Which activity tracker works best with MFP?
Replies
-
Is there a store where you could go to that would have these on display for you to check out in person? Like Best Buy or something similar?0
-
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Is there a store where you could go to that would have these on display for you to check out in person? Like Best Buy or something similar?
I know the Fitbits are available at Canadian Tire but I don’t think they carry the Garmin ones. Best Buy is a little far (maybe 1.25h) but I could call first to check if they carry them.0 -
Was reading this https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers-accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html
And it appears that HR tracking may not increase the accuracy of a tracker.0 -
I use Fitbit, but its not linked0
-
I’ve been doing more research and I am unsure if I’m being skewed pricier by reviews.
Does HR tracking really impact the accuracy of calorie counting? Is GPS useful for non-runners?
It makes sense and then I pull back and think maybe it’s overkill. I’m not an athlete. I can’t run. I am going to use this for steps/work activity, swimming. Other activities I do are yoga & bodyweight & strength exercises. (Is the HR tracking actually a detriment here because HR goes up but calorie burn doesn’t?)
HR is most useful as a proxy for calorie expenditure in steady state cardio exercise (cycling, running, swimming, etc.). It's far less useful (and less accurate) for things such as yoga and strength training. Many of the trackers won't even try to record HR while swimming because the water interferes with optical heart rate readings - for Garmin to record swimming HR, they require your tracker to be paired with a chest strap designed for swimming and/or triathlons.
Optical heart rate readings work differently (and by that I mean better or worse) for different people, for various reasons. I find mine works great during my normal (non-exercise) daily activities, but it's essentially useless for strength training and even sketchy during steady state cardio. I don't worry about it for strength training, and I pair it with a HR strap during for cardio workouts, which is much more accurate than the wrist-based optical heart rate. Some people find the wrist-based OHR works great for cardio, but I'm not one of them.
GPS is/can be useful for outdoor exercises (again - running, cycling, open water swimming, hiking, rowing/kayaking, etc.), but most devices won't even turn it on for indoor workouts because it's not necessary or useful and just drains battery life. Thus, it wouldn't be used (or useful) for your daily steps/work activity, nor for your yoga/strength training, nor for your swimming if you're doing it in an indoor pool.
Thank you!!!!
So the HR thing would/could be useful for accuracy day-to-day but it should be turned off for swimming & strength/yoga to prevent inaccuracies/overestimating?
A lot of reviews seem to suggest that HR tracking is important for accuracy for calories burned but it also seems like it might be a problem too. I’m not sure if it’s valuable?
GPS would be pretty useless for me. I go for outdoor walks sometimes but not terribly far.
HR is useless and inflated for normal daily activity levels - as was mentioned it's only for steady-state cardio.
Having average daily pace stride length (not grocery store shuffle, not exercise level) corrected will improve your daily burn to best it'll be estimated at.
As well as confirmed settings for sensitivity are truly catching all steps, but not tons of extra.
You don't have to turn off HR readings on other activities - merely input your own workout manually with better estimate of calorie burn.
Manual input replaces device discovered - as long as you got the same start time and duration.
Depending on your workouts, and time spent doing them - HR based calorie burn could be useful.
Do a lot of riding many days during the week - could be very useful.
Do 15 min x 3 weekly of lifting - not useful, and while inflated, if you were otherwise very active - doesn't matter in the scheme of the week either.
75 min of lifting 6 days a week in otherwise sedentary lifestyle - now you got an issue with inflated burns impacting accuracy overall.
HR thing can be more interesting for you to do what it was designed to do - Monitor your HR - but over a span of time.
Getting more aerobically fit, HR won't go as high though pushing harder, good sign. Resting HR goes down, recovery from hard effort is faster, ect.3 -
Was reading this https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers-accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html
And it appears that HR tracking may not increase the accuracy of a tracker.
Flawed study, just like the others that have been done.
They didn't know their product they were testing.
