Very Active Minutes NOT showing

[Fanfair]

I went to the gym today with my Fitbit Flex for the first time.  I'm not sure what I did wrong.  I was on the stationary bike for 25 minutes first and then the Treadmill for 25 minutes.  I recorded the activies on the log as I did them via my smart phone.  Was I not suppose to do that?  I didn't think that would mess anything up.  I thought it would take the data for that time period and just "give" it to that logged in.

Help!

[Dominique]

See this: What are "very active minutes"?

"Note that your active minute count will be lower for activities that are not primarily step-based, such as weight lifting, cycling, and rowing."

In practice, if you want to get VAM's, you need to run, or walk fast (at least 4.3 mph).

[Fanfair]

So, when I am on the treadmill walking, I shouldn't log the activity because it will mess up the step count measured by Fitbit toward the daily goal right?

[slysam]

Fanfair, you might get Very active minutes for cycling or spinning if you log it. For manually logged exercise it has to do with the average calorie burn per minute for the activity. Everyone has a different threshold according to your BMR stats (I believe that is what it is based on). So it would just depend how many calories your workout likely burned. Most of my exercise comes out as "moderately active" when I log it even some very vigorous activity (I log the calorie burn from my heart rate monitor). For fitbit tracked (not logged) exercise it is minute by minute and more based on the movement. That is where how fast you move is a key consideration though I think there may be others such as impact. I would personally try not logging your treadmill workouts. There are a lot of activities where my HRM would give me the same calorie burn as Fitbit or just slightly more. I found if my HRM is adding less than a calorie per minute to Fitbit's estimate I typically will lose any very active minutes Fitbit would have credited me for if I log. This really only applies to step-translatable aerobics as obviously Fitbit credits hardly anything for cycling or spin classes. How fast you have to walk to see VAM may depend on your height and gender. Recently my threshold was 4 mph or higher, when I first started it was 3.8 mph or higher. I am only 5' 1" though. I am not sure what it is currently as this past few weeks it does feel harder to get VAM than it was previous. I haven't explored whether anything changed though.

[Arcangel25]

I keep losing very active minutes.

Walked 4.8 miles today; dashboard showed 84 out of 30 very active minutes from "track your excercise"at end of walk.

Then when I log back into dashboard to check for active minutes at end of day, it shows "0" or "1" active minutes.

This has happened on more than once.

[Heybales]

---

@Arcangel25 wrote:

I keep losing very active minutes.

Walked 4.8 miles today; dashboard showed 84 out of 30 very active minutes from "track your excercise"at end of walk.

Then when I log back into dashboard to check for active minutes at end of day, it shows "0" or "1" active minutes.

This has happened on more than once.

---

Did you manually log that walking workout?

Because 4.8 miles in 60 min is barely in to VAM time, if the walk took longer than that and you manually logged it, it's not VAM time.

As to initial view and then corrections - is that via the app, or the web account?

And only because you mention viewing at end of day, which I'm taking to mean midnight since I'm up past midnight right now, you are viewing the correct day, right?

[TandemWalker]

@Heybales 

"...Because 4.8 miles in 60 min is barely in to VAM time..."

I guess it all depends on one's profile, because I get VAMs at a much lower pace than 4.8 mph. Actually, I start seeing them in the 3.8-4 zone.

    TW     

[Arcangel25]

I use the auto log "track your exercise" for VAM's, not the manual log.

Today it shows a total of "54 VAM's so far.

When I log into my "track your exercise" for a 1 mile walk, it shows 13 of
54 VAM's.

The other 41 VAM's are the reminder 10,000 steps walk that I didn't use
"track your exercise".

Today it shows all VAM's for both" track your exercise" and "non track your
exercise" walks.

Yesterday it showed 84 VAM's on "Track Your Exercise" at the end of a brisk
5 mile walk, but when I logged back in to the Dashboard, the 84 VAM's were
showing as "0".

[TandemWalker]

@Arcangel25 - The auto-track record that you use replaces the actual data from your tracker. Delete it and the data from your tracker, along with all your VAMs, will spring right back. 

    TW     

[Arcangel25]

did this before and i lost my excercise track on calendar. Showed no exercise for that day.

[Heybales]

---

@Arcangel25 wrote:

did this before and i lost my excercise track on calendar. Showed no exercise for that day.

