to moderate pace walking could produce more than 400 net calories an hour, especially for women, although I'm not against the idea that it could. Since the adjustment is for eating back, you would be working with net not gross.

The issue is that you're building up from "unknown as to accuracy self selected base level" and adding "reasonable MET values for activity" and interpreting the adjustment to be "reasonable MET values for additional exercise activity"

But, what is actually happening is that you're comparing "unknown as to accuracy self selected base level"=MFP to "big number Mr Fitbit comes up with" i.e. a totally separate TDEE estimate, not just additional exercise added to MFP.

Mr Fitbit gets to a TDEE on the basis of MET 1.0 x 5 minutes when no movement is detected; plus average MET value assigned to each 5 minute chunk of time based on the "results" gleamed from the accelerometer reading blended with step count and heart rate.

So the "MFP TDEE value" is compared to "Fitbit" TDEE value and the difference is the adjustment.

As you noted in some situations this Fitbit value is bang on. And in some situations it appears to be less so.

Could be outlier status. Could be food intake logging making it appear to be off when it actually isn't. Could be a settings issue. Could be type of activity and ability of fitbit to accurately detect it without getting fooled. Could be high heart rate making Fitbit think that there is a larger burn going on.

TBH my personal observation is that Fitbit slightly over-estimates activity and slightly under-estimates inactivity, which if you think about it is actually true since most inactivity comes closer to MET 1.3 than 1.0

In any case as long as the way Fitbit measures is consistent (which it appears to be) you can make adjustments based on your actual trending weight results after 4 to 6 weeks of data collection...

PAV8888 wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

That estimation was MET-based. I find it a little bit hard to believe that slow to moderate pace walking could produce more than 400 net calories an hour, especially for women, although I'm not against the idea that it could. Since the adjustment is for eating back, you would be working with net not gross.

The issue is that you're building up from "unknown as to accuracy self selected base level" and adding "reasonable MET values for activity" and interpreting the adjustment to be "reasonable MET values for additional exercise activity"

This makes sense. It totally slipped my mind to think of the two apps as separate.

How do you see the diary?