does fitbit pick up activity on the eliptical?

[WendiHermesch]

Just curious if my fitbit will pick up my activity on the elliptical ?

[WendyB]

Yes but not all. Its not accurate step wise

[SteveH]

Have a read of this:

https://help.fitbit.com/customer/portal/articles/413311

You might get better results by manually logging it.

[WendiHermesch]

Thanks guys!

[gerrymcd]

Kinda......but I've found it really so inaccurate its not worth recording.

[slysam]

This seems so variable. I tested fitbit and my hrm on the elliptical a few times. It varied depending on my use. When I tried the elliptical with zero resistance, my heart rate was in middle cardio zones the whole time and I went as fast as I could. The elliptical machine gave the highest calorie burn estimate, second was my fitbit One and lowest was my heart rate monitor. To fitbit, it reported a lot of steps (understandable) and a fast speed like I was running--but it felt easier than running. Another day I tested with some mild resistance and the machine gave the most generous estimate, and my HRM and fitbit were pretty similar that time. When I tested with higher resistance--the machine gave the highest estimate, my hrm next highest and fitbit was a lot lower. I wear my One on my bra and was working the handles with my upper body, there is movement in my back so maybe this is why it did okay with the steps. But for me, I would probably just use my HRM since I usually wear one for workouts. It seems to do okay on mild resistance but not on zero resistance or very high resistance. That is assuming my HRM is more accurate, this is the type of activity if should give a good estiamte of since it was steady state aerobic exercise in all three tests. It makes sense the higher the resistance the higher the exertion, and fitbit's burn estimate is more the speed and amount of movement with no way to factor in resistance. I was surprised Fitbit seemed to overestimate when I used zero resistance--but likely there was some movement that was based on momentum rather than my own effort with no resistance. I don't know how common it is to use an elliptical that way though--it seems people usually use some amount of incline and resistance.

[Mary]

They used to say that Fitbits tracked pretty well on most ellipticals set to low resistance.  (They being Fitbit higher-ups on the forums.)  I think they've since added some sort of impact sensor to the calcs and possibly also some sort of x-axis motion sensor, because now they say low impact steps (like on plush carpet) may not be counted and even treadmill walking/running may not be counted because you're not actually moving through space.  Neither has been my experience, and I'm glad of it.  

[slysam]

I noticed the relationship between either impact or up and down movement quite a while ago. I think it was with my old Ultra. I first noticed it when trying to figure out whether floors effected the calorie burn/activity level calculations. I couldn't tell whether floors did, but I did notice that my Ultra would consistently credit downward portions of a stairs and hills higher. I had noticed with my first fitbit a "classic" it credited jumping rope highly and the calorie burn matched my Polar heart rate monitor. It seemed one of the activities that fitbit was best at tracking. I was surprised, but then thought the steps per minute must have been high enough to get very active mintues. But after I noticed the floors when I started using the Ultra, I looked at some of my rope jumping records I saw the average pace wasn't actually as fast as some of my walking. That makes me think that the classic and later all either factor in up and gown movement or impact. The classic also had a tri-axis accelerometer. I am sure the formula and hardware must have improved or changed in some way though. I thought the more extreme examples of the device not sensing movement seems to come from the wrist worn devices since they are probably programed to exclude some smaller movements such as typing and gestures maybe they use te impact and other factors more in their method to determine what to count as "steps"? I am not sure if I said, since it does seem to make a difference, what I observed on the elliptical was wearing a Fitbit One.

[ek91423]

It works just fine if you put it in your sock.

[Heybales]

---

@ek91423 wrote:

It works just fine if you put it in your sock.

---

For steps only.

But the calorie burn calculated from those steps has no bearing.

As above comments mention, you could in theory get the machine setup so you are burning just what the Fitbit is calculating - but how would you know.

Best to manually log calorie burn, take the steps.

[CakeHenn]

I have the "One" model and it seems to track my steps pretty good.  If I had the flex and had it on my wrist I doubt it would track very well at all since the eliptical I use has stationary arm handles.

[TandemWalker]

---

@Heybales wrote:

---

@ek91423 wrote:

It works just fine if you put it in your sock.