---

That was a track based on GPS of probably smart phone - it may have been more accurate.

Meaning your Fitbit is overestimating distance, and therefore calorie burn, and VAM time.

But all you need to do is take the start and stop time - and go create an activity record with the same, which will then use the Fitbit recorded stats.

After you delete that workout record with calorie/step/distance info that was NOT giving you VAM time.

[TandemWalker]

---

@Heybales wrote:

...Meaning your Fitbit is overestimating distance, and therefore calorie burn, and VAM time...

---

Hi @Heybales .

The Fitbit tracker might very well be over estimating distance if the stride lengths documented in one's profile aren't right; but I don't think that would not affect calories burned and VAMs, as both metrics rely on step counts and speed of movement (time elapsed between each knock of the foot to the pavement.)

The pace of a run/walk workout taken as a whole has little or no impact of calories burned and VAMs. The intensity of the walk/run, calcualted minute-by-minute, and the duration, along with one's specific profile characteristics, will determine the caloric burn and VAMs.  

    TW     

[Heybales]

---

@TandemWalker wrote:

---

@Heybales wrote:

...Meaning your Fitbit is overestimating distance, and therefore calorie burn, and VAM time...

---

Hi @Heybales .

The Fitbit tracker might very well be over estimating distance if the stride lengths documented in one's profile aren't right; but I don't think that would not affect calories burned and VAMs, as both metrics rely on step counts and speed of movement (time elapsed between each knock of the foot to the pavement.)

The pace of a run/walk workout taken as a whole has little or no impact of calories burned and VAMs. The intensity of the walk/run, calcualted minute-by-minute, and the duration, along with one's specific profile characteristics, will determine the caloric burn and VAMs.  

    TW     

---

Well, if the stride length was a tad long and for a given number of steps it thought I traveled say 4.5 miles in 1 hr - I'd be given VAM time.

If the stride length was a tad short of reality and for the same number of steps it thought I traveled 3.5 miles in 1 hr - I would not be given any VAM time.

My cross-over is just above 4 mph, don't recall exactly.

So while the calorie burn is indeed based on step by step, those steps have calculated stride length to them, based on the impact. Hence the ability to know if walking or running, or as we've probably seen, walking fast or walking slow the same distance.

Distance pretty much the same, calorie burn in total pretty much the same, but because it took less time, calorie burn per minute is higher for the shorter faster walk.

Hence the ability to reach VAM on one but not the other.

And the parts of course add up to the whole. If the whole minute isn't VAM time, you don't get it for the whole minute. You could run for 30 seconds, stand still for 30, and if the average burn isn't high enough, no VAM time. There's that sweet spot where the average will be high enough, or not.

I've tested these out, and in fact the Fitbit formula for calorie burn walking flat almost exactly matches the better formula's for calculating calorie burn. When the distances match.

[TandemWalker]

Hi @Heybales 

"Well, if the stride length was a tad long and for a given number of steps it thought I traveled say 4.5 miles in 1 hr - I'd be given VAM time."

No. Regardless of your stride length, your tracker will give you VAMs based on the intensity of your walk and the number of steps, calculated minute-by-minute.

"If the stride length was a tad short of reality and for the same number of steps it thought I traveled 3.5 miles in 1 hr - I would not be given any VAM time."

Perhaps, but not necessarily so. If you consistently walk a 3.5 mph for the whole one hour, then yes, you would not get any VAMs. But if you sprinted for 10 minutes at the half way mark; and then slowed down during the last 10 min cool down, leading to average speed for your entire 1 hr walk of 3.5 mph, you would still get 10 VAMs.

"So while the calorie burn is indeed based on step by step, those steps have calculated stride length to them, based on the impact. Hence the ability to know if walking or running, or as we've probably seen, walking fast or walking slow the same distance."

A step is a step. The pedometer is counting steps. Distance is a calculated number derived by multiplying the step count by one's documented stride lengths. The 3D axis accelerometer makes the distinction between walking and running by sensing the speed of movement, the time elapsed between each know of the heel to the pavement, the speed fo the forward acceleration, and to a lesser extent the bounce in one's gait.

"Distance pretty much the same, calorie burn in total pretty much the same, but because it took less time, calorie burn per minute is higher for the shorter faster walk. Hence the ability to reach VAM on one but not the other."

