Underestimating mileage

[Adele287]

I have been using the Fitflex since October 2013 and when compared to the Body Media tracker and actual "driven mileage" walking outside, it was very accurate. Since the software upgrade several months ago, it has been underestimating steps, miles and active minutes! I thought it was because my Fitflex was older; however, just purchased one for my husband and his is inaccurate as well. I'm the Director of a weight loss medical practice and have required patients to purchase this product and they are complaining about the same issue. Bottom Line, I purchased a Jawbone Up for comparison and it was 100% accurate with mileage and active minutes. And, I had performed a sync and reset on both Fitflex trackers before we walked, so that variable is off the table. All fitbit customer service says is "we have referred this problem to our engineers and will get back to you". I have every color band and preordered the Tory Burch one and feel responsible to my patients for recommending the product. Is the premium program more accurate? Very frustrated as I luved my Fitflex, but can't recommend an inaccurate product. Has anyone tried the premium upgrade? Thanks!

[josephz2va]

Have you tried changing your strides under Dashboard Settings?

• Dashboard
• Gear icon on the upper right
• Settings
• Half way down are the settings for Strides. By default, it's set to zero feet.

Depending on how fast you walk and how fast you run, the results can vary. I have my walking stride set to 2 feet and running stride set to 4 feet.

[Adele287]

Great, I'll try that. Did that also improve your active minutes? The goal is 30 qd and my patients are really trying very hard and not obtaining it currently.

Adele Freeman

Sent from my iPad

[Dominique]

---

@Adele287 wrote:
Did that also improve your active minutes? The goal is 30 qd and my patients are really trying very hard and not obtaining it currently.

---

Very active minutes (as per Fitbit) are defined here:

http://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/What-are-very-active-minutes/

The main problem with them IMO is that different trackers grant them very differently for the same activity level. This has been confirmed by many users who have had several Fitbit trackers. The most "generous" is the Fitbit Zip, while the "stingiest" is the Fitbit One and the Flex is somewhere in-between.

If your patients would get more motivation from more easily attainable very active minutes, then you should get them a Fitbit Zip instead.

Comparing very active minutes from Fitbit and Jawbone is pointless IMO, unless Jawbone happens to be using the same definition (6 x METs) as Fitbit. But as I said, Fitbit can't even get their own trackers to count VAM's in a consistent way.

[Adele287]

My "active minutes" in the past were right on target with running and walking, now....never. Since Jawbone is consistently more accurate across the board every time I have cross calibrated it with the actual mileage I may switch my patients to that product, as most people want instant gratification! I know my diabetics do!

I won't waste $$ on the upgrade then.



Adele Freeman

Sent from my iPad

[Dominique]

---

@Adele287 wrote:
Since the software upgrade several months ago, it has been underestimating steps, miles and active minutes!

---

I've been using a Fitbit One since March 2013 and I haven't noticed any changes related to software/firmware upgrades. Generally speaking, I believe a waist-mounted tracker (like the Fitbit One or Zip) is going to count steps more accurately than a wrist-mounted one (Flex or Force). Anyway, I don't really care whether my Fitbit One is not counting steps 100% accurately: whether it reports 500 steps more or less than I actually took doesn't really matter. I want my Fitbit to make me more active and it's doing a fine job with that.

As to mileage, it's really step count x average stride length. Your stride length may vary a lot depending on where/when you're taking your steps (your stride is probably much shorter when walking from the couch to the fridge than when walking outside), how fast you're moving (the faster you're moving, the longer your stride normally is), your mood etc. If you really want a precise mileage, you should really get a GPS watch (but then, that wouldn't count steps taken inside). Again, if the purpose of your Fitbit is to make you more active, the absolute accuracy of your mileage doesn't really matter.

[Dominique]

---

@Adele287 wrote:
My "active minutes" in the past were right on target with running and walking, now....never. Since Jawbone is consistently more accurate across the board every time I have cross calibrated it with the actual mileage I may switch my patients to that product, as most people want instant gratification! I know my diabetics do!

---

Funnily enough, I just came across this post by @SunsetRunner@ (who also has a Flex), who wrote:

"I often get credit for High Active Minutes when I am just walking."

So some people complain it's too hard to get Very active minutes, while others complain it's too easy, and they are using the same Fitbit tracker.

