Best tracking app?

I track my walks/runs using either Under Armour Record, or my Fitbit. Which would be more accurate? E.g. the calorie burn is very different for the same walk I did today:

0z195fbowxdx.png
nvdn0fsj8h87.png

Replies

  • SuzySunshine99
    SuzySunshine99 Posts: 2,983 Member
    I can't speak to the accuracy of fitness trackers, as I don't use one.
    However, I do feel I need to comment that you really should be more careful about posting personal information on a public web page. There are unfortunately evil people in the world who might be interested in where you live, what time of day you walk your dog, where you go, etc.
    You could have asked your question without including the map of your route.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,905 Member
    I think I'd use the 133.

    Here's the thing though. Running and walking have pretty easy to calculate calorie burns. Pick one of your trackers and use that number for awhile (like 4-6 weeks) and see what your weight does. If it's not working, adjust. That goes for all exercises.

    https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20801301/calories-burned-running-calculator/
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    UA may be looking at only the walk and it's calorie burn - not what you burned during that chunk of time. That's what the link is providing also. NET.

    The Fitbit on the other hand is needing to come up with a total daily burn figure - so it does care about what you burned in total for that chunk of time. Gross.

    Now, 122 calories as base burn for 37 min is also not realistic.

    But - your HR probably went up enough that the Fitbit went to HR-based calorie burn, not purely distance-based as the daily stuff would be.

    And while HR-based can be decent estimate of calorie burn for steady-state aerobic exercise (with several known caveats), the low end, like walking, is also inflated when going by those calculations.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,950 Member
    edited January 2020
    I can't speak to the accuracy of fitness trackers, as I don't use one.
    However, I do feel I need to comment that you really should be more careful about posting personal information on a public web page. There are unfortunately evil people in the world who might be interested in where you live, what time of day you walk your dog, where you go, etc.
    You could have asked your question without including the map of your route.

    Seconding this concern about posting info about where and when you can be found IRL.

    ETA: if it's too late to edit it yourself, you can use the report button below your OP to ask the moderators to delete the map or the post.
  • anb3600
    anb3600 Posts: 46 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    UA may be looking at only the walk and it's calorie burn - not what you burned during that chunk of time. That's what the link is providing also. NET.

    The Fitbit on the other hand is needing to come up with a total daily burn figure - so it does care about what you burned in total for that chunk of time. Gross.

    Now, 122 calories as base burn for 37 min is also not realistic.

    But - your HR probably went up enough that the Fitbit went to HR-based calorie burn, not purely distance-based as the daily stuff would be.

    And while HR-based can be decent estimate of calorie burn for steady-state aerobic exercise (with several known caveats), the low end, like walking, is also inflated when going by those calculations.

    Why is ‘122 calories as base burn for 37 min’ not realistic? Would I have burnt more or less than that?
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    I think Fitbit does gross calories for exercise (base calories for being alive+activity calories) while the other one does net (only activity calories). Depending on your stats, both could be close enough despite different numbers. If you're logging those calories manually, I would use the UA one.

    Fitbits with heart rate trackers do overestimate calories for me, but that's another story. Just pick one and stick with it for a while then adjust. If you're losing faster than expected, it's underestimating, if slower, it's overestimating.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    anb3600 wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    UA may be looking at only the walk and it's calorie burn - not what you burned during that chunk of time. That's what the link is providing also. NET.

    The Fitbit on the other hand is needing to come up with a total daily burn figure - so it does care about what you burned in total for that chunk of time. Gross.

    Now, 122 calories as base burn for 37 min is also not realistic.

    But - your HR probably went up enough that the Fitbit went to HR-based calorie burn, not purely distance-based as the daily stuff would be.

    And while HR-based can be decent estimate of calorie burn for steady-state aerobic exercise (with several known caveats), the low end, like walking, is also inflated when going by those calculations.

    Why is ‘122 calories as base burn for 37 min’ not realistic? Would I have burnt more or less than that?

    Base burn for Fitbit is BMR - 122 in 37 min would equate to 4748 calorie BMR.

    Ya, not going to happen.

    BMR between 1200-2000 more possible, so 30-51.
  • anb3600
    anb3600 Posts: 46 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    anb3600 wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    UA may be looking at only the walk and it's calorie burn - not what you burned during that chunk of time. That's what the link is providing also. NET.

    The Fitbit on the other hand is needing to come up with a total daily burn figure - so it does care about what you burned in total for that chunk of time. Gross.

    Now, 122 calories as base burn for 37 min is also not realistic.

    But - your HR probably went up enough that the Fitbit went to HR-based calorie burn, not purely distance-based as the daily stuff would be.

    And while HR-based can be decent estimate of calorie burn for steady-state aerobic exercise (with several known caveats), the low end, like walking, is also inflated when going by those calculations.

    Why is ‘122 calories as base burn for 37 min’ not realistic? Would I have burnt more or less than that?

    Base burn for Fitbit is BMR - 122 in 37 min would equate to 4748 calorie BMR.

    Ya, not going to happen.

    BMR between 1200-2000 more possible, so 30-51.

    Sorry I still don’t understand. 😭
    I just need a number for calorie burn that’s all I’m asking 😂
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    If you just want a number, several have mentioned it already.
    Use the lower number.