Inaccurate floor counting

[Scoon87]

I just started using my fitbit Charge and I have noticed the floor counting is very off. Supposedly I have gone up 83 flights of stairs today and I know that I haven't. When I am going up stairs it will only count 8 flights as 6.

[TarinFitbit]

Welcome to the Community @Scoon87!  Your tracker detects floors using an altimeter, which is a sensor that calculates altitude based on atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing elevation, so the tracker calculates elevation gain based on the reduction in atmospheric pressure. Your tracker registers a floor when it detects continuous motion combined with an elevation gain of 7 to 10 feet.

However, your tracker may give you credit for extra floors for a variety of reasons. Occasionally your tracker may detect pressure changes unrelated to elevation gains, such as a gust of wind, weather change, or opening a door. Exposure to excess moisture can also result in extra floors being counted. This happens if the pathway to the altimeter on the back of your tracker becomes temporarily blocked with sweat or water. In that case, take a look on this article to clean your tracker: How do I clean my Charge HR?

I hope this information helps you, I'll be around if you have any additional questions! 

[CarterH]

I've noticed that your posts on floor counts always refer to "Elevation Gains".  Is this due to the assumption that  walking down a flight of stairs has no additional caloric-burn benfit other than the steps taken?

[MikeF]

The floor counting feature of Ditbit trackers only counts floors climbed. This has no impact on the calculated calories for the day, however, so in that sense ascent and descent are treated in exactly the same way.

[CarterH]

Mike -- Thanks for the prompt response.  But, if a stair climbed is the same as a step taken in terms of caloric burn, why bother to count floors at all.  That doesn't really make any sense.  And, if that's in fact the case, I suspect than an exercise physiologist might take issue with FitBit's one stair = one step metric.

[MikeF]

I don't know but I've always assumed that calories aren't counted due to the innacuracies associated with the use of an altimeter as the sensor for this. Because it reacts to wind and weather etc, there would presumably be a risk in believeing it 100% accurate and basing calorie calculations on it.

[CarterH]

Understood.  But, everything associated with FitBit's caloric-burn-related algorithms is an educated guess based on what you tell the software about your physical makeup.  Granted, it's a very highly educated guess.  But, there are certainly inaccuracies inherent in all that high-powered math.  I sure wish someone officially associated with FitBit, and knowlegeable in the floor counting funtionality would chime in.  I don't know enough about how these "Community" forums work to get this question in the right hands.

I direct-messaged the moderator with my question.  We'll see what Tarin can tell us.

Moderator edit: merged reply

[TandemWalker]

I am not with Fitbit, just a regular Fitbitter like yourself. But to the best of my knowledge, the only caloric burn credit that you get for doing floors is the burn for the steps taken for going up and down. The ascent per se does not give you any incremental burn; nor do you get a deduction when the laws of gravity helps your descent.

Why bother? Well, the floor functionality is meant as an incentive to help people become more active, to take the stairs instead of using the escalator/elevator at work or at the mall. It is just a statistic. But remember; regardless of a floor being counted or not as a Floor, all your steps, in both direction, do form part of your step count; and each and everyone of those steps carries its due share of caloric burn.

TW

[CarterH]

Thanks for the input TW.  My new Charge is the third FitBit device that I've owned, and I love both the hardware and the software/web portal.  Just the basic health and nutrition "situational awareness" I've gained through use of the FitBit has proven extremely useful to me.  But, I've got to say that this one stair = one step reality is disappointing.  Seems to me that FitBit can do better than that.  I'll take that up with them.  Thanks again for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

[MikeF]

---

@CarterH wrote:

Understood.  But, everything associated with FitBit's caloric-burn-related algorithms is an educated guess based on what you tell the software about your physical makeup.  Granted, it's a very highly educated guess.  But, there are certainly inaccuracies inherent in all that high-powered math.  I sure wish someone officially associated with FitBit, and knowlegeable in the floor counting funtionality would chime in.  I don't know enough about how these "Community" forums work to get this question in the right hands.

---

I'm happy that someone else understands this. 🙂 I always struggle not to respond too sharply when someone suggests that it needs to be 'accurate'. I understand the sentiment but, in reality, the one thing this will never be is absolutely accurate.

The forums are generally user-to-user so while you may get a moderator popping into a thread, they don't tend to double up as members of the design team as far as I've been able to tell (by which I mean that, while knowledgeable, they won't necessarily have access to the detail you may be looking for.)

[TandemWalker]

Oh, but I don't disagree with you @CarterH, quite the contrary. I too have over the years writtten many posts to the effect that the Fitbit algorithm should INDEED give us more credit for the incremental effort of climbing.

But then I realized that the algorithm was not deducting anything when I'm going downhill or coming down the stairs. So, to my way of thinking, right or wrong, I came to the conclusion that the give and take equation was fair game. And although the energy expenditure 'saving' of a downstair step may not be the exact offset to the incremental energy expenditure for climbing that step, I deemed the delta to be not significant enough to worry about it.

I always try to keep things in context. When looking at my Fitbit tracker, to me, the context is about instilling a permanent paradigm shift from a sedentary lifestyle and bad eating habits; to a more active lifestyle and a meal plan that is commensurate to the increasing demands of my exercise regimen.

Taken in that context, I don't mind at all that Fitbit doesn't give me more caloric burn for going up those stairs, as long at it doesn't take anything away from me on the way down. 

I'd be interested to hear back from you regarding the feedback you get from Fitbit. So please give us an update. One more tip - whenever you wish to draw the attention of a particular Community user in a post, just start with the "at-sign" (@) and then key in the first two letters of his/her user name; this will cause a drop down list of contributors to the thread, where you can select the one you want. In so doing, depending on the user's notification settings, he/she will automatically receive a notification that his/her name was mentioned in a thread, with a link to it.

Hope this helps. Cheers!

             TW             

[CarterH]

I'll let you know what I find out @TandemWalker.  And, thanks for the posting advice.  I find myself getting less and less social media-savy these days and more just plain ol' anti-social.  So, the tip is much appreciated.  But, I've got to take issue with your downhill, gravity-boost assertion.  When you're an old fat-boy like me, going down a set of stairs can be even more challenging than going up!

[TandemWalker]

Oh, do I know the feeling @CarterH! But you know, what you just stated goes right to the point I was trying to make. If indeed going "down a set of stairs can be even more challenging than going up ..." for you and me alike, then how can a tracker's sensors possibly be able to sense this? And what about the younger person who climbs up a set of 50 stairs and is winded once she/he reaches the top; but recovers quickly on the way down?

Unless we have a tracker equipped with a heart rate monitor, I'm afraid that we have no other choice than to accept the compromise.

I am not trying to sway you one way or another. I think it's an interesting topic and have enjoyed the dialogue.

Have a good day.

TW

[CarterH]

 I'm glad to hear fitbit is making use of the biometric data provided by users, and recognizing the differences between walking and climbing stairs within their modeling protocols.

 Moderator edit: removed private message w/Moderator 

[TandemWalker]

Thank you for the update @CarterH. It must be a very recent change then, a well-overdue change I must add. Have a nice day.

TW

Hi @MikeF. I'm sure you're on top of things. But it is important to note that floors allegedly now do carry an incremental caloric burn value, Cheers!

Moderator edit: merged reply

[TarinFitbit]

Hi Guys @TandemWalker, @MikeF and @CarterH! To clarify the Private Message I sent to @CarterH, is that you will burn calories for climbing steps but it won't be of any more of an increase than you would get from normal stepping.
What you will get when climbing floors is floors climbed as a metric on your tracker of course, if your tracker supports floors climbed and if your tracker has a heart rate and the heart rate increases during climbing floors, they will indeed burn more calories.

Thank you @TandemWalker and @MikeF for all your help.

I apologize if did't explain well my point. I'll be around if you have any other questions. 

[TandemWalker]

Thank you @TarinFitbit, much appreciated. Have a nice day!

TW

[CarterH]

OK @TarinFitbit, if I may summarize and bring this painfully protracted conversation to a close.  I'm understanding your last post to say I will only get additional caloric burn credit -- over and above standard step credit -- for climbing a flight of stairs if, and only if, the type of tracker that I am wearing has BOTH floor counting AND heart rate monitoring capability. You said, "they will indeed burn more calories."  I got that.  My bottom-line question is; Does the tracker also give me more caloric credit for floors climbed if it's both floor and heart rate enabled?  Seems like the tracker/software should be able to at least estimate stair-step-related caloric burn even if it is not heart rate enabled because it has biometric data such as age, height, weight, and sex.  Thanks for you patient indulgence and feedback on this issue.

[TandemWalker]

I think it is worth noting that even though the Fitbit algorithm does not include incremental caloric burn credits for climbing hill/stairs ...., it also does not reduce the caloric burn for the steps taken on the way down, where the laws of gravity are at play. So to me, the net gain that might otherwise be achieved if the algorithm was fine-tuned would be very negligible.

TW

[NewAlex]

i climbed a firetower and my Fitbit didnt count and floors.  i didnt hold the hand rail most of the time. on the ither hand just in the home yesterday it counted 20. which cant be right.