I personally think Very active minutes should mean exactly that: minutes when I am indeed very active. Merely getting my fat ass off the chair and moving a little bit (like walking at a moderate pace) does not qualify as being very active in my books.

[slysam · Accepted solution]

Hi, I don't know why your fitbit use to be accurate but isn't anymore. But generally speaking, the accuracy can be improved if you calibrate your walking and running stride length settings (using your average stride per step). There are a lot of ways to do this, and it seems some methods work better for some users. I recently posted a blog entry about the method that I personally have found more accurate (of the few I tried), (slysamgettingfit.blogspot.com/2014/08/how-to-calibrate-your-fitbit-stride.html). My Fitbit distances are usually pretty accurate compared to GPS, walking a measured route or the treadmill (odd since when I tried calibrating on a treadmill I came up with too short a stride setting). It does underestimate when I run, but only because the running stride I entered is a compromise between my very brisk walk and a light jog. I walk a lot more than I run and could always use a GPS tracker for running if I need to. About the very active minues, I am not sure whether calibration makes a difference. I do find that now that I know the Fitbit standard is suppose to be 6 METs and now that my walking speed is usually accurate that it isn't a surprise whether my minutes are "very active" or "moderately active" anymore. Your VAM might change in time, I use to earn them easier myself. This doesn't seem to be a difference between old vs new trackers (which I thought at first), sometimes maybe, but really I think in my case it was that I became a little lighter on my feet after losign about 10 pounds. I tested this doing the same workout once with a weighted vest and once without and with no changes the weighted vest version did earn higher caloreis burned and more very active minutes by fitbit's estimate (the steps, distance, and speed were the same or similar with both). Impact of the movement seems to be a factor in the activity minutes.

[Adele287]

Thanks, I'll recommend this to my patients. Fitbit just emailed me the same instructions.

[Adele287]

Thanks for your input! I've sent an email to Jawbone re met requirements for "active min". Physiological guideline is 6 mets or >, so, I hope so!! I'm going to give pt's pros and cons for several activity trackers and let them decide. As long as they have increased their physical activity, then great. I'll stay with Jawbone as it was more accurate on steps in comparison to actual treadmill steps and you don't need a computer to charge (charging only every 10 days).

[Adele287]

Thanks! In the Fitbit line I agree the Fitbit midline location is the most accurate. My patients prefer wristbands, so whatever to keep them moving!! -:).Ill stick with my Jawbone, but I do need to be able to answer questions on the Fitbit and Fitflex. The Fit force was recalled due to a skin rash and burning under the band.

[Adele287]

Thanks so much for your very detailed soulution. I particularly found your comparison with the weighted vest versus unweighted vest. I had not even considered my improved VO2 could have resulted in less VAM if I'm jogging at the same pace over the same route (no weight change). I appreciate your contribution!

[LKW_DVM2010]

I have a couple of issues. One it gives me short on my milage (considerably). For instance for the past several days I try to get on the treadmill and do at least one mile. but my one only gives me 0.78 miles for the mile. Also I am very confused about the active minutes. my husband and myself are the same height and within 15 pounds of weight (I am now lighter) but when we walk together at the same pace and same distance it will give us different numbers both on distance and he gets considerably more active minutes.

[Heybales]

Sounds like it's time to manually correct your stride length if you know it's wrong.

VAM time is based on burning calories 6 x resting level.

Your hubby being heavier hits that easier going the same pace as you.

And same height doesn't matter, the default calc's for stride length are height and gender based.

Start walking at normal daily pace - not hard exercise pace.

When mileage flips to 0.4 miles, start counting each right foot landing.

When mileage flips to 0.5 miles, stop counting and double that number for strides taken.

528 / strides = stride length in decimal feet (convert to feet & inches).

Enter that on Settings page.

Do the same thing running at normal exercise pace.

And you still won't match on VAM time if right on the edge, he weighs more, therefore expends more energy than you compared to resting calorie burn.

Need to hit 4 mph probably.

