active minutes

[Tinawhitehurst]

My husband and I go on walks he gets 45 active minutes and I get 21. We are walking side by side at the same place and he is a foot taller so I work harder to keep up with his stride. Can someone give me a resonable answer to Why? It is very frustrating.

[Colinm39]

@Tinawhitehurst VAM is based on calories which is a result of speed and your individual BMR's, many of us feel there is a minor impact or odd acceleration picked up by the inbuilt 3D accelerometer. I have proven that when I bounce my exercise ball averaging about 95 bounces/min I get 100% VAM.  @TandemWalker may comment because he and his wife have many tandem walks using their Fitbit One's and I'm sure I have seen a similar post.

It will definitely be your BMR because you will walking at the same speed and I'm assuming your strides are accurate and in your walks your distance walked for each of you would be similar.

It would help us if we knew what Fitbits your are wearing because if they are different the various models can calculate VAM differently. 

Awaiting your response so that we can help others with your reply. 

---

@Tinawhitehurst wrote:

My husband and I go on walks he gets 45 active minutes and I get 21. We are walking side by side at the same place and he is a foot taller so I work harder to keep up with his stride. Can someone give me a resonable answer to Why? It is very frustrating.

---

[TandemWalker]

---

@Tinawhitehurst wrote:

My husband and I go on walks he gets 45 active minutes and I get 21. We are walking side by side at the same place and he is a foot taller so I work harder to keep up with his stride. Can someone give me a resonable answer to Why? It is very frustrating.

---

Hi @Tinawhitehurst !

Yes, my wife and I often walk in tandem. My friend @Colinm39  is right on target as usual.

However, the fact that you walk at the same speed (i.e. the overall speed of the walk as a whole), since you leave together and arrive together, has very little to do with the VAM differential you're seeing. But your respective BMR profile will influence the way your accrue VAMs, so will the speed of movement (the time lapse between each knock of the floor), the number of steps, etc.

What I do find unusual in your case is that you should be looking at the exact opposite of what you're seeing. In other words, since he is taller and you have to walk faster to keep up, your speed of movement and intensity of movement are both that much higher; hence, you're the one who should be getting more VAMs, not him. That's not fair, is it? He's just cruising along dum dee dum while you're working out a sweat!

The only explanation I can come up with is your BMR - there has to be something in your respective BMR profiles that should explain this.

Let me give you an example, using my own experience. For the very same walk (same distance that is, same path), I used to log VAMs a lot easier when I was 40 pounds overweight. Now that I have lost the extra luggage, I have to work that much harder to earn them. No matter how hard I work at it, I never get anywhere near the VAMs I used to get. So it goes to show that your BMR profile is a key determining factor in the VAM equation. A tiny person will burn less than a bigger person. The heavier the load, the more there is to burn.

Other factors that might come into play in trying to explain that difference you see is the force of impact. If his stance results in a harder pounding on the ground, or a heavier bounce; as opposed to say a much gentler stance in your case, that too could account, albeit to a much lesser extent, for part of that difference in VAMs.

I'm pretty sure that the answer lies primarily in your respective BMR profiles. Does it?

[slysam]

Very Active minutes are intended to happen when you burn 6 times your metabolic rate. "On paper" that would require walking 4.5 miles per hour (according to MET charts--which are apparently what the active mintues are somewhat based on). I think if you manually logged your walk--you and he would have similar intensity though his calorie burn would be higher. I am not recommending manually logging walking--just saying it better lines up with accepted MET values when you do. For fitbit tracked movement.... It is a little different since the Fitbit doesn't actually "know" what you are doing. I think sometimes it credits people with running when they are walking briskly or with heavy footfalls. I've noticed I always get more Very active minutes for the "average pace" with higher impact activities or those that incolve a lot of up and down motion. I also noticed I get a higher fitbit estiamted (nothing logged) calorie burn if I wear a 10 pound weighted vest. I first tested this because I recall when I was 10 pounds heavier than I earned very active minutes walking more easily. So my theory is likely the fitbit is sensing more impact/gravity or a "bouncier" movement with your husband's walking that with yours. You might walk smoother or be light on your feet (or just plain lighter in weight). Usually I would expect a shorter person to see more very active minutes on a brisk walk with a taller person because the shorter will usually take a lot more steps. But technically, you shouldn't have verya ctive minutes unless the speed is 4.5 mph (maybe it was?). About the heavier impact, here is a link that does a nice "accelerometer 101" demonstration. It isn't using a Ftibit, but fitbit does have a tri-axis accelerometer like in this demonstration. According to this link a tri-axis accelerometer records changes in motion relative to the device in three directions (forward and back, side to side and up and down) and when still records the force of gravity (higher on a heavier person) and when moving the acceleration of the movement (which I suspect is stronger for heavier people). By heavier or lighter, I am not judging just using it as a comparitive term. If he is heavier than you that may be why you are seeing this difference. The link: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/projects/2014/03/accelerometers.html

