This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Intensity Minutes

When I buy scales from different manufacturers I expect the weight showing to be very close. Even wrist based heart readings between different devices are very close these days but when it comes to intensity minutes or Zone minutes on Fitbit there are in my opinion big differences. Both Garmin and Fitbit suggest 150 minutes per week and both seem to use heart rate zones based on age and resting heart rate. However, having used both my Garmin and Fitbit for a week and seeing how they award minutes it seems that Fitbit gives me about two minutes for every 1 minute Garmin gives me. That is a massive difference over the week. I therefore have decided that these measurements just cannot be trusted and if you want 150 activity minutes per week, use Fitbit as you will only have to do half as much effort :-)

0 trux over 4 years ago

Well, if you are just after getting more IMs for showing it to your insurer or employer, then why not - just get a Fitbit watch and drink some cups of coffee, and you do not need to move at all. If you monitor IMs for your own health and fintess, better use Garmin that eliminates diverse false readings, and gives you a more reliable figure.

0 crawfordp over 4 years ago in reply to trux

The point I was making is that this measurement is relatively new and if there is a wide variation in readings how does anyone know which is more accurate. In your view it is Garmin but where is the evidence for that.

0 trux over 4 years ago in reply to crawfordp

There is no international standard definition for Intensity Minutes, as far as I know (though I may be wrong), so every manufacturer is free to define their own one. Garmin's IMs work all right, and exactly as defined - they start counting only after 10 minutes of consecutive effort (eliminating so random HR increase due to stress, or just after standing up of your desk to pick up a beer in the fridge), and they use the ratio HR/RHR (resting HR) for the calculation, eliminating so counting of the IMs at an increased HR due to stress, or alcohol/coffee abuse. If you prefere having all that counted too, get a Fitbit watch, or a Garmin model that allows you to assign HR zones to IM (there are such models too in Garmin's portfolio).

0 Former Member over 4 years ago

crawfordp said:
Both Garmin and Fitbit suggest 150 minutes per week

This is suggested by medical experts and it's nothing Garmin or Fitbit came up with.

crawfordp said:
there is a wide variation in readings how does anyone know which is more accurate

As trux said, there's no standard on how a manufacture decides how they count intensity minutes. As you found, Fitbit is more "generous" with their calculations as they are with steps too. Personally, if my goal was to reach the weekly 150 mins (and it is), I prefer a device that will make me work harder than one that gives me credit where credit shouldn't be applied.

0 ddmorris over 4 years ago in reply to Former Member

CDC- scroll down and there is an description- although they call their recommendation active minutes:

www.cdc.gov/.../index.htm

0 trux over 4 years ago in reply to ddmorris

ddmorris said:
CDC- scroll down and there is an description- although they call their recommendation active minutes:

That's practically identical to what Garmin uses. However the document does not that tell each few seconds of activity should contribute to the totals, even if they have no effect on your fitness - like for example an increased HR because you've spent 2 minutes walking to the fridge and back. Starting to count the IMs only after the 10 minutes of uninterrupted activity makes much more sense, and respects better the real effect of the concerned activity on your fitness.

0 ddmorris over 4 years ago in reply to trux

I agree- it’s the activity sustained for at least 10 minutes that’s also key. Thanks Trux. You contribute a lot and it’s appreciated !