Of course, no one can argue that if you walk faster, you burn more; and if you walk faster, the more likelyhood that you will gather up VAMs. I often go for walks with my wife. There is no question that we're walking the same distance, as we leave together and come back home together, still holding hands. I walk at my regular normal pace. But for her, because she has a shorter stride than I, she has to take many more steps in order to keep up with me. So she ends up with more VAMs than I do - not because of the stride length diffirential but because of her incremental step count and speed of movement. I still beat her on calories, but that's because of gender differences.

Stride length per se IMHO is not a factor in the Fitbit's VAM algorithm. 

    TW     

[Heybales]

But I've actually tested out each of those things you've explained away.

And at least with the Zip, what I said is true.

Concerning the observation with the wife walking. Your bolded statement says it all - based on steps and speed of movement.

But what is speed of movement based on?

Speed = distance over time.

Distance is involved. You can't get away from that.

Have you ever matched her turnover, her stride length, for a walk, taking more steps than normal?

It's interesting test, at least with Zip.

[TandemWalker]

@Heybales -  Yes, speed is distance over time. But we are still talking about the VAM algorithm, right? We are still talking about how Fitbit calculates VAMs, right? So then I suggest to you that Fitbit calculates VAMs based on the intensity of your walk, assessed minute by minute; as opposed to calculating VAMs by assessing the walk as a whole. 

Yes, you are correct, the bolded statement in my earlier post says it all, 'based on steps and speed of movement', the latter being the acceleration speed of each step, the time elapsed between each knock of the heel to the pavement, as assessed by the Fitbit algorithm minute by minute. 

I see many posts from folks who walk the same daily walk, day after day; and can't figure out why they get 30 VAMs one day, and only 15 the next; yet, they walk the same distance, same duration. The answer is simple - it's because of the variability in their pace, as assessed by the Fitbit algorithm, minute by minute. 

So I guess we'll have to leave it at that and agree that we disagree. I'm done here. Good discussion though. Have a good day.

    TW     

[Heybales]

Oh, I never thought it was the whole workout and don't recall claiming such, but whole minute needs to reach that level as you point out, I agree.

Hence my comment about sprinting for 30 seconds, but then walking rest of the minute, but the whole minute better average high enough to get credit.

It's just that distance is an integral part of it, step by step, how else could you know if the steps were causing enough calorie burn to meet the 6 METS required for VAM time?

Now, it's not true distance, but what the device perceives as distance. Hence the ability to run in place and get VAM time, it thinks there was a distance associated with it and shows that. That workout total distance is the accumulation of a bunch of step distances, step by step.

Yes Fitbit calculates VAM time based on the intensity of your walk, minute by minute.

And intensity is reflected in impact, which allows Fitbit to calculate distance based on stats of stride length and weight. So the estimated or manually entered stride length in integral to Fitbit's ability to calculate stride length, from that intensity of each step, from that calorie burn and VAM time. They are all related.

[slysam]

---

@Heybales wrote:

---

@Arcangel25 wrote:

did this before and i lost my excercise track on calendar. Showed no exercise for that day.

---

That was a track based on GPS of probably smart phone - it may have been more accurate.

Meaning your Fitbit is overestimating distance, and therefore calorie burn, and VAM time.

But all you need to do is take the start and stop time - and go create an activity record with the same, which will then use the Fitbit recorded stats.

After you delete that workout record with calorie/step/distance info that was NOT giving you VAM time.

---

I haven't used the GPS log in the app because it does the same for me. In my case, I calibrated my Fitbit and the distance is typically accurate (or close, if off, the phone GPS app tends to be off by a similar amount when I test it on a measured track.) My fitbit calorie burn seems fine too compared to the link HeyBales sometimes posts where you estimate calorie burn from your stats and distance walked or ran. My other heart rate monitor GPS app Digifit gives similar distance and calorie burn to Firbit. But the mobile track (or whatever it is called) would take steps and very active minutes away when I used it. I only tried it for a week some time ago as it did this consistently. I was told it counts steps from the accelerometer in the phone. I would often have my phone in a purse or pack so I am guessing for me it missed steps. I thought it would be cool to have the GPS map of walks, but I ended up deleting it. This was quite a while ago so it may have changed. I just find letting the tracker track usually works best (if it is that vs the phone). Though if it isn't logged you don't get the tick for exercise, I don't really care about that as I can tell how active I was from the fitbit data.