Guys on a Diet (GoaD)

Join

Question About Fitness Tracker Accuracy

Options
Flintwinch
Flintwinch Posts: 864 Member
in Social Groups
I've read that Fitness Trackers often overestimate the number of calories burned when exercising.
My Tunturi stationary bike registers 55 calories per mile, which seems a gross overestimate of calories consumed.

I bought a Polar FT 80 heart monitor, which allows you to transfer exercise data to their Polar Personal Trainer website. The data from the exercise session is analyzed and you get a readout of time in various heart rate zones, total training load (intensity), minimum/maximum/average heart rates, and calories burned.

According to the Polar analysis, I'm burning about 200 calories an hour for a moderately intense session (65% of heart rate maximum) and up to 300 calories per hours for more intense exercise.
This seems more accurate to me. Does this sound right to you?

Any comments related to your experience with fitness monitors?

Replies

  • Calvin2008Brian
    Calvin2008Brian Posts: 1,024 Member
    Options
    >This seems more accurate to me. Does this sound right to you?

    Yes.

    I agree with your observation about the stationary bike readout likely being way too generous, and, generally, agree that fitness trackers tend to overestimate calorie burn. You're doing the right thing by going with the more conservative estimate. Depending on your goals and where you are with your weight loss, you might also consider not eating activity calories (or, at least not all of them).
  • podkey
    podkey Posts: 5,105 Member
    Options
    Agree.
  • countcurt
    countcurt Posts: 593 Member
    Options
    My experience with fitness monitors is that I don't use them because the information is not that helpful to me.

    If you're tracking your calories for some specific training related purpose (say, comparing physical output for a given workout over time or matching two different types of activity for physical/caloric demand), then a quality monitor is essential. The stuff that's built into the exercise equipment won't do.

    If the information is related to weight loss efforts, I'd say you're wasting your time. Because the scale will be much more helpful to you. Adjusting activity levels for weight loss results is not generally a greatly rewarding experience.
  • podkey
    podkey Posts: 5,105 Member
    Options
    Really points should be for activity beyond a baseline. The old fitness device WW had didn't count for activity until you reached a baseline equivalent to something beyond about 8,000 to 10,000 steps. It is a lot of work to figure out your own resting basal metabolic rate of calorie burn, add in the expected activity level and then just count caloric burn beyond that for fitness points. So yes be conservative for sure.
  • Flintwinch
    Flintwinch Posts: 864 Member
    Options
    Gentlemen--Thanks for your helpful responses to my question.
  • chris_in_cal
    chris_in_cal Posts: 2,357 Member
    Options
    All the 2024+ dodads are 1000% more accurate and easier than the 2017 models.

    This technology has had quantum leaps. However, it seems important to take off my scientists hat and appreciate their value in motivation, fun, socializing, all important things. No taking anything away from medical devices, but these are additions to lifestyle.

    Step counting was the idea where many people stopped thinking of these things. Sure, it isn't for everyone, but steps, and distances, and silly badges, and sleep stage tracking etc . all have a place.

    For thosw stuck on 'It isn't accurate' you are missing the point. It can be useful, and it is definitely not required. Use'em if you got'em, it could help.
  • Al_Howard
    Al_Howard Posts: 8,145 Member
    Options
    Thanks Chris, and welcome to our den of crazies.
    I've been using a Fitbit, in various iterations, for over 10 years. I'm motivated by the 250 steps/hour challenge. TOL and I remind each other all day.
    Don't really check, or use the "extra" calories. Hard enough to lose/maintain with the points/calories as it is.
  • chris_in_cal
    chris_in_cal Posts: 2,357 Member
    Options
    250/hour sounds very smart. 10K a day is me sitting all day then pounding out 10k step...I don't think that's smart.
  • Brian_19
    Brian_19 Posts: 1,098 Member
    Options
    Ok, the weirdest thing about this old thread getting revived is seeing myself in another older account. I don't remember what happened, but I must have been unable to access that account at some point. Weird. Anyhow, that @Calvin2008Brian guy seemed pretty smart, whoever he was. Lol.

    I agree 100% with @Al_Howard - whether my device is accurate or not, I'm not paying attention to calories "earned" via activity. I also think the estimates of calories burned are way off. It they were accurate, weight loss should be easy peasy as I'm regularly burning 1000-1500 more calories than I consume. I don't know if it needs to be said, but weight loss is not, in fact, easy peasy.
  • crewahl
    crewahl Posts: 4,000 Member
    Options
    Wow, this one brought out the alumni association somehow! Good to see Steve and Bob - and calvin2008, are you also Brian?

    I don’t have an opinion on the specifics of calories burned question because I think it’s specific to the person, their fitness level, and the amount of mass they have to move. I’ve always been told a heart rate monitor was the only truly effective way to monitor calories burned, but not sure how to differentiate to from basic metabolic activity.

    At any rate, I don’t try to track calories from activity. I track time and intensity, and I use the percent of max effective heart rate (220 minus age) I achieve for that. My MEHR is 152, so my approach for intensity is the average heart rate using:

    1. Under 75 BPM/ <50% as low or light;
    2. 75-113 BPM/ <75% as moderate;
    3. 114 and up BPM/ >75% as vigorous or high.

    I use that as criteria to select my activity is the WW app and on MPF, and roll with whatever they say. It only impacts my food choices on the WW side.



  • 88olds
    88olds Posts: 4,491 Member
    Options
    Maybe my best WW decision was to not get involved in trading exercise for more food. We didn’t have all these gadgets when I started. But I was already a gym regular doing smoke rate work on cardio machines. So how to crunch the numbers? Finally found something on the WW Science Center on using a heart rate monitor to calculate exercise points. But when I did that I was only earning a point or 2. So I scrapped the whole project. In the long run we are either losing weight or not. The numbers are just starting points.

Categories