3 ms·

I bought my FitBit Surge for the GPS and heartrate monitor. That data means I can pace myself accurately when I'm running, allowing me to run further and more c

I bought my FitBit Surge for the GPS and heartrate monitor. That data means I can pace myself accurately when I'm running, allowing me to run further and more consistently (and at a faster overall average pace than stopping / starting all the time). It also means I can keep track of my heartrate (and recovery) during other intense workouts like CrossFit and Insanity. My father has a FitBit too and likes to gloat about smashing my step count pretty much every single day. He's retired and out and about all day, while I sit at a desk. Guess who's obese and gets out of breath walking up the stairs? Step count as a measure of overall daily "exercise" is worse than useless.

Ntrails 10y ago
> Step count as a measure of overall daily "exercise" is worse than useless. On the one hand, yes I've been saying this since the step counters first came out with high levels of disdain. On the other hand relative step count (ie "I now go on more walks so I beat my own original levels of activity") is not entirely useless and probably has some non-zero value? But, like, rewarding someone more for slowly strolling for 2000 steps vs running 1500 (which probably covers a similar distance and is waaaaaay better for cardio vascular fitness) seems like a terrible plan
- ClassyJacket 10y ago
  This is exactly the point I brought up the other day when my friend sent me a "FitBit Weekend Warrior Challenge". It counted steps only, so where I would've normally jogged, I was being encouraged to walk, having a directly negative effect on my weight loss and fitness.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > On the other hand relative step count (ie "I now go on more walks so I beat my own original levels of activity") is not entirely useless and probably has some non-zero value? Relative step count is good if your only exercise is walking (or walking-like.) OTOH, I've observed that my step count tends to go down as actual heavy exercise (weightlifting, etc.) goes up, so even relative step count isn't a good measure of overall activity. > But, like, rewarding someone more for slowly strolling for 2000 steps vs running 1500 (which probably covers a similar distance and is waaaaaay better for cardio vascular fitness) Its probably better for leg strength, but fitness walking (not casual walking), I suspect, is better for cardiovascular fitness, step-for-step, than running, since you get into a reasonably good exercising heart range for a longer time. But, again, step counting alone doesn't distinguish fitness walking from casual walking any more than walking from running.

Ntrails 10y ago

> Step count as a measure of overall daily "exercise" is worse than useless. On the one hand, yes I've been saying this since the step counters first came out with high levels of disdain. On the other hand relative step count (ie "I now go on more walks so I beat my own original levels of activity") is not entirely useless and probably has some non-zero value? But, like, rewarding someone more for slowly strolling for 2000 steps vs running 1500 (which probably covers a similar distance and is waaaaaay better for cardio vascular fitness) seems like a terrible plan

ClassyJacket 10y ago
This is exactly the point I brought up the other day when my friend sent me a "FitBit Weekend Warrior Challenge". It counted steps only, so where I would've normally jogged, I was being encouraged to walk, having a directly negative effect on my weight loss and fitness.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> On the other hand relative step count (ie "I now go on more walks so I beat my own original levels of activity") is not entirely useless and probably has some non-zero value? Relative step count is good if your only exercise is walking (or walking-like.) OTOH, I've observed that my step count tends to go down as actual heavy exercise (weightlifting, etc.) goes up, so even relative step count isn't a good measure of overall activity. > But, like, rewarding someone more for slowly strolling for 2000 steps vs running 1500 (which probably covers a similar distance and is waaaaaay better for cardio vascular fitness) Its probably better for leg strength, but fitness walking (not casual walking), I suspect, is better for cardiovascular fitness, step-for-step, than running, since you get into a reasonably good exercising heart range for a longer time. But, again, step counting alone doesn't distinguish fitness walking from casual walking any more than walking from running.