They all require a good 1-2 weeks to get to know the person, decide where the aerobic exercise zone starts and daily activity level is left behind, use resting HR to get better estimate of exercise calories, frequency of workouts and duration, ect.
All those needed things to improve the estimate aren't possible when you strap it to a test subject for an exercise session or a couple of days.4 -
I’ve been doing more research and I am unsure if I’m being skewed pricier by reviews.
Does HR tracking really impact the accuracy of calorie counting? Is GPS useful for non-runners?
It makes sense and then I pull back and think maybe it’s overkill. I’m not an athlete. I can’t run. I am going to use this for steps/work activity, swimming. Other activities I do are yoga & bodyweight & strength exercises. (Is the HR tracking actually a detriment here because HR goes up but calorie burn doesn’t?)
HR is most useful as a proxy for calorie expenditure in steady state cardio exercise (cycling, running, swimming, etc.). It's far less useful (and less accurate) for things such as yoga and strength training. Many of the trackers won't even try to record HR while swimming because the water interferes with optical heart rate readings - for Garmin to record swimming HR, they require your tracker to be paired with a chest strap designed for swimming and/or triathlons.
Optical heart rate readings work differently (and by that I mean better or worse) for different people, for various reasons. I find mine works great during my normal (non-exercise) daily activities, but it's essentially useless for strength training and even sketchy during steady state cardio. I don't worry about it for strength training, and I pair it with a HR strap during for cardio workouts, which is much more accurate than the wrist-based optical heart rate. Some people find the wrist-based OHR works great for cardio, but I'm not one of them.
GPS is/can be useful for outdoor exercises (again - running, cycling, open water swimming, hiking, rowing/kayaking, etc.), but most devices won't even turn it on for indoor workouts because it's not necessary or useful and just drains battery life. Thus, it wouldn't be used (or useful) for your daily steps/work activity, nor for your yoga/strength training, nor for your swimming if you're doing it in an indoor pool.
Thank you!!!!
So the HR thing would/could be useful for accuracy day-to-day but it should be turned off for swimming & strength/yoga to prevent inaccuracies/overestimating?
A lot of reviews seem to suggest that HR tracking is important for accuracy for calories burned but it also seems like it might be a problem too. I’m not sure if it’s valuable?
GPS would be pretty useless for me. I go for outdoor walks sometimes but not terribly far.
HR is useless and inflated for normal daily activity levels - as was mentioned it's only for steady-state cardio.
Having average daily pace stride length (not grocery store shuffle, not exercise level) corrected will improve your daily burn to best it'll be estimated at.
As well as confirmed settings for sensitivity are truly catching all steps, but not tons of extra.
You don't have to turn off HR readings on other activities - merely input your own workout manually with better estimate of calorie burn.
Manual input replaces device discovered - as long as you got the same start time and duration.
Depending on your workouts, and time spent doing them - HR based calorie burn could be useful.
Do a lot of riding many days during the week - could be very useful.
Do 15 min x 3 weekly of lifting - not useful, and while inflated, if you were otherwise very active - doesn't matter in the scheme of the week either.
75 min of lifting 6 days a week in otherwise sedentary lifestyle - now you got an issue with inflated burns impacting accuracy overall.
HR thing can be more interesting for you to do what it was designed to do - Monitor your HR - but over a span of time.
Getting more aerobically fit, HR won't go as high though pushing harder, good sign. Resting HR goes down, recovery from hard effort is faster, ect.
Thank you for explaining! I wasn't finding any descriptions of what it was supposed to do, and all the articles said it made calorie counting more accurate. It sounds useful, for the purpose of just seeing how my HR is doing. I did really like some of the "stress" features on the Garmin ones.
The only trackers I can find that will do both HR tracking and swimming are extremely expensive ($250+). I had been considering those as an investment possibility (the 200-250 range), maybe the data would be a nice rewarding fun-factor addition. Like something I would have planned to do for my birthday/Christmas if I still had my old one and more time to leisurely research.
