What is wrong with MFP diet/fitness profile?

nytrifisoul wrote: »

AnnPT77, thanks for the explanation. I dont use the MFP app. I probably should invest in a fitness tracker to make things much easier. Any suggestions on a brand/model?

Have realistic expectations: Fitness trackers only estimate calories, they don't measure them. Like any other estimating method, the good ones are close for most people, a bit off for a few (high or low), and materially off for a very, very few. That's how statistical estimates work.

I have no basis for believing that any of the mainstream respected brands are universally more/less accurate. Choice hinges mostly on what you want them to do (like track stats for specific sports, time workouts, whether you need phone with you, that sort of thing).

If you're looking at higher end multi-sport models, DC Rainmaker is a very useful review site. (Can't link from this device, but it's an easy web search).

Regardless of which you choose, set your profile carefully, especially things like stride length (if you do much walking) and max heart rate (age estimated formulas will default if you don't have a tested max, and they're pretty inaccurate for many people).

I have a Garmin Vivoactive 3. I like it a lot. Tracks my favorite sports' stats fine, plus useful things like resting heart rate. It underestimates my daily calorie burn by several hundred, like a lot of other "calculators" do. Since I've logged on MFP for over 5 years, I know how much to eat, and don't synch it because it would make my life more difficult. Garmin's a top brand, regardless.

You don't wanna expect too much from tools; just figure out how to use some combination of them to your best benefit, which is a very individualized thing.

Best wishes!

nytrifisoul wrote: »

I just want to get a realistic idea of what my daily activity level is and have it sync with MFP so i dont have to manually add more then just my daily exercise. Since my job goes from sedentary to sometimes very active randomly throuout the week, my best option seems to be a fitness tracker regardless how accurate they are its better then guessing. I would use my Polar H7 chest strap but there are certain times throughout the day i can't keep my phone with me, so a watch/fitness tracker will have to do.

IME, the wrist-based monitor in my Garmin is pretty consistent and reasonable (as compared with doctor's office readings and RPE, for example). It loses contact unacceptably much when I'm rowing (boat or machine) so I always need the chest strap then. Other exercise or daily life, it's been fine. (I usually wear the chest belt during intentional exercise just out of habit from my old HRM-only days, but I've done most activities at least once without it and have gotten decent results, except the rowing.)

Not knowing what your job is, I can't guess whether the wrist-based monitor will be challenged, or not. (I'm told skin color and hairiness can also make a difference, but I'm naturally skim-milk blue-white, and averagely hairy for a woman, so I don't have relevant experience.)

Since you can't take your phone with you, it would be important to choose one that will store a reasonable number of workouts or amount of daily life activity data, then.

If I wanted to, I could use my Garmin's all-day calorie estimate manually to set MFP goals (I have a decent idea what percentage adjustment would apply, and I could pin that down). But, for me, it's so far off on the daily total (hundreds of calories) that trying to synch it would create far more work than it could possibly save.

I'd observe that manually logging without device assist works just fine, once there's a couple of months of estimated data logged to make a rational adjustment. I'm sedentary for real outside of exercise, but if I set MFP at "active" plus record/eat all exercise, its estimate is only a little low. No matter, I know how much to eat, from the data I've collected. It's just a fun science fair project for grown-ups.

:drinker: