Pedometer calories accurate??

skarlett75
skarlett75 Posts: 2 Member
edited December 23 in Food and Nutrition

Ok, so I have a Fitbit Versa linked to MFP. I have my activity set to active, with a goal to lose 1 lb a week, which gives me 1750 net cals a day. I get anywhere from 13,000-17,000 steps a day and MFP is giving me back what seems like CRAZY calories for that. Today I earned 800 extra calories just on steps. I have not been adding any manual activity. Have other people found this as well? Do you eat those calories? Have you lost weight eating them?

Replies

  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    I found the Fitbit estimates to be pretty inaccurate. My Garmin seems only slightly better. (Garmin is great for tracking running, cycling, hiking, swimming, etc.)

    My strategy with Fitbit was to use it to track actual workouts (walks and runs, mostly, although it worked pretty well for elliptical trainer) and disconnect the steps. I just un-linked them and entered the workouts manually. I've left the Garmin linked, but I don't eat all the incidental calories.

    You have a very active lifestyle, getting so many steps, so instead I might suggest bumping up the activity level in your profile. Getting it right is a slow process, since your weight will naturally fluctuate by a few pounds, so you have to start conservative and add a bit more in, watching the trend.

    Best of luck!
  • learjetta96
    learjetta96 Posts: 1 Member
    I try not to eat back the calories I've earned from my Garmin, mostly because they seem to be inaccurate, but also because it's bonus calories burned!
  • damonmccune68
    damonmccune68 Posts: 7 Member
    We have done research on wearable tech in our lab. Unfortunately, none are very accurate at all. Also, the calorie recommendations on MyFitness Pal are often not very appropriate either. They arbitrarily use 500 or 1000 calories a day plus/minus based on your weight goals which will often provide a number that is not really appropriate for users. This is a problem because it could slow your metabolism too quickly and then you're not able to make appropriate calorie adjustments later to continue to lose weight without eating too little food. I would recommend checking out the Mifflin St. Jeor equation to calculate your BMR instead and then apply an activity factor based on your activity level. Ultimately, you want to create a deficit to lose weight so any extra exercise could do that for you.

    A good system would be to track your food intake and take a daily weight first thing in the morning. Each week, take an average of your daily weigh-ins for a more accurate account of change (since daily it will fluctuate due to fluid shifts). Additionally, take circumference measurements since the scale doesn't really tell the whole story. This way you'll be able to track progress and adjust food intake as needed.

    Hope this helps!
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    I've compared MFP with the M at J formula. They are nearly identical.
  • fuzzylop_
    fuzzylop_ Posts: 100 Member
    damonmccune68 wrote: »
    We have done research on wearable tech in our lab. Unfortunately, none are very accurate at all.

    Are you part of the wearable health lab at stanford, or are there other labs also studying this topic on an ongoing basis?
    A good system would be to track your food intake and take a daily weight first thing in the morning. Each week, take an average of your daily weigh-ins for a more accurate account of change (since daily it will fluctuate due to fluid shifts). Additionally, take circumference measurements since the scale doesn't really tell the whole story. This way you'll be able to track progress and adjust food intake as needed.

    There's the 3-suns (and mild variants) tdee spreadsheets that can do some of this. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/4mhvpn/adaptive_tdee_tracking_spreadsheet_v3_rescue/
  • damonmccune68
    damonmccune68 Posts: 7 Member
    fuzzylop_ wrote: »
    damonmccune68 wrote: »
    We have done research on wearable tech in our lab. Unfortunately, none are very accurate at all.

    Are you part of the wearable health lab at stanford, or are there other labs also studying this topic on an ongoing basis?
    A good system would be to track your food intake and take a daily weight first thing in the morning. Each week, take an average of your daily weigh-ins for a more accurate account of change (since daily it will fluctuate due to fluid shifts). Additionally, take circumference measurements since the scale doesn't really tell the whole story. This way you'll be able to track progress and adjust food intake as needed.

    There's the 3-suns (and mild variants) tdee spreadsheets that can do some of this. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/4mhvpn/adaptive_tdee_tracking_spreadsheet_v3_rescue/

    I'm at UNLV. There are several labs researching wearable technologies.
  • damonmccune68
    damonmccune68 Posts: 7 Member
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    I've compared MFP with the M at J formula. They are nearly identical.

    Maybe for BMR, but not when you consider the activity factor and look at the actual recommended daily caloric need. MFP bases their model on the 3500 kcals = 1 lb so just add or subtract 500 or 1000 per day to make a 1 or 2 pound difference each week. This was based on some research that is not very translational to reality because it does not take into account metabolic adaptation. Cutting 1000 kcals from someone's actual daily recommended calorie need is inappropriate.
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    damonmccune68 wrote: »
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    I've compared MFP with the M at J formula. They are nearly identical.