However, my reading about the water-resistance was leading me to think that it's more risky to get a pricey item that could accrue more damage. The touch-sensitive screens seem to be prone to scratches (pool lane guards are not kind, and I would feel safer with a more durable device).
So maybe HR is not needed right now. My dedicated workouts are not daily. Lately they haven't even been weekly. I might do something like the stationary bike once or twice a week, an outdoor walk, a yoga class, a short weights session (if I can brave the new machines at my gym and figure out how they work), and one weekly swim in addition to my daily 2x physio routine and work activity (2-3x/week now). And that's likely more than I would do every week.0 -
Was reading this https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers-accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html
And it appears that HR tracking may not increase the accuracy of a tracker.
Flawed study, just like the others that have been done.
They didn't know their product they were testing.
They all require a good 1-2 weeks to get to know the person, decide where the aerobic exercise zone starts and daily activity level is left behind, use resting HR to get better estimate of exercise calories, frequency of workouts and duration, ect.
All those needed things to improve the estimate aren't possible when you strap it to a test subject for an exercise session or a couple of days.
Thank you! That makes me more optimistic. My experience with weight loss has been awkward and I did find having a tracker, even a simpler one, more helpful.
I’m currently leaning back towards getting something with HR, for the reason that it sounds interesting & useful (even if more so as I get more fit than I am currently), and I don’t want to end up re-purchasing a device in under a year and spending more total than I would on a more complete device.
I read/watched DCRainmaker’s review on the incoming Fitbit Charge 3 and I am thinking I will wait for that one. It has the swim tracking, and no physical buttons which appeared to be the flaw in the Garmin design that caused water damage despite being cleared for swimming. Also the Garmin ones don’t really track swimming with any interesting information other than time, which would be the same as my old device on a much pricier item.
I was looking at the Fitbit Flex 2. I thought the light/small design would be comfortable, and the lack of a watch-shape would maybe encourage people to not ask me the time even if I wore it on my wrist. It’s cheaper and likely more durable without a screen, and less devastating if broken. However the battery life is only 5 days, and you have to charge it but it doesn’t track heart rate 😐
the Charge 3 has a longer battery life and more information including HR, and is still cheaper than my previous idea of the Garmin Vivoactive 3, which was also much larger. Plus I can see myself actually functioning with a once a week battery charge rather than twice (I switched to Bluetooth headphones last year and I still often end up with dead headphones for several days because I can’t seem to get the hang of it).
I felt like I had to decide ASAP but I reminded myself I will lose weight either way. This isn’t a necessity it’s more of a Fun Tool. Its useful but I did fine without one. Even though it’s much harder to gauge exacts (I seem to swing between losing too fast and gaining, not seeming to find that 1/2 to 1lb/week happy zone).1 -
I'm currently debating between the Misfit Shine 2 Swimmers Edition and the Fitbit Charge 3.
Misfit Shine 2 pros: Familiar with app, know the calorie adjustment is fairly accurate for me, has swim tracking with laps distance etc (with in-app $10 upgrade, apparently), 6 months battery - no charging!, different wearable positions - can be more discreet and possibly more accurate because I move my arms a lot & push carts at work so I worry a wrist-based tracker will have troubles. Also for tracking stationary bike rides it can be pinned on my shoe. ~$70 cheaper. Going for $100 plus tax on Sport Check rn, but the price is more like $130 elsewhere.
Fitbit Charge 3 Pros: Supposedly a better app? people say fitbit does more with the data, and Misfit doesn't do much with it. Also I'd probably be able to add people from work & school. HR tracking, could be fun. Will be a watch with the time also, which I've kinda needed at work sometimes. Has swim data tracking. $200 plus tax for pre-order at the moment.
0 -
I'm on the market for a tracker also. My first one. I am a ua fanboy, so I wanted the ua band. Just to find out it was discontinued. UA backed out of the fitness tracking devices to focus more on the apps. They signed a deal with samsung. So it makes sense that the samsung gear syncs up so well with mfp. So i'm leaning towards the fit2 pro. I just wonder if the price is truly justified?2
-
I like my Fitbit Charge 2.
