Do you trust your fitness tracker's"calories burned"?

I trust it for my cardio workouts (which are treadmill and/or outside jogging). The calories burned are always quite a bit lower than what the machine gives me (which I know are usually way too high for people of my fitness level).

I do not "trust" it for strength training sessions but I've been doing this long enough to know better. Like, yesterday I did some basic lifts with dumbbells and some core work with 4x30 seconds of jump rope interspersed between some things. It gave me 205 calories burned for 35 minutes. I put in 100 calories in to MFP, I know that's at least way more accurate than the 205 the fitness tracker gave me.

So, to sum it up, I do not blindly follow it. I know the heart rate monitor's strengths (steady state cardio) and weaknesses (anything else), and use my judgement, knowledge, and experience to guide me. I still log all of my workouts to keep track of them for myself. And I do not ever connect the fitness tracker with MFP, just my personal preference to keep them separate.

To be clear...

OP, are you talking about wearing it all day and looking at your total calories burned throughout the day, or are you talking about calories burned over shorter periods of time during workouts?

alexmose wrote: »

jjpptt2 wrote: »

To be clear...

OP, are you talking about wearing it all day and looking at your total calories burned throughout the day, or are you talking about calories burned over shorter periods of time during workouts?

I am talking about both. I do various types of exercise, both steady state and weight lifting. Lately, I teach a lot of classes like bodypump and just have used the "other" workout type one the watch. It gives me around 200 calories for a 55 minute session. MFP would give me 263 for the same amount of time. I would usually just for what my watch says since it has all of my personal info and heart rate updated (but then again, I guess MFP would have that too since I use the Health app). However, since I teach a couple classes per day, this just adds up to maybe 100-150 calorie over/under estimation comparison. This is probably as good as it is going to get maybe?

I just have been reading reviews that all smartwatches are off by some percentage, which is likely true. I am trying to avoid overeating my exercise calories back right now and I have started maybe leaving a couple hundred calories left in my food diary, but still connecting my workouts from my apple watch to MFP.

FWIW, a lot of people only eat back half the exercise calories burned, to make up for any discrepancies.

Personally, I only eat back my exercise calories on special occasions when eating out. I only have a a small deficit though, MFP is set to lose .5 lbs a week. So, if I feel satiated, I'm not concerned about my health being affected by eating under the recommended 1200 calories a day.

Doesn't work for me as it can't deal with my high workout heartrate. I'm fit mind, I just have a high, genetically determined maxHR. And those things don't seem to be able to deal with that despite setting a custom HR in my fitbit.

My Fitbit Charge seemed to be dead on for me (based on my success at weight loss). I quit using Fitbit because they were constantly breaking.

Garmin Vivosmart HR is ridiculously off. Tuesday it credited me with 1485 calories for just 9000 steps....I wish! It is also awful at tracking floors climbed. I can get 20 floors just sitting at my desk. @TavistockToad I continue to use it because I don't want to spend the money on another one and from experience I can do the math in my head to know how many calories I've burned. It a POS for calories and floors, but it is accurate for steps, sleep, intensity minutes, and heart rate (particularly resting HR)...things I continue to track.

My Garmin GPS's (Forerunner 305, 220, and 230) have been spot on for running.

I have a Garmin 235 and it kept telling me insane calorie burns and I wasn't losing weight. It was defaulting my max HR to 220-age which for me is 165. It calculated my exercise based on that HR and the zones I exercised in. With it set to such a low number it thought I was killing it and burning more calories than I was. I adjusted the max HR up to a truer value and now a 600 calorie workout is more like 420. Garbage in = Garbage out. :-) I am losing weight now so I think its close.

I have a gear sport and the total for the day is horribly off. I regularly eat about 2000-2100 and it says my daily burn is 1700-1850 a day, yet I am still losing weight.

I use a chest strap + Polar A300, and I trust it for cardio (but not weights). I don't eat back exercise calories, generally.

I'm a bit suss on wrist-based measurements, but I'm sure they're accurate enough.

cmriverside wrote: »

Just use it for a while and you'll know. That's really the only way to find out.

The device uses a standard/average algorithm that is going to be fairly close for most people.

Your own collected data trumps a device every time so collect your data and then adjust if necessary. For instance, the numbers I get from devices and online calculators are off by a few hundred calories per day according to my digital food scale and my own data collection.

Completely this ^^^.

My Garmin Vivoactive 3 is materially off for me, for all day calorie burn (it underestimates). To the extent that I have other calorie estimates I trust for exercise activity, it may be a bit low there, too.

Its estimates are low by roughly the same amount that MFP and other calculators are off. This makes me believe I'm statistically odd in some way. Meh.

I have it set to know my actual (tested) HRmax, but haven't messed with stride length (I get truly negligible amounts of step-based activity most of the time, so don't care to bother). It's now had about 5 months to get to know me, and I've done its "VO2max test".

TavistockToad wrote: »

i use a Garmin for running, and MFP for everything else (which is usually walking/stationary bike/weights)

never had fitness tracker, though i have used my Garmin occasionally to look at my step count.

mainly wanted to tag this thread as i never understand why people say their tracker is inaccurate but continue to use it? maybe someone will tell me!

I care about heart rate for workouts - it helps me make sure I'm not slacking off. It seems accurate enough for HR, based on spot checks against doctors office, what the recent research is saying about accuracy, and experience with an older chest-strap HR belt with wrist monitor. I still use a chest belt with the Garmin for rowing, because wrist-based works poorly for that.

I care about pace and distance for rowing (outdoors). It has GPS, and gives me decent estimates for those as far as I can tell. (Its strokes per minute estimates are a little more questionable sometimes, for reasons I think I sort of understand, but they're not unimaginably awful.)

I always wear a wristwatch, because I'm old. It's nice to have one that I don't have to take off in order to put on the watch-style monitor for a normal HR-only chest belt, and besides, I'd still need the GPS stuff somehow. So, cheaper and logistically easier to get the whole thing in one tidy little device.

I do use the exercise calorie estimates when I don't have a plausible alternative. MFP's rowing estimates are way dumber than the ones I get from the Garmin (based on comparison with Concept 2 results). I suspect the same is true for cycling and spinning. (The Garmin usually gives me lower numbers than the non-watt-measuring spin bikes at my gym - waaaay lower when the spin bike picks up my heart rate **; MFP's generic cycling estimates seem subjectively suspect for my heavy hybrid bike.) I use MFP estimates for strength training. (** It estimated 702 calories for 54 minutes today, which is pretty hilarious.)

I was using HR monitors and GPS devices (for pace/distance) for a long time before I cared about exercise calorie estimates (like 8 or 10 years?), and before trackers (that had plausible estimates for anything I did care about) were a thing.

I have nearly 4 years of MFP logging data now, on which to base calorie intake planning. I don't see why my device's inaccuracy for all-day calories is worth a thought (though I think I could probably figure out a percentage markup that would be close, if I cared to do that, or maybe figure out how much to lie about my age or something to get a better estimate . . . but why? ).

Besides, its estimates of stairs and sleep are a great source of amusement!

Heart rate, pace/distance, time of day, and wrist/phone based comedy: Totally worth it.

I have worn my charge 3 every day for 6 weeks. 24/7.
I keep a daily log of the Charge TDEE minus calories eaten.
My weight loss over a 6 week period was off by .6 pounds.
I was amazed how close it has calculated.
Somedays I am very lazy and others I am pretty active so as far as daily NEAT goes it's a very helpful tool for me.

I do trust mine especially after yesterday! I recently changed my activity level to Active in MFP and I let Garmin send my steps and adjust my calories. I did a ~4 mile run yesterday but otherwise sat on my butt. I'm obese. The run calories match using the distance x weight x 0.63 formula.



The tracker giveth, and the tracker taketh away...

crazyravr wrote: »

Anything cardio related (running / walking or cycling) yes. Very accurate.
Weight lifting... NOT AT ALL.

It depends on device for weighlifting and how you use it. If I use my Fitbit and put it on weighlifting mode while I lift? It's pretty much giving me a burn on par with what standard METS for lifting does.

I'm currently keeping a spreadsheet for my Fitbit because I never did for my current device, and it's surprisingly accurate.