    Maybe for BMR, but not when you consider the activity factor and look at the actual recommended daily caloric need. MFP bases their model on the 3500 kcals = 1 lb so just add or subtract 500 or 1000 per day to make a 1 or 2 pound difference each week. This was based on some research that is not very translational to reality because it does not take into account metabolic adaptation. Cutting 1000 kcals from someone's actual daily recommended calorie need is inappropriate.

    I totally agree that cutting 1000kcals is not feasible for most people.

    MFP recalculates your TDEE based on your actual weight (and age), and it does adapt as you lose. It's a bitter pill when you lose 10lbs only to be told that you have to eat even less if you want to lose another 10. But, I'm scratching my head as to how subtracting 500kcals from your TDEE (assuming accurate) could possibly NOT cause a 1lb weight loss per week. Maybe I'm missing something.

    I can tell you that the MFP recommendation has been very accurate in my case. When set to lose 1lb per week, that is pretty much what happened. When set to maintain, I maintained.

    This page allows you to calculate your TDEE using M st J, if you want to compare to MFP:

    https://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html
  • damonmccune68
    damonmccune68 Posts: 7 Member
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    damonmccune68 wrote: »
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    I've compared MFP with the M at J formula. They are nearly identical.

    Maybe for BMR, but not when you consider the activity factor and look at the actual recommended daily caloric need. MFP bases their model on the 3500 kcals = 1 lb so just add or subtract 500 or 1000 per day to make a 1 or 2 pound difference each week. This was based on some research that is not very translational to reality because it does not take into account metabolic adaptation. Cutting 1000 kcals from someone's actual daily recommended calorie need is inappropriate.

    I totally agree that cutting 1000kcals is not feasible for most people.

    MFP recalculates your TDEE based on your actual weight (and age), and it does adapt as you lose. It's a bitter pill when you lose 10lbs only to be told that you have to eat even less if you want to lose another 10. But, I'm scratching my head as to how subtracting 500kcals from your TDEE (assuming accurate) could possibly NOT cause a 1lb weight loss per week. Maybe I'm missing something.

    I can tell you that the MFP recommendation has been very accurate in my case. When set to lose 1lb per week, that is pretty much what happened. When set to maintain, I maintained.

    This page allows you to calculate your TDEE using M st J, if you want to compare to MFP:

    https://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html

    I am very familiar with the different methods and formulas to calculate TDEE. Weight loss is not linear because of metabolic adaptation. That is why the 500 kcals/day is too generic and does not necessarily equal 1 lb lost. Especially, after some weight has been lost.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    skarlett75 wrote: »
    Ok, so I have a Fitbit Versa linked to MFP. I have my activity set to active, with a goal to lose 1 lb a week, which gives me 1750 net cals a day. I get anywhere from 13,000-17,000 steps a day and MFP is giving me back what seems like CRAZY calories for that. Today I earned 800 extra calories just on steps. I have not been adding any manual activity. Have other people found this as well? Do you eat those calories? Have you lost weight eating them?

    So steps is not actually used in any math on MFP.

    For Fitbit, steps leads to distance based on actual impact of steps (so stride length better we right), and that leads to daily calories, plus any exercise where HR-based calorie burn was used (and if used at wrong times, inflated).

    So looking at Fitbit, daily graph of calorie burn - do big increases look appropriate, especially along with HR graph?
    Low level exercise that kicks in HR-based calorie burn is also going to be inflated.

    And actually, 13-17K is well above Active - so only getting 800 calories sounds very reasonable.

    Tweaking so distance is correct can improve things, and confirming no exercise is counted on daily activity stuff can improve things.
    The longer you wear it the better it tries to discern when exercise is really happening, so it can use distance-based calorie burn when appropriate.
    And as it sees workouts and learns restingHR, it'l trying to improve exercise-based calorie burn - though still many ways to through that off.
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    damonmccune68 wrote: »
    I am very familiar with the different methods and formulas to calculate TDEE. Weight loss is not linear because of metabolic adaptation. That is why the 500 kcals/day is too generic and does not necessarily equal 1 lb lost. Especially, after some weight has been lost.

    I think that's interesting. I did not observe it in my relatively modest weight loss (~10% of body weight), maybe it happens after greater weight losses. I wonder how exercise affects the equation.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    damonmccune68 wrote: »
    I am very familiar with the different methods and formulas to calculate TDEE. Weight loss is not linear because of metabolic adaptation. That is why the 500 kcals/day is too generic and does not necessarily equal 1 lb lost. Especially, after some weight has been lost.

    I think that's interesting. I did not observe it in my relatively modest weight loss (~10% of body weight), maybe it happens after greater weight losses. I wonder how exercise affects the equation.

    You asked!
    (other studies have shown similar, I liked this one because they broke out BMR changes from TDEE changes)

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
  • nooshi713
    nooshi713 Posts: 4,877 Member
    I have found my Fitbit Zip estimates to be very accurate. That model is just a step counter.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories