Saturday it rained all afternoon and evening, and Sunday we woke up to snow, so after quick walk around our beighborhood, we drove out to Coopers Rock to take the same hike we took last weekend. (Scott’s Run Trail)

Well, mostly the same. We hiked down into the valley and returned from whence we came. I had no desire to walk up the steep, rocky run-off bed in the snow.

Regardless, it was a gorgeous hike, even if my ankle is very sore now.

If you click through to Flickr, all photos are marked on the map with their GPS coordinates, which should give you the ability to compare last week to this week.

A very different walk from last week, but just as beautiful.

Data:
3.3 miles
292 feet elevation gain
Moving time: 1:52

Yup! It’s time for the first spring flowers!

Funny thing is the snow in town is already completely gone.

Yup! It’s spring! Which is why I woke up this morning to an inch of snow.

Today’s word is: crocus

Now! (drum roll of wooden pencils on a desktop) the uber geeky results!

Previously:
Pedometer Testing: Round II – Revenge of the Pedometers
Pedometer Testing: Data Tracking
Issues with the Withings Pulse & Elevation: Part I: Dissed by the Pulse, Part II: Withings Pulse Doesn’t Track Elevation for Crap and Part III: THIS IS NOT HOW MATH WORKS

First, the pedometers:
Omron HJ-720
Withings Pulse
FitBit Ultra
Omron HJ-323
FitBit One
Accupedo
Noom Walk

Essentially, if a pedometer gave me a measurement, I tracked it, and compared it to other pedometers that measured the same thing.

All pedometers measured step count (of course). I knew from previous testing that the FitBit Ultra over-counted steps, and that held true this time. The FitBit One, however, seemed far more accurate, or at least closer to the average.

To see how different activities affected step count, I noted the step count at various points in the day. I then averaged those measurements, and plotted how far each pedometer was from the average for that time period. (I did this for every day, but I chose Thursday to show here, because it was easy to read, while being a good representative of what I saw over the course of the testing.

Here is a look at how each pedometer differed from the average over the entire 11 day course.

Even those these measurements are against the average for each time period, you can see that the FitBit Ultra gets more and more inaccurate as the day progresses. My observation is that it over-counts when I am at rest, as I tend to doing most of my running around in the morning, and stick closer to my desk in the afternoon (and in the evening, plop my butt on the couch).

The Noom Walk step count was quite off from the average–it was always higher than another other pedometer, so I didn’t count those steps when calculating the average, although I did add it to the Thursday chart, so you can see how far off the average it was.

This chart is showing how each pedometer performed over the entire time period as compared to the average.

The first section shows whether the step count for each pedometer for 11 days was over or under the average. The next section is the minimum–the most each pedometer under-counted. The third section is the maximum–the most that each pedometer over-counted. You can see that the Ultra and the Noom had the highest over-counts.

That chart is essentially showing you both consistency and accuracy. (The Ultra consistently over-counts. The Omrons consistently under-count.

Most converted your step count into miles (the Noom Walk didn’t).

I compared the pedometers against each other (I took the average mileage (throwing out the Noom, which was an obvious outlier) and saw how each pedometer did compared to the average.

Don’t hold that 3/15 data against the pedometers. We took a bike ride that day, and pedometers don’t do well with bike rides (unless you tie the pedometer to your shoe, which I was not willing to do).

I also compared mileage over a period of hours with the mileage generated by my GPS.

In this case, the pedometers which gave a slightly higher mileage are probably closer to true, because as anyone who has every walked with me can attest, I wander all over the path/sidewalk.

Only the Omron pedometers counted aerobic steps. For the Omron, aerobic steps are when you have been walking for ten minutes without stopping.

The Omron HJ-720, Withings Pulse, FitBit Ultra, FitBit One, and Accupedo all gave measures of Active / Aerobic time. These were all slightly different, and FitBit and Withings both gave you measure of different levels of activity.

I used only Very Active and Intense Activity for my comparison data. Because there are different activity levels and measurements, the different pedometers had very different measures, although they all seemed to be consistent within themselves.

To be honest, I don’t pay a lot of attention to Active Time. I’m measuring activities I’d be doing anyway. I’m not looking to break any records or train harder.

Calorie count was very interesting.

First and foremost, FitBit gives you your total calorie output, including the calories you expend just because you’re breathing and your heart as beating. To get a comparable measurement, I arbitrarily decided FitBit was giving me a BMR (basal metabolic rate) of 1600, and subtracted that from the daily totals.

The results were… odd.

The FitBit One and Accupedo were closest to average, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re the most accurate. Just that they were similar. Why were the Pulse and the Ultra so high? I would guess part is because the Ultra consistently has a higher step count than any other pedometer.

If you’ve been reading along, you’ve seen that I have some serious issues with the Withings elevation count.

As in, it doesn’t seem to be reality based, or even based on any math system with which I’m familiar.

I figured the best comparison would be to take what the pedometers gave me over a set period of time (when I was walking outside) and compare that to what the GPS gave me.

Because the Withings data was so cracked out, I chose the elevation counts generated by the website, because they seemed to be the closest to reality. But as you can see, that didn’t make them very accurate.

The 3/21 data was a walk into town and back. The 3/22 data was from a 4 3/4 mile hike at Coopers Rock.

I fully expected the GPS to have a higher elevation gain than the pedometers, because it counts all elevation, even slight rises that aren’t really noticeable when you’re walking (such as walking up High Street). I was surprised at how close the FitBits were to the GPS readings for our hike at Coopers Rock. Perhaps the steep terrain made them more accurate.

So what does all this mean in the long run?

From a practical point, I’m going to use the FitBit One, so I can monitor whether I’m getting enough exercise to justify eating dessert. I’m also going to keep the Accupedo app, because it’s surprisingly accurate. And for now, I’m going to keep wearing the Omron HJ-323, but I’m not sure if I’ll keep wearing it.

I hope you found that useful, and if you have any questions, I’ll be delighted to answer them. I can also share my raw data if you’d like to see if you trust my manipulations.

But I fully admit that I did this solely because I am a tremendous dork and love doing weirdo things like this.

I wore five pedometers and tested two pedometer apps.

Yes, I really am that much of a dork.

The five pedometers were:

Omron HJ-720
Withings Pulse
FitBit Ultra
Omron HJ-323
FitBit One

I discussed four of the five in an earlier post, so I’ll only talk about the FitBit One in this post.

The two pedometer apps were:

Accupedo
Noom Walk

I hadn’t used a pedometer app before, but quite liked one of the two I tried.

First up, the FitBit One. (For perspective on the size of the FitBit Ultra, please see this post.)

Here’s what you get:

Front view, including wireless dongle, and charging dongle:

Back view, with same as above:

The two shiny bits are where the One matches with the charging dongle to charge.

Unlike the Ultra, the FitBit One is a single piece, so the device shouldn’t chip the way the Ultra did. It is also supposed to be water resistant (not water proof). We shall see about that as well.

The protective case/belt clip is silicone, with embedded metal bits. I have concerns about the silicone case tearing (this happened with the silicone case of the pulse) so I’m going to try to avoid removing it from the case except to charge it.

Here is how the FitBit One (in its silicone case) compares in size to the FitBit Ultra:

They’re basically the same size; not at all bulky.

It also comes with a wristband for slipping the One into while you sleep. As I always wear long sleeve sleep shirts, I can just clip the One onto the hem of my sleeve for the same thing. I can also clip it into the old wristband for the Ultra. This saves me from having to pull the thing out of the silicone case every day.

The FitBit one fits perfectly into the little square pocket in your jeans, so that’s where I’ve been keeping mine. It’s unlikely to fall out there, and it’s protected from the other things in my pocket (currently, that would be four other pedometers, though I also carry a multi-tool for work).

You can sync the FitBit One in two different ways: via the tiny dongle that fits into your USB port, or via Bluetooth on your phone.

The old charging stations don’t work. Bluetooth on a computer doesn’t work. But, if you have a bluetooth phone, it’s easy to turn on the Bluetooth, open the FitBit app to sync and then turn the Bluetooth back off. It syncs smoothly and quickly, and I didn’t run into a single transfer hitch the entire time I’ve been using it.

The bad thing is I only have three USB ports on my laptop, and one of those ports already holds the USB dongle for my wireless mouse. Yeah, not a huge issue, but if you’re short USB slots on a laptop, you might want to make sure the Bluetooth works with your phone.

In summary, the FitBit One has been a surprising pleasure to use. The site is exactly the same as for the Ultra, so no surprise there. But the app has been updated and gives you relevant data at a glance.

As I said before, I’d never installed a pedometer app previous, mostly because I didn’t know they existed. I knew programs like Runkeeper etc existed, but they generally use GPS, do don’t work for indoor walking, of which I do a lot.

The Noom Walk is very bare bones, and (as you’ll see later when I look at the data) not particularly accurate.

It really wants you to socialize, and I really had no interest in doing so, I didn’t much go into the app. You see there’s also a huge push to get you to use the other apps.

