So it was W9R2 tonight and I used my Fitbit to track my distance and time as I have ever since I moved outdoors. For a bit of fun l also turned on Strava on my phone but now I confused as it gave me different numbers.
According to Fitbit I ran for 36 minutes and covered 2.73 miles. According to strava I ran for 35:23 and covered 3.08 miles. I can understand the minor time differences due to time to turn on and put in pocket etc but the distance difference is quite large.
Has this happened to other people and can anybody explain it.
Pleasant running everyone!
Written by
Makka62a
Graduate
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Just to add to the confusion... one friend of mine at the local parkrun consistently logs the run as 2.92 miles on her Strava even though it was measured as 3.11ish (5k)
A lot depends on the GPS coverage and the quality of the GPSr on the two devices you’re using. Strava maps often have a straight line on them when coverage was lost, which will lose a little distance. Maybe the fitbits GPSr isn’t