0 -
I'm currently debating between the Misfit Shine 2 Swimmers Edition and the Fitbit Charge 3.
Misfit Shine 2 pros: Familiar with app, know the calorie adjustment is fairly accurate for me, has swim tracking with laps distance etc (with in-app $10 upgrade, apparently), 6 months battery - no charging!, different wearable positions - can be more discreet and possibly more accurate because I move my arms a lot & push carts at work so I worry a wrist-based tracker will have troubles. Also for tracking stationary bike rides it can be pinned on my shoe. ~$70 cheaper. Going for $100 plus tax on Sport Check rn, but the price is more like $130 elsewhere.
Fitbit Charge 3 Pros: Supposedly a better app? people say fitbit does more with the data, and Misfit doesn't do much with it. Also I'd probably be able to add people from work & school. HR tracking, could be fun. Will be a watch with the time also, which I've kinda needed at work sometimes. Has swim data tracking. $200 plus tax for pre-order at the moment.
Don't worry about putting device on foot for bike, step-based calculated calorie burn that requires impact and distance walked/ran is useless for circular motion that misses steps and only counts 1 foot anyway and distance calculated has no bearing on anything in biking world.
But the frequent cart use is meaningful. Many have no steps seen because impacts of the foot can't be seen on wrist when gripping a cart.
Some places also don't allow wrist wear for safety reasons.
There probably is more money on Fitbit app development - and you can download your stats if desired, even though built in diaries are useful already for review.
HR tracking could be meaningful for clues if tired and stressed or underrecovered for hard workout efforts. Sleeping HR going up could be getting sick, ect.
I know 10 yrs ago when I sat in on private meeting with a firm collecting HR, they admitted (pretty sure out of non-disclosure at this point) most companies didn't know what to do exactly with all the data, and I haven't seen things improve a whole lot for usefulness.
But it can be interesting and used.0 -
I have a Garmin Vivosmart HR and it says I burn an insane amount of calories each day and pushes that over to MFP. If I really had 4000 calories to eat a day, I wouldn't need to track my food.1
-
my vivosmart hr is right on. it actually underestimated my calorie burn in comparison to mfp and runkeeper.
as far as scratchable screens, it's the same as a phone, they sell little plastic things that are protectors.
0 -
my vivosmart hr is right on. it actually underestimated my calorie burn in comparison to mfp and runkeeper.
as far as scratchable screens, it's the same as a phone, they sell little plastic things that are protectors.
Yeah that’s what I was worried about. I don’t take my phone swimming. I’ll toss it in my purse & I have a MASSIVE protective case for it. But screen vs pool divider? I think I’d know what would win there.0 -
my smart has gone swimming, showered, in lake michigan, in the pacific ocean. most garmin's are waterproof and if for some reason there is an issue, garmin has fantastic customer service.3
-
my vivosmart hr is right on. it actually underestimated my calorie burn in comparison to mfp and runkeeper.
as far as scratchable screens, it's the same as a phone, they sell little plastic things that are protectors.
Really? Do you have the heart rate tracker on all the time? I wonder why mine is so wrong? It gives me 2000-3000 extra active calories on days when I am taking only 6000-7000 steps. When I choose to track a specific activity, I feel that it gives me an accurate burn but its the all day heart rate that causes me issues.0 -
rachel780mpg wrote: »my vivosmart hr is right on. it actually underestimated my calorie burn in comparison to mfp and runkeeper.
as far as scratchable screens, it's the same as a phone, they sell little plastic things that are protectors.
Really? Do you have the heart rate tracker on all the time? I wonder why mine is so wrong? It gives me 2000-3000 extra active calories on days when I am taking only 6000-7000 steps. When I choose to track a specific activity, I feel that it gives me an accurate burn but its the all day heart rate that causes me issues.
HR should not be used for calorie burn below the exercise level even if it is on.
Now, if you look at your daily activity graph and you see it auto-assuming workouts during elevated HR times - it probably is, but usually increased steps/motion must go along with it, for enough time.
