Low calorie readings / are these normal for the Band?

[anon(9173271)]

I have been using the Band for just under a week and am really enjoying the device.

This said, I am seeing what I consider to be very low calorie credit for walking while not in an activity mode and would love to get feedback from other users to understand if this is indicative of the Band or if there is a problem with my device and/or setup.

Test case: Walking 1 mile at 3mph, duration 20 min.

Band in normal mode : 65 calories
Band in run mode: 110 calories
Fitbit One: 125 calories
Several online calculators found by searching for "walking calorie calculator" : 115,101,95,112 calories

Based on the online calculators and the Band in run mode the 110 number seems reasonable.

The impact of walking / step based calorie counts being so low on the total day's calorie count is rather large. Monitoring calories in/out is a key use case for me. Thus far, my Band has been recording daily calorie counts lower by 550-750 calories vs a Fitbit One or Surge. (I spent the weekend decked out in multiple devices for comparison sake)

I have double checked that my profile information including height / weight / etc are all accurate in the application. I have noticed that if I make a change to the weight- then sync - the app (iOS) seems to sync to the cloud but not to the Band. This is making me wonder if the Band is perhaps not receiving my profile data to assist in the calculation?

Does anyone else see a similar discrepancy? If you note the calories burned while walking with the Band (not in activity mode) and compare to walking in activity mode and or to various online calculators are you seeing the same thing? I am trying to determine if I perhaps need to go exchange for a new Band? I have tried a factory reset.

Appreciate any assistance / suggestions!

 

[anon(9173271)]

To add... I would expect the calorie reading for a HR intensive activity to be much more accurate in run / exercise mode. This said, the Band should be more than capable of crediting the correct number for walking based on the accelerometer data alone..

 

[gadgetrants]

I'm happy to report that you're not crazy, if that's what you were wondering. On the other hand, I'm sorry to report that you must tell the Band when you begin any calorie-burning activity, if you want it to estimate "correctly." For example, if you're going walking or running, you need to use Run mode. If you're doing stationary exercises, then Exercise mode. And so on.

Why? The argument offered here is something like: each particular mode is specially programmed to exploit movement patterns (or other sensor data, e.g., GPS) to "triangulate" your activity. Relying on one or a few sensors alone (e.g., the accelerometer and gyrometer while walking) will be less accurate.

I don't fully buy that argument. Consider the following "fantasy" example. I cook a lot (I mean, A LOT) and I hypothesize that damn I burn a lot of calories while cooking. So for a few days I cook up a storm from 3 to 6 pm and huh, that's funny, but the Band seems to be showing my late afternoon cooking episodes are only burning about 75 calories/hour, which is my normal burn rate.

So, OK now I turn on Exercise mode and yeah, now I'm cooking (sorry, bad pun)...over the next few days my burn rate while cooking (OH NO, another bad pun!) goes up to almost 150 calories/hour. What gives??? On average, the two activities were the same, so the calorie estimates should be...wait for it...the same! Right?

So I'm a bit of a curmudgeon on this issue, and I still stubbornly think that at least Exercise mode should not over (or under) estimate calorie burn, if it generally relies on the same kinematic data that the Band is picking up during normal activity. In other words, "cooking" shouldn't burn more calories just because I labeled the episode as "Exercise".

Oh, forgot to mention something really important: of course the sensor sampling rate is much more frequent during Exercise, Running, Biking, etc. Still, if you did the given activity at a consistent level over an hour (like WALKING!), the sampling rate shouldn't make a big difference. In principle the Band could easily interpolate the 9-minute gap between readings and just assume you were doing what you were doing!

​-Matt

 

[DrFix82]

I totally agree.. the lack of a "walk" mode leads to wrong calories calculation, even if "continuos heart rate" should correctly calculate them...
Even if I could yous the run tile to monitor my walk I don't want my runs to be mixed with walks.. all the stats like average speed, burns, etc would be compromised...

 

[Nate Silver]

I totally agree.. the lack of a "walk" mode leads to wrong calories calculation, even if "continuos heart rate" should correctly calculate them...
Even if I could yous the run tile to monitor my walk I don't want my runs to be mixed with walks.. all the stats like average speed, burns, etc would be compromised...

I'm primarily a cyclist, since I brutalized my knees too much in younger days. So I don't have the issue of mixing walks with runs, being as all my runs are walks. :grin: I generally try to do a couple of miles on the treadmill on 'off' days at full elevation and along with a half hour of strength training. I also do a fair amount of hiking. It sure would be nice to have a dedicated walk/hike tile so stats would reflect correctly. Its a bit of a mystery to me why it wasn't included from the outset, and even more of a mystery why we're getting a golf tile before getting a tile for an activity that virtually anyone who gets involved in fitness would potentially use.