[slysam]

LKW_DVM2010, did youy see the link to my blog post on calibrating your stride settings? The fitbit estimated distance is based on your entered stride lengths (for walking and running), whether Fitbit categorizes your steps as walking ro running (based on the speed and movement data) and the number of steps. So correctly calibrating your stide settings makes a difference. My fifbit distances are quite accurate. I tried several methods of calibration and the one I described in my blog worked best for me. About the treadmill, my stride on a treadmill is very different than outside in the world. I calibrated doing laps on a track, when I tried on a treadmill by stride distances came out too short when I was off the treadmill. I must take smaller steps both walking and running on a treadmill than I usually take outside. I guess you should calibrate it for whatever youy use most. I prefer it to be accurate outside. The link to my post (the information is a little long to include here): http://slysamgettingfit.blogspot.com/2014/08/how-to-calibrate-your-fitbit-stride.html

[slysam]

Hi, I am splitting my answer in two parts as my computer and the fitbit forum don't play well together. (My posts appear as one long paragraph). About the very active minutes. Different people can get them at different speeds. When I was heavier, I got them more easily walking than I do now. According to fitbit, we get them if fitbit estimates we burned at least 6 times our resting calorie burn rate. This is also in line with the CDC standards for vigorous activity. You would think that walking the same speed would result in the same activity intensity minutes, right? It probably would if you manually logged the activity by distance covered. But for Fitbit tracked activity, it is based on the movement data. Fitbit has a tri-axis accelerometer that tracks movement side to side, up and down, and forward and back. The calorie burn and intensity minutes are both based on how much and how fast you moved that minute. I think the up and down (or impact) is a huge factor. I've tested this myself with my own fitbit and found the more impact or force in my movement the higher the calorie burn and activity minutes. I also dance a lot (or did, I have been inactive lately). When I dance using good technique, fitbit often cheats me as the movements are soft, isolated and smooth so it doesn't pick up as much impact and/or force. I do not have this issue with aerobic dancing and Zumba--maybe because I am looser on the technique than for performance dancing. I even test the same "walking" workout video twice in the same day--once in a weighted vest and once normal. The steps and distance were the same both times. The calorie burn and very active minutes were higher when I wore the weighted vest. I made no settings change, I was testing what I already observed about how heavier steps results in more VAM. It may be that your husband takes heavier, more forceful steps. Also, in terms of calorie burn a 15 pound difference is big, and men burn more than women all else equal (per formulas, they are estimates, the formulas assume the man has more lean mass). I have been meaning to write a post about my tests, but just haven't had time. Anyway, I am not surprised he might see a higher calorie burn and more very active minutes. The higher calorie burn doesn't, in itself, equal more very active minutes. Someone with a higher resting calorie burn rate does need to burn more calories to see very active minutes as it is really the ratio not the specific number. For very active minutes you need to burn at least 6 times your resting rate than minute.

[slysam]

Oh, my fitbit distance and speed are usually accurate since I calibrated. I start seeing very active minutes if I maintain a speed of at least 4mph, but then I get partial credit. It is somewhere between 4 and 5 mph where I get full credit. It is seriously the speed where it is almost as easy to jog than walk. I am 5' 1". When I was about 10-15 pounds heavier, I saw very active minutes around 3.8 mph, but I am not sure whether that was because Fitbit changed their formula (I've used a Fitbit for about 4 years now). However the weighted vest experiment made me think the weight loss made a difference somehow.

[amahmud]

Hi. I set my stride for 19 inches. When I walk approximately 10 miles, my Fitbit One registers it as 79 miles! I ignore the milage since it's obviously way off.

[slysam]

---

@amahmud wrote:

Hi. I set my stride for 19 inches. When I walk approximately 10 miles, my Fitbit One registers it as 79 miles! I ignore the milage since it's obviously way off.

---

Hmmm.... Strange. Are you sure it is set for inches not feet? I am only 5" 1" and my Fitbit One Stride is set longer than 19 inches, but I do not have this problem. My stride is set for 2 feet 6.1 inches (30.1"), this is the distance covered per step when I walked on a track. My Fitbit mileage is very accurate unless the route is very hilly. Or is it counting a crazy amount of steps? (If so, how are you wearing it? Is it as directed for the One -- on hip or torso?). Mine has never credited me for 79 miles in a day. My best was over a little over 10 miles for 25,000 steps

[Heybales]

---

@amahmud wrote:

Hi. I set my stride for 19 inches. When I walk approximately 10 miles, my Fitbit One registers it as 79 miles! I ignore the milage since it's obviously way off.

---

Beyond needed questions above.

What do you use to determine you walked 10 miles?

And if that was accurate distance, and you walked at a purposeful pace - you can now calculate your stride length and set it better.

19 inches is tiny.