Very Active Minutes

[brandylearl]

I've started doing HipHop Abs and am logging it in activites as Zumba (after some research, I found this is the closest equilivant).  My issue is that my very active minutes show - let's say 27 minutes before I log the activity (after workout is done); however, when I log the activity, my very active minutes drops to 2.  Anyone else have this issue?  Is there a work around as I know that I worked my butt off this morning and want the calories to show appropriately.

Thanks

[slysam]

That means fitbit tracked more activity than you logged. The very active minutes are based on calorie burn per minute. You get a very active minute each minute you seem to burn more than 6 times your resting rate (according to Fitbit's help section article on very active minutes). For fitbit tracked activity this is based on how fitbit interpreted your movement data, for manually logged activities this is based on the calorie burn logged (the calorie burn divided evenly among the duration minutes). I can see a loss in very active minutes even when I log the same calorie burn fitbit would have credited, because the fitbit tracked would have calculated each minute separately and would credit higher for the minutes that show more/faster movement. The logged would really be based on "average" calorie burn per minute and credit all the same. I wouldn't track your Hip Hop Abs workout. If fitbit were overestimating, it would be a good idea to log it to correct the overage, but I don't think it is likely with this activity unless you are wearing your device in an off label way. I think more likely, fitbit tracked it fine and some minutes were more active than others (common with dance workouts). Or it is possible that workout was more vigorous than the average Zumba class (though I get very active minutes if I wear my fitbit to Zumba and do not log it manually).

[QueenM]

log it in with the step count. It happen to me too, I love hip hop abs.

[Heybales]

A manually logged activity has to reach a higher multiple of your resting calorie burn to be considered VAM, compared to what Fitbit thought were steps in walking/running and requires less multiple.

So depends on where you want the accuracy and why you bought the device.

If it was totally about VAM and steps and reaching those kinds of fitness goals, but you don't care about calorie burn and eating level being best estimate - then leave the Fitbit stats alone.

If you want best daily calorie burn so you are eating less in a reasonable deficit for the purpose of weight loss, then correct the activity for calories and except the fact that won't make it towards the other goals.

I frankly don't even care about steps and VAM and miles and such.

I have my workouts, they are going to be done, I have rest days, they need to be done for the workouts to be strong like I want them. I need to eat at a reasonable deficit or the stress on the body isn't good.

So logging most accurate calorie counts is most important to me, I couldn't care less about the other goals, rarely even go to dashboard to see them.

[slysam]

Heybales, I usually see what the OP describes when my fitbit and heart rate monitor calorie burn were actually very similar or even the same. I have a lot of activities where they are the same including zumba class, turbojam/turbokick (a dancy cardio kickboxing workout), jumping rope, etc. I am not sure why, but for step based aerobic activities my HRM and fitbit give very similar estimates. And the fitbit distance (now that I calibrated my strides) is almost always within .1 mile of GPS distance when I've compared. If I log step-based cardio, I frequently lose VAM. I only gain them if there is something like 1 calorie per minute higher estimate on my HRM then on fitbit. And this usually only happens if it was non-step activity, weights or other resistance settings were involved, or hills, stairs or inclines are involved. Okay, that is comparing my HRM not the fitbit database. I use the MET based burns for a lot of things lately, mainly things a heart rate monitor might not be able to accurately estimate. But in my opinion, as someone who dances a lot. The MET estimates really are not great for dance. They will lump very different styles of dance together and even within the same style there are a lot of variations in intensity depending on the bpm of the music, the technique of the dancer, and how larger or small the movements are. For dance involving a lot of steps I would trust fitbit over the METs in the database (fitbit and my heart rate monitor tend to more closely agree than the MET charts). The exception, is fitbit misses steps on some types of dance if technique is good so without a HRM I would then log the METS. (I mainly see this with dance styles that use soft, fluid, isolated steps but I don't really see this happening to me with aerobic dancing. This happens more with belly dance, hula dance, flamenco dance and from what I gather on tis forum ballroom dance especially if heels are worn). Sorry for the wall of text, my web browser and fitbit forum don't play well together.