 

[anon(9173271)]

Appreciate the replies....

I completely understand that HR intensive activities need the activity mode to be on so that the HR sensor polls for data.

General steps / walking do not need the HR sensor to accumulate a reasonable amount of calories through the day. Every time you get up and walk a bit... these things add up to a significant number. The Band IS counting these and IS granting calories for them... my Band just seems to be granting about 60% of the calories per step vs other methods.

Do you all see the same thing?

Separately I agree- a separate hike tile or a sub option off run for hiking / walking would be great!

 

[Snoke]

You want a higher calorie burn so you can eat more ? Its a reference number, which an average burn rate during the day takes into account, general walking/moving around eating, etc. My general feeling is it takes a lot of effort to burn extra calories. Walking is a negligible amount of a difference if any at all. Many items give feed back that people want to see, which is higher than actual. I prefer the lower number the band offers and would bet its more accurate than your fitbit or other devices that just want to pump your tires. Did you lose weight working with your fitbit ? Do you accurately track your calorie intake by weighting your food ? If not its just a number to reference against, am I burning more or less today, etc.

 

[Nate Silver]

You want a higher calorie burn so you can eat more ? Its a reference number, which an average burn rate during the day takes into account, general walking/moving around eating, etc. My general feeling is it takes a lot of effort to burn extra calories. Walking is a negligible amount of a difference if any at all. Many items give feed back that people want to see, which is higher than actual. I prefer the lower number the band offers and would bet its more accurate than your fitbit or other devices that just want to pump your tires. Did you lose weight working with your fitbit ? Do you accurately track your calorie intake by weighting your food ? If not its just a number to reference against, am I burning more or less today, etc.

I hear what you're saying, but there is a difference between general walking/moving around, and an intense period of fast walking at a fairly steep incline. Doing this, I can easily get my hr up into the 140 range. The same applies when hiking up and down mountains. This is when walking becomes far more than 'negligible', and that's why I'd like to see a dedicated activity for it.

And yeah, trying for a higher calorie burn so you can eat more is never a good idea. The phrase is 'diet and exercise', not exercise so you don't have to diet. Exercise makes you fitter, but beyond a certain point, it won't help you lose weight.

 

[anon(9173271)]

I am not looking for lower or higher calorie numbers. I am looking for as accurate a 24 hour calorie count as possible. And yes it is so I can appropriately regulate my intake. This may not be a common concern on the thread and that's fine- but it is a primary use case for me. In the past, my numbers reported by other fitness trackers have matched almost exactly with results on the scale.

So why am I here? I really like the Band and I want to make it work for me.

I am attempting to compare like for like activity across various platforms / measuring techniques. So casual steps compared to casual steps…
When I compare like for like activity every method I have found (other trackers / web calculators) falls within 15%ish of each other for casual walking. Only the Band when NOT in activity mode returns a 40-50% lower result. In activity mode the Band falls right in line.

If this 40-50% lower result is more accurate than great! I am not looking for a larger number so I can see a larger number on a dashboard... or eat a pan of lasagna and think I am losing weight... I agree that pinpoint accuracy with today’s technology is not possible or even desirable and that trends are more important. That said, a 45% difference is not what I would consider minor and throws off the entire concept.

Casual steps add up throughout a day. There is a decent difference in calorie burn between a never leave your desk day and a day where you find a way to work in 12k steps bit by bit. The question is how much. Microsoft Band is claiming that this difference is 40-50% less than Fitbit, Basis, or 10 odd different web calculators I tried. For me this difference amounts to 400-700 calories in a given day- a pretty big difference. These are not steps that can be linked to a single activity event as they are spread out over your entire waking day.

From reading the other posts, I am not yet sure if the difference I am seeing is typical for the Band. Is this what others are seeing as well? If there is a problem with the Band I received I would like to exchange it. I appreciate the input provided! Thank you.

 

[gadgetrants]

I'm hoping I understood your original message! If so, of course I agree with your concern. To reiterate: I think your Band is functioning correctly, and the daily burn counts you're seeing are correct. HOWEVER, an important caveat: while brief (i.e., 3-4 minute) walks are counted as generic steps, if you're casually walking for more than 10-12 minutes than I also agree that the Band will underestimate calories when you leave it in the default mode (and I tried to propose that that's dumb in my original response). It's definitely a pain, but I see it this way...if, in a given day, you're "generally curious" about how many calories you're burning doing ordinary stuff, then the number you see is reliable. On the other hand, if you're looking more carefully at calories-in vs. calories-out and want an accurate daily count, then anytime you do an "extended" activity, like a 20-minute walk, I'd throw it into Exercise or Run mode. Far from ideal, I know, but until the Band automatically detects activity type, those are your options.

-Matt

 

[anon(9173271)]

Matt-

Thank you, I appreciate your reply.

I am more than willing to trigger an activity for 20 min walks etc...The Band's activity tracking is great and that seems totally cool and appropriate.
My concern was around all the other stuff throughout the day. The question is really around the value of all the little steps taken through the day. It is taking ~10k steps to total out to the common definition of sedentary. Perhaps that's actually correct, but it sure seems counter intuitive.

I actually like that the Band doesn't auto detect activity. I tried a Basis Peak when they first came out and the auto detect feature was cool... when it worked. That sort of thing has to be spot on- and in the case of the Basis the user cannot edit when the system makes mistakes.

I'll dig around a bit for caloric measurement of non sustained stepping.... someone has to have slapped a breathing mask on a test subject for a day to find out...Hopefully that someone works at Microsoft...

 

[anon(9173271)]

So I did some comparison testing today between the Band and Surge.

When walking at 3.0 MPH with exercise tracking on the devices credited me with 116 (band) and 106 (Surge.) So almost identical...and what I would expect from researching walking calories for someone of my age /weight. So here is where things got interesting...

With activity mode off the devices credited me with 75 cal (band) or under the activity mode by 35% and a whopping 178 cal (Surge) or over it's activity mode by 68%!

I walked 3 tests and these numbers are the average results. The ranges for each were pretty consistent.

As it is pretty obvious that they both do a great job at estimating calories in respective activity modes, I have to wonder if either device is programmed to calibrate... i.e. If they know I burn 110 cal / mile at 3.0 mph then bake that back into the calculation for non activity mode over time.

Anyway- food for thought- and perhaps both devices do calibrate themselves over time.. For now I'll take 35% under for my non activity steps vs. 68% over. As a side note both devices appeared to calibrate non GPS stride length using GPS and were bang on for distance in both exercise as well as non activity modes.

 

[gadgetrants]

Your impression that the Band calibrates your stride with GPS on is right on the money:

You need to calibrate your Microsoft Band: Here's how

However, after owning it for 8 months, I can say unfortunately you won't see any changes in the default mode despite hours of exercise in one of the activity modes. It's a great idea, but sadly there isn't any learning or calibration in that sense.

I find it quite intriguing that walking with Run mode off results in significantly fewer calories than walking with it on, but c'est la vie.

-Matt

 

[NBrookus]

However, after owning it for 8 months, I can say unfortunately you won't see any changes in the default mode despite hours of exercise in one of the activity modes. It's a great idea, but sadly there isn't any learning or calibration in that sense.

I honestly think that the calibration has gotten worse over time. I'm not sure if this is due to updates or too many GPS activity records throwing off my initial calibration or what, but the undercounting of everyday activity steps and calories seems to be getting worse.

I think the Band makes a better *exercise* tracker and the FitBit makes a better *daily activity* tracker. I think the Band should be able to hypothetically manage both, and I wish it would. But hey... it doesn't count a few thousand steps working around my farm but there's a golf app. Priorities.

IW1206MT, my recommendation to you when it comes to calories in/calories out is to stick with a single device and work with it. FitBit routinely overestimated my calories and steps, so I learned to mentally adjust to its measurements to get results. Band underestimates, so I learned to do the same thing. The progress and consistency of measurement matter more in the long run than exact accuracy.

This matters for calorie databases and such, too. They vary. At some point you have to accept the measurements are flawed and go with consistently flawed.

 

[bjdwyernh]

I have exactly the same issue. I think it has to do with the frequency of the heart rate measures during normal mode or exercise mode, and with the idea of using HR at all. In normal mode the HR is not measured continually, only 1 min out of 10, while in exercise mode it is on all the time during the exercise. In exercise I find it is very close to the reading on my elliptical trainer for example.

The second issue may be using HR as a proxy at all. I do 4-6 hours of cardio a week. My resting HR is in the low 50s in the day and 40 at night. My heart may be more efficiently pumping for the same amount of work. I am still doing the same work, so the energy required should be the same. Yet almost every day I don't do cardio my calorie count is only about 2000 for the day, and this is for a 190 lb man taking on average 7000 steps a day if no cardio involved. That seems low.

So, i use the band in combination with MyFitnessPal, and keep my calories less than 1900 and I stay relatively in shape. It's all confusing to me in any event.