No thanks, I’ll be deleting Noom Walk as soon as I finish up these reviews.

Both the Noom Walk and Accupedo had widgets, which is how I checked my step counts. The Noom Walk displays only step counts.

The Accupedo has several widgets of different sizes. This is the 4×1 widget that displays step count, mileage, kcal burned and active time.

The Accupedo, on the other hand, was surprisingly wonderful.

It has a number of inputs to personalize your profile, including height, weight, age, stride length, and number of consecutive steps before it starts counting.

It ALSO (most importantly) has a setting to decrease or increase the sensitivity. I discovered that I needed to reduce the sensitivity, but when I did, the accuracy was very close to what the other pedometers were giving me.

There is a start time, end time, and pause option. This allows you to turn off the pedometer at night, and also when you’re doing activities where you aren’t walking, such as riding in a car.

You can also have it notify you when you’re reached your daily step goal.

I currently have the free version, but think I might splurge for the “pro” version, because I really like the app, and like to support people who create things I like.

So those are the contenders. Next up, results.

For our Saturday hike, Michael decided we should take the Scott’s Run Trail, which we had not taken before.

It was gorgeous.

It was also subtly educational, although I doubt most people would notice. We started from the main entrance and ended at the camp ground.

The beginning of the trail was, essentially, a muddy water run-off track. Some sections were muddier than others, and I’m glad I had my hiking stick, because the ground was often rocky and uneven.

Then, the run-off track turned into a small creek.

From here, to the bottom of the valley, the trail was mostly along the side of this creek (I’m guessing along an old logging trail)–you were rarely out of sight (or at least hearing) of the water.

Other springs and run off areas join in, and the creek now occasionally has small pools.

Soon it looks like a “real” creek, and you need a bridge to cross.

There are now deeper pools, areas that look like they would have water even at the height of summer’s heat.

At the bottom of the trail, multiple springs and run-off areas have created this shaded stream that continues on.

If you continue on the trail, it’s all uphill to the camp ground, and you see more springs that run down the side of the mountain to feed into the stream in the valley.

The end of the trail (or the beginning if you were starting at the campground) is again a rocky muddy water run-off area. (This part was less fun, as I was already tired and I had to be careful of my ankle on the rocks.) If we did this hike again I believe I would instead stop at the lowest part of the trail and backtrack form whence we came.

Of course there were a couple random things that caught my eye.

My theory on this is it dates back to when the forest was logged. That a truck broke down, and when they brought the replacement part, the just dumped the old part in the woods, because no one cared. Now, it’s an oddity, and a glimpse into the past.

Some woodpeckers went NUTS on this tree.

If you click through to Flickr, all of the above pictures have their GPS coordinates, if you’d like to find a specific spot yourself.

ADDENDUM the First:

I’ve started playing with the GPS data, because I’m a geek. Here’s a map of our hike:

(via GPS Visualizer)

Here’s the elevation change:

And here are the stats:

I’ve thought from the start that the Withings had a wonky way of measuring elevation, but I pretty much ignored it.

But today I decided to take the GPS on our walk into town, and compare the GPS elevation rise to what the pedometers were giving me.

Now, from everything I’ve read, the FitBit gives you ten feet of elevation for every floor climbed. That’s easy enough.

But the more I looked at the Withings data, the less sense it made. So this evening I decided to sit down and try and figure out just what the hell the Withings data was trying to tell me.

For my walk, I wrote down the starting elevation and the ending elevation.

My numbers were 1619 ft and 2026 ft, which gave me a change in elevation of 407 ft.

Then I asked Michael to see if he could give me his elevation gain from the website.

His number was 95 ft.

Wha?

So, I go to the website, and get the elevation gain for each 30 minute time period.

Can you read that number? The time is from 6:30 to 7:00 and it gave me 92 ft and 30 floors. Adding the numbers for the three 30 minute periods (16/6, 0/0, 92/30) I get an elevation gain over 90 minutes of 110 ft.

100 != 407

So, I note flights and elevation for every 30 minute time period [(14, 2, 13, 2, 6, 7, 1, 8, 35, 24, 4, 20, 9, 3, 3, 2, 6, 30, 5, 1, 8, 4, 1 flights) and (44, 7, 40, 8, 19, 22, 4, 25, 105, 74, 14, 60, 28, 9, 10, 7, 18, 92, 17, 3, 25, 12, 3 feet)] and I get a total of 646 feet and 208 flights of stairs.

Look back at the image. It’s giving my total elevation gain for the day: 2190 ft. None of those numbers seem to have any relationship to each other.

I fully admit that simple math is not my strong point, but I don’t see how my daily elevation gain total can be three and a half times higher than the sum of the individual time periods.

I’ll also note that the 646 ft measurement is much closer to what the FitBits gave me, (assuming 10 ft elevation rise per flight of stairs) an elevation gain of 640 or 670 feet (64 and 67 flights of stairs) for the day.

This… this makes no sense. And even assuming the sum of the individual time periods give me the correct elevation gain, the flights of stairs it gives are ridiculous, unless the Pulse things that a flight of stairs is only three feet high.

So, now I truly, deeply doubt the information the Pulse has been giving me–at least anything beyond basic step count.

Yeah, I’ve been bad and not done this for awhile. But in my defense, hardly anyone was playing.

So, perhaps for a last hurrah, perhaps to restart, today’s word is: data

Yeah, I continue to find this fascinating.

First:

I carried the GPS to work today, so I could determine precisely how long the walk to work is.

The walk to work was 1.0 miles, the walk from work was 1.1 miles.

But what amused me was the elevation graph.

It’s ALWAYS uphill.

Second:

Over the past year and a half I managed to put on enough weight that I stepped on the scale and read: 155.* That is more than I feel is healthy for me, so I need to lose at least 15 pounds. (Hence the pedometer testing.) Because of its integration with MyFitnessPal, I decided to get a FitBit One, not to track steps as much as to keep track of my calorie intake / outtake.

The FitBit One was waiting for me when I got home, so of course I immediately set it up.

Because I am a dork, this amused me:

And of course I’m adding the FitBit One to my pedometer tracking.

I can’t wait to find out of the One overcounts steps to the same extent as the Ultra.

(rubs hands together in glee)

I’M SO EXCITED!

* While I was clawing my way out of the pit of depression, I essentially stopped weighing myself, because I didn’t need one more thing to feel bad about. I believe that was the correct decision. Unfortunately, I was also been binge eating, so now my pants are too tight and it’s time to pay attention to what I’m putting in my body again.

Here’s a peek at one of the charts I made from Saturday’s data.

It looks at the count differences during different periods of time. You can see that biking was problematic for the pedometers–which I knew it would be. I think I’d have to put the pedometers on my shoes to make them count accurately during biking.

But you can still see the tendency of the FitBit to overcount steps, regardless the activity.

I tested the Accupedo pedometer phone app yesterday, but the step count was so far off, it skewed my calculations. Badly.

I turned down the sensitivity (the better phone apps I looked at had a setting for changing the sensitivity), and today’s counts were much more in line with the other pedometers.

Yeah, we went back for the second weekend in a row. I realized that once the gates open, we won’t feel comfortable biking on the main road, so we should enjoy it while we can.

Plus, there’s something lovely about being at Coopers Rock when it’s nearly empty. It’s normally a busy park. It’s also beautiful, but there is rarely a sense of being in the wilderness when you’re there during the summer. You see people everything, and even when you can’t see them you ca typically hear them. So it’s a nice change of pace to be there when it’s relatively unpopulated.

It was also a gorgeous day, and deserving of us doing something outside.

They really didn’t want you to drive in.

What do all these pictures have in common, that fascinated me so much?

You can see the sky.

Once the leaves come out, you can’t see the sky in much of Coopers Rocks.

(All photos should have GPS location coordinates, if you want to know specifically where a pictures was taken.)

The first part of today’s activities I knew would be problematic for the pedometers: we went biking at Coopers Rock. It’s amusing how far off each device is from every other device.

But, I had my GPS, so I got all that information.

Then I realized that when we walked to dinner, I should take the GPS! Further proof the Withings Pulse can’t calculate elevation for shit!

First up, what Withings recording for me elevation today, all day:

From the time period of 3:30 to 5:30, it gives me an elevation gain of 119 feet.

And now, what the Withings recording for Michael. Keep in mind that we spend the entire day together.

Now here’s what the FitBit recorded for Saturday:

Then numbers aren’t directly compatible, as the FitBit displays the data is flights of stairs. But you can see the trend.

Here’s the route recorded by GPS:

According to my GPS, my elevation gain for the entire trip was 310 ft. So the Withings gave me about a third of the elevation I actually had.

So, compared both to the FitBit and to actual GPS measurements, the Withings Pulse has been giving me only about a third of the elevation it should if I’m climbing hills (versus climbing stairs–it seems to get the stairs fine).

BAH HUMBUG.

Oh, in case you were interested, here was our elevation from our biking at Coopers Rock:

And here’s the route:

Here’s a quick peek at my data collection file.There will be charts.