---

For steps only.

But the calorie burn calculated from those steps has no bearing.

As above comments mention, you could in theory get the machine setup so you are burning just what the Fitbit is calculating - but how would you know.

Best to manually log calorie burn, take the steps.

---

Since the One tracker would be totally oblivious to all the energy spent for upper body movement, and since the step count on an elliptical would be iffy at best, why wear the One when doing elliptical or any other gym equipment workout for that matter?

If you do wear it, does it not throw a monkey wrench in your step stats?

I prefer not to wear my One tracker unless I am walking or jogging. This way, when I look at my step stats over time, I see the true numbers; and when I look at my elleptical, rowing, stationary bike, and treadmill workouts, again I see my true performance improvements over time and caloric burn earned from such workouts, totally divorced from my step stats per se.

I realize that this approach is not favored by everyone and many here prefer to wear their One for all activities. It doesn't work for me, primarily because I want to safeguard the integrity of my step stats and avoid polluting those stats with "half-baked" steps from gym equipment workouts.

[SIBOR]

Speaking of general accuracy of calories counting devices.

On DNews Youtube there was a report on that (can't track it down now).

They did a real test of most popular devices - how accurate they are in counting calories.

The  benchmark was real measure of oxigen burn during the same excercise (they actually had oxigen masks on).

The result was intersting: first of all all devices underestimate calories burn whihch was an unexpected result.

The most acurate count is for walking, the least accurate for anything participants did by hands, upper body.

Also interestingly, the least accurate (most underestimated count) is from wrist devices.

Most accurate is when it's on your ankles, and you are walking (makes sense).

That's one of thre reasons I stick to One model - I figured out how to put it on my ankle.

The rason for inaccuracy is explained by the fact that calorie counters are firts of all pedometers, the yjust enhanced, glorified and overpriced pedometers, but basically their best fundamental function is counting steps - that's what it's best at.

Separately, I did this test not once but twice: I walked for 10 minutes and I jogged for 10 minutes - the same trip.

It countes about 30% more calories from walking than from jogging. Which of course is not acurate. Anyone clearly burns more oxigen from running than from walking.

STill, keep fitbitting, folks, it's a lot of fun.

[Ukase]

I think it's important to remember (or realize) that Fitbit, the cardio machine and HRM's can only guess at your caloric burn for a given activity.

Obviously, your HRM and the cardio machine will be able to figure out when you're working harder because of your elevated heart rate or the settings on the machine, respectively.

The Fitbit seems to only measure movement. It may not give credit for each step on an elliptical, however. I've found that the faster I go, the fewer steps it records. It may be because I may not be fully stepping through my stride, I can't really say. Either way, what difference does it make? If I'm doing roughly the same distance, whether it's on an elliptical or just walking, calories will burn. If, at the end of the week I haven't lost any weight, then I need to revisit my caloric intake - but not my exercise. It really doesn't matter what I do in the gym - but what I do in the other 22-23.5 hours of the day. If I'm watching tv, or doing something equally sedentary, I may as well go to sleep - I burn more calories doing that than watching tv! (according to my fitbit, anyway)

[Heybales]

---

@SIBOR wrote:

Speaking of general accuracy of calories counting devices.

On DNews Youtube there was a report on that (can't track it down now).

They did a real test of most popular devices - how accurate they are in counting calories.

The  benchmark was real measure of oxigen burn during the same excercise (they actually had oxigen masks on).

The result was intersting: first of all all devices underestimate calories burn whihch was an unexpected result.

The most acurate count is for walking, the least accurate for anything participants did by hands, upper body.

Also interestingly, the least accurate (most underestimated count) is from wrist devices.

Most accurate is when it's on your ankles, and you are walking (makes sense).

That's one of thre reasons I stick to One model - I figured out how to put it on my ankle.

The rason for inaccuracy is explained by the fact that calorie counters are firts of all pedometers, the yjust enhanced, glorified and overpriced pedometers, but basically their best fundamental function is counting steps - that's what it's best at.

Separately, I did this test not once but twice: I walked for 10 minutes and I jogged for 10 minutes - the same trip.