If you are on meds or genetically high HR during easy activity - that could make it worse.
You ever confirmed your stride length is correct by confirming reported distance for a known track walk?
So the Garmin itself is reporting what level of daily burn on some of those past days?2 -
it probably has to do with what your activity level is set at among other things.
i do get extra calories but not that much. a couple hundred most days because some days i'm super sedentary and other days i'm running 13+ miles
(couch potato at heart)1 -
rachel780mpg wrote: »my vivosmart hr is right on. it actually underestimated my calorie burn in comparison to mfp and runkeeper.
as far as scratchable screens, it's the same as a phone, they sell little plastic things that are protectors.
Really? Do you have the heart rate tracker on all the time? I wonder why mine is so wrong? It gives me 2000-3000 extra active calories on days when I am taking only 6000-7000 steps. When I choose to track a specific activity, I feel that it gives me an accurate burn but its the all day heart rate that causes me issues.
HR should not be used for calorie burn below the exercise level even if it is on.
Now, if you look at your daily activity graph and you see it auto-assuming workouts during elevated HR times - it probably is, but usually increased steps/motion must go along with it, for enough time.
If you are on meds or genetically high HR during easy activity - that could make it worse.
You ever confirmed your stride length is correct by confirming reported distance for a known track walk?
So the Garmin itself is reporting what level of daily burn on some of those past days?
I do tend to ignore the excessive calories it gives and only pay attention to the ones I get from an actual workout.
It is not auto assuming workouts during elevated heart rate times.
I'm not on meds and have never been told I have a high heart rate. It says my average is 74. It records a high of 130 on days where I haven't worked out at all.
The stride length is off. I know that for sure. It records more milage than it should. I haven't taken the time to figure out what my stride length is.
It shows active calories between 2000 and 3000.
My activity class is set at 5 on Garmin and sedentary on mfp. I average 6000-7000 steps without exercise.0 -
it probably has to do with what your activity level is set at among other things.
i do get extra calories but not that much. a couple hundred most days because some days i'm super sedentary and other days i'm running 13+ miles
(couch potato at heart)
I have my garmin level set at 5 and mfp at sedentary. I have a desk job and only average 6000-7000 steps.
I turned off the heart rate tracker yesterday during the day and it gave me 400 extra calories which seems more realistic.2 -
rachel780mpg wrote: »it probably has to do with what your activity level is set at among other things.
i do get extra calories but not that much. a couple hundred most days because some days i'm super sedentary and other days i'm running 13+ miles
(couch potato at heart)
I have my garmin level set at 5 and mfp at sedentary. I have a desk job and only average 6000-7000 steps.
I turned off the heart rate tracker yesterday during the day and it gave me 400 extra calories which seems more realistic.
Reading your experience and heybales’ comments, plus this article https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/02/understanding-continual-optical.html
I’m back to thinking I don’t need HR tracking. The Misfit Shine 2 might be my best bet. Unfortunately it’s discontinued 😐0 -
rachel780mpg wrote: »rachel780mpg wrote: »my vivosmart hr is right on. it actually underestimated my calorie burn in comparison to mfp and runkeeper.
as far as scratchable screens, it's the same as a phone, they sell little plastic things that are protectors.
Really? Do you have the heart rate tracker on all the time? I wonder why mine is so wrong? It gives me 2000-3000 extra active calories on days when I am taking only 6000-7000 steps. When I choose to track a specific activity, I feel that it gives me an accurate burn but its the all day heart rate that causes me issues.
HR should not be used for calorie burn below the exercise level even if it is on.
Now, if you look at your daily activity graph and you see it auto-assuming workouts during elevated HR times - it probably is, but usually increased steps/motion must go along with it, for enough time.
If you are on meds or genetically high HR during easy activity - that could make it worse.
You ever confirmed your stride length is correct by confirming reported distance for a known track walk?
So the Garmin itself is reporting what level of daily burn on some of those past days?
