07-10-13, 04:13 PM | |
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
[QUOTE=firmaholic;2256718]I need your expert input again. . I just purchased the fit bit zip yesterday. All I ever had experience with prior to fitbit is weight Watcher's Active Link. I just set it up this morning and started using it. It right away gave me 300 (or so) calories burned and it seems like it counts steps two at a time. Lol. From my previous experience with active link, I found that gadget to be conservative. The zip feels like it really overestimates. Has any one found it to be so? For those who have/had both fitbit zip and fitbit one, is one more accurate than the zip??/QUOTE]
I don't have an Active Link but Fitbit will be different... I have a Fitbit One and previously had an Ultra and an even older model before that. Your Fitbit calorie burn includes a portion of your BMR each minute that has passed. I think the BMR formula Fitbit uses is similar to the Mifflin. So for me, something like 1230 of my total calorie burn on fitbit is just my BMR by the time the day is complete. I think the 300 calories you saw was a portion of your BMR between 12am and the time you set up the fitbit. I found all my fitbits to be pretty accurate with counting steps. If anything, they miss steps not overcount them for me. I wear it either attached to my bra or my underpants waistband depending on what I am wearing and the activity. Usually it is on the bra--I move it to my hip area when I do dancing that uses very soft steps because it misses most of those steps otherwise. It counts each footfall as a step--sort of. The accelerometer in the fitbit tracks movement forward and back, right to left and up and down. It isn't really a pedometer (they work a little differently), but it somehow translates the movement data into "steps". So sometimes larger torso movements, jumps, etc also are credited as steps. I think this is fine in terms of the accuracy of the activity and calorie burn estimates, but it can alter how accurate the distance stats are. I.E. if you were running laps on a track then stopping periodically to do jumping jacks--even if your fitbit were perfectly calibrated the distance would probably be farther than you actually ran because it would count your jumping jacks as "steps". This should reflect the effort you put into it though. In my experience, the main weakness with fitbit is it doesn't have a way to factor in resistance from weights, bands, bodyweight exercises, isometrics, etc so it will usually underestimate for any resistance activity. So if anything, it might be underestimating your total activity if you do weights, yoga, pilates, use cardio machines with resistance settings, bands, kettlebells, many bodyweight or bootcamp workouts, barre, etc. I think Active Link has a similar accelerometer but is probably programmed differently. Doesn't it have you do a base week then in the future credit you for your activity beyond your base level? Fitbit will always be showing your totals as it estimates it. |
07-10-13, 08:16 PM | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
I wanted to add to slysam's post...I agree that the Fitbit under estimates steps. This is not based on my personal knowledge but when I was reading and deciding which pedometer to get, I saw people complaining that they had higher steps with other pedometers. I would actually prefer something more conservative because I don't want over inflated numbers.
Also, a guy at my job had the Zip, One and now he has the Flex. He said that they are all accurate and his numbers haven't changed. But he prefers the Flex because it's on his wrist and he doesn't have to worry about it. He complained that with the Zip and One, he'd forget it on his clothes and it would end up in the wash. Although he said it still worked. |
|
|