It countes about 30% more calories from walking than from jogging. Which of course is not acurate. Anyone clearly burns more oxigen from running than from walking.

STill, keep fitbitting, folks, it's a lot of fun.

---

Well, the most accurate formulas for calories is actually for walking and running, since treadmills is the most used test equipment with metabolic carts measuring actual calorie burn.

But you need weight (but who walks around naked?) and pace. For pace you need time (gotten) and distance (estimated stride length). There's the breakdown.

For walking and running they can be very accurate because those formula's are, if your stride length is correct. And the device does have the ability to discern differences in stride length or up and down based on expected impact numbers for weight (but who walks around naked).

3-5 extra lbs of clothes can throw a lot of good math off.

Walked and Jogged 10 min the same trip? You mean during the same workout, because the trip, or distance covered, should have been longer when jogging 10 min.

There is a place in walking and jogging calorie burn that is pretty close, but you gotta be a fast walker, and jogging slow. But ya, it should never be more walking. That says something about the stride length it's using then.

http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

[Heybales]

---

@TandemWalker wrote:

Since the One tracker would be totally oblivious to all the energy spent for upper body movement, and since the step count on an elliptical would be iffy at best, why wear the One when doing elliptical or any other gym equipment workout for that matter?

If you do wear it, does it not throw a monkey wrench in your step stats?

_____________________________

---

Because people want their steps, real steps or pretend steps, from swimming I've even seen asked about.

I agree, rather goofy, if you want a goal of steps, make them real steps. I don't even care about steps, when I log a manual hill run that bas badly underestimated, I'm concerned with calories, not steps.

I want my daily burn as accurate as possible, I'm not motivated by the step goals at all.

Now, I might be curious once winter comes around, to see the difference in steps on non-workout days compared to other seasons. But the change in calories will already be pretty evident.

I'm sure those with Fitbit and stair goals do the same thing, what can I do to turn anything I can in to a count of some stairs, real or not?

How high do I have to lift my leg when walking in place to get extra stairs along with my extra step count?

[Tracy577]

90% of my workouts are on an eliptical and I find that it's very accurate with my steps if I clip my Fitbit to the front of my waist band. 🙂

[SIBOR]

by same trip I mean: it is the same path that I walked and then jogged and the same time.

Not that one was up the hill and the other down.

Yes I'm a fast walker, but still, I'm not out of breath or breathing as hard as when I run.

Maybe it was more of a run than jog, in fact. It definitely got me breathing harder than the walk.

I tried it twice on different days - same result - higher calorie burn from walking than from running.

Anyways, I'm more of a walker than a runner, so it doesn;t bother me, it just speaks of an accuracy of these tools.

[TandemWalker]

@Heybales  wrote: "...But you need weight (but who walks around naked?) and pace. For pace you need time (gotten) and distance (estimated stride length). There's the breakdown. For walking and running they can be very accurate because those formula's are, if your stride length is correct. And the device does have the ability to discern differences in stride length or up and down based on expected impact numbers for weight (but who walks around naked)."

I always thought that all pedometers that are based on 3D axis accelerometers calculated METs based on speed of motion, intensity and the number of steps within a specific time frame. Stride length, in my opinion, does not have much to do with anything excpet for measuring the distance covered. My wife and I have two different stride lengths and do one particular walk (known distance) daily. My stride length being longer than hers, she not only has to take more steps to cover the same distance but she has to pick up the pace as well. The two factors at play here is not stride length per se but her speed of movement (time lapse between each step) and the number of steps within a set time frame.  I always end up burning more calories than her, but that because of gender BMR differences; but her VAMs are always higher than mine.

[TandemWalker]

---

@Tracy577 wrote:
90% of my workouts are on an eliptical and I find that it's very accurate with my steps if I clip my Fitbit to the front of my waist band. 🙂

---

That's good, but your One is still totally oblivious to the energy expenditure of your upper body movement, right? I also noticed that my stride lengths on a treadmill or an elliptical, be it walking or jogging, are very different than my stide meansurements when calculated outdoors or an inside track.