I do tend to ignore the excessive calories it gives and only pay attention to the ones I get from an actual workout.
It is not auto assuming workouts during elevated heart rate times.
I'm not on meds and have never been told I have a high heart rate. It says my average is 74. It records a high of 130 on days where I haven't worked out at all.
The stride length is off. I know that for sure. It records more milage than it should. I haven't taken the time to figure out what my stride length is.
It shows active calories between 2000 and 3000.
My activity class is set at 5 on Garmin and sedentary on mfp. I average 6000-7000 steps without exercise.
Garmin does make calculating stride length easier than Fitbit.
You put in the mileage and steps done, it calculates it.
So just need to do a known distance walk at average daily pace (which should seem really slow) and make it a workout to get the steps within it.
The activity class effects the HR-based calorie burn calculation. I think the Garmin activity trackers (like Fitbit) and some of the workout specific monitors actually keep track of that themselves based on workouts you have logged, or they auto-assume. Which is why it's important to remove the wrong ones. Mine was always assuming an elliptical workout - so I disabled that setting.
So a few tweaks to improve it's ability - which is nice, might as well get some help from it that can be trusted, especially the seasonal changes or life changes. Step count may reflect that easily too, but nice if calorie count could be trusted too.0 -
I have a Fitbit charge 2. I bought the rose gold version with the lavender strap and more extra bands, used, for a decent price, on eBay. I then switched the ugly lavender band out for a cool metal rainbow mesh band from Amazon. I love it.
I cycle so I get relatively steady cardio readings from it. I specifically tell it when I'm doing that workout. It's accurate with steps, I counted steps from my parking garage to office the other day and it was right on target. I'm right handed, wear it on my left, and set it for that use.
I use HR when cycling so I don't overdo it. I was aiming for no higher then 155, with short spurts sometimes higher. I'm monitoring my cardio fitness.
Sometimes it catches me doing activity that I otherwise would have disregarded, and I've been in a trap of undereating in the past, so it helps me make better food choices.
I also use it to monitor my sleep. I can clearly see I don't get enough and am still working on that!
2 -
successgal1 wrote: »I have a Fitbit charge 2. I bought the rose gold version with the lavender strap and more extra bands, used, for a decent price, on eBay. I then switched the ugly lavender band out for a cool metal rainbow mesh band from Amazon. I love it.
I cycle so I get relatively steady cardio readings from it. I specifically tell it when I'm doing that workout. It's accurate with steps, I counted steps from my parking garage to office the other day and it was right on target. I'm right handed, wear it on my left, and set it for that use.
I use HR when cycling so I don't overdo it. I was aiming for no higher then 155, with short spurts sometimes higher. I'm monitoring my cardio fitness.
Sometimes it catches me doing activity that I otherwise would have disregarded, and I've been in a trap of undereating in the past, so it helps me make better food choices.
I also use it to monitor my sleep. I can clearly see I don't get enough and am still working on that!
Thank you! They seem like good devices. I am tempted by the charge 3. I also like that you mentioned you can change the strap for cheaper - I don’t like the plain bands and I liked the look of the woven ones. They seem more comfortable than plastic on your skin. But for the cost of purchasing a second band with the charge 3 I could upgrade to that version with Fitbit pay that comes with a second band - which I can’t use because Canada and don’t care about that feature anyway.
The thing that worries me is wearing it on my wrist at work, I use my arms a lot & do things like push carts/carry small items etc. My arms are either moving more or less than my steps. I worry it’ll either overcount or try to offset and undercount.0 -
successgal1 wrote: »I have a Fitbit charge 2. I bought the rose gold version with the lavender strap and more extra bands, used, for a decent price, on eBay. I then switched the ugly lavender band out for a cool metal rainbow mesh band from Amazon. I love it.
I cycle so I get relatively steady cardio readings from it. I specifically tell it when I'm doing that workout. It's accurate with steps, I counted steps from my parking garage to office the other day and it was right on target. I'm right handed, wear it on my left, and set it for that use.