[Tinawhitehurst]

We are both using the Flex, I even went and purchased a new one because mine was so in accurate. very frustrating. Thank you all for your input  these thoughts amd Ideas are helpful. I guess I just have to work harder.

[Heybales]

Women generally impact less, smoother more efficience walking, and running actually, up to a certain speed.

As the others explained, that counts against you.

Also, he could be taking big lollip strides and getting even better impact. You could be doing smoother smaller strides.

Trying really stretching out your stride next time, that usually causes extra bounce automatically. See how that counts now.

Are the distances matching though, that was one unanswered question?

[TandemWalker]

---

@Tinawhitehurst wrote:

We are both using the Flex, I even went and purchased a new one because mine was so in accurate. very frustrating. Thank you all for your input  these thoughts amd Ideas are helpful. I guess I just have to work harder.

---

@Tinawhitehurst- Hi again Tina. Yes, my earlier post assumed that you were wearing a One, because that's what we have. You make reference to being frustrated, but I am consused - is this in reference to the one your returned (...because it was so inaccurate and frustrating); or do you still have issues with inaccuracies with the replacement you purchased?

[Tinawhitehurst]

They all do it, I even swaped my husband. and his did it to me. I think maybe I walk to smooth and dont swing my arms enough. Just not sure. I am losing weight so I guess I shouldnt complain.

[Tinawhitehurst]

No: I was 1500 steps ahead we went on a 5mile fast pased walk when we got home he was 3000. steps ahead of me,

[slysam]

@Tinawhitehurst, Hi I am curious when you mentioned your last Flex being inaccurate. How did you know it was inaccurate? Was it doing similar to your current Flex with your walks? If you briskly take 100 steps (each foot fall or weight shift counting as a step), how many does your Flex count. Sadly this is easier to test with a One since it has a built in display. When you finish the steps stand perfectly still for several seconds then sync--sometimes there is a delay between the movement and it showing up in the step count. On the surface from what you described... It could just as easily be that your husband's walking is over credited on the activity level/calorie burn--especially if your walking speed was lower than 4.5 mph. The fitbit devices categorize out movement as walking or running--that is why there are options to enter two stride lengths in the settings. I think that is simplifying things a bit. But sometimes the distance is based on a running stride and sometimes based on a walking stride--and it can vary minute by minute. I suspect the criteria of how it is categorizing is something in addition to steps per minute--likely impact or bounciness. So it could be that your husband is being credited with running/jogging on your walks and you are being credited with walking with a bit of jogging. The other clue might be that he has an inflated distance estimate compared to yours (though that can be an issue with either of you, or both, having incorrect stride length settings compared to your actual stride).

[slysam]

From your last post, Tina (I was writing when you posted)--it sounds like your steps are softer, smoother, lower impact. Though it may be undercounting and undercrediting your steps (and may be overcrediting his, I said over crediting not counting meaning it may be credited as running intensity). What happens if you do a 100 step test? If it undercredits much, you may find tinkering with your dominant/nondominant hand settings (and where you wear the fitbit) might help. I think the highest sesnitivity is setting it for nondominant but wearing it on your dominant hand. If fitbit senses your movement well on correct settings, this might cause inflated estiamtes but it culd be that your Flex isn't crediting all your steps and this might help. I don't have a Flex though, I just read this from other Flex users.