I use HR when cycling so I don't overdo it. I was aiming for no higher then 155, with short spurts sometimes higher. I'm monitoring my cardio fitness.
Sometimes it catches me doing activity that I otherwise would have disregarded, and I've been in a trap of undereating in the past, so it helps me make better food choices.
I also use it to monitor my sleep. I can clearly see I don't get enough and am still working on that!
Thank you! They seem like good devices. I am tempted by the charge 3. I also like that you mentioned you can change the strap for cheaper - I don’t like the plain bands and I liked the look of the woven ones. They seem more comfortable than plastic on your skin. But for the cost of purchasing a second band with the charge 3 I could upgrade to that version with Fitbit pay that comes with a second band - which I can’t use because Canada and don’t care about that feature anyway.
The thing that worries me is wearing it on my wrist at work, I use my arms a lot & do things like push carts/carry small items etc. My arms are either moving more or less than my steps. I worry it’ll either overcount or try to offset and undercount.
Check out Amazon for the metal mesh magnetic straps. And others, lots of options.
From what I gather from heybales, fit bit is very good at not generating steps for arm movements, as it also detects the force of foot hitting ground, which you don't get when not walking. Clapping is the exception. You can go to your Fitbit desktop account and see where and when it detected exercise, and remove things that really weren't exercise. I think wearing it religiously for the first week or two gives it enough time to learn. When I first started wearing it, I once purchased a large lot of glassware and spent about 45 minutes folding up all of the packing paper it was wrapped with,for future use, and Fitbit detected it as steps. Now it no longer detects things like that as steps. It learned.
It's not recommendedby Fitbit, but you can buy a non Fitbit strap extender, and place it on your ankle and see how that works for you.1 -
rachel780mpg wrote: »rachel780mpg wrote: »my vivosmart hr is right on. it actually underestimated my calorie burn in comparison to mfp and runkeeper.
as far as scratchable screens, it's the same as a phone, they sell little plastic things that are protectors.
Really? Do you have the heart rate tracker on all the time? I wonder why mine is so wrong? It gives me 2000-3000 extra active calories on days when I am taking only 6000-7000 steps. When I choose to track a specific activity, I feel that it gives me an accurate burn but its the all day heart rate that causes me issues.
HR should not be used for calorie burn below the exercise level even if it is on.
Now, if you look at your daily activity graph and you see it auto-assuming workouts during elevated HR times - it probably is, but usually increased steps/motion must go along with it, for enough time.
If you are on meds or genetically high HR during easy activity - that could make it worse.
You ever confirmed your stride length is correct by confirming reported distance for a known track walk?
So the Garmin itself is reporting what level of daily burn on some of those past days?
I do tend to ignore the excessive calories it gives and only pay attention to the ones I get from an actual workout.
It is not auto assuming workouts during elevated heart rate times.
I'm not on meds and have never been told I have a high heart rate. It says my average is 74. It records a high of 130 on days where I haven't worked out at all.
The stride length is off. I know that for sure. It records more milage than it should. I haven't taken the time to figure out what my stride length is.
It shows active calories between 2000 and 3000.
My activity class is set at 5 on Garmin and sedentary on mfp. I average 6000-7000 steps without exercise.
I have the opposite problem with my garmin vivosmart HR. I have a fairly low average heart rate (55, according to the garmin), so I don’t usually get extra calories no matter how far I walk. The exception for me is when I use my asthma inhaler before a strenuous hike, which bumps my heart rate for the next 4 hours. Add in the slightly but noticeably annoying feeling of the bump for the HR monitor, and I’m planning to get an HR-less step tracker when this one gives up the ghost. I wish I didn’t need a step tracker at all, but for me it’s just like counting calories-I eat more when I’m not tracking calories and I walk less when I’m not tracking steps. Clearly I need to work on my internal motivation. 2 -
I use my Apple Watch incoronation with my iPhone. It’s syncs pretty well with MFP. You can enter food calories on the Apple Watch and receive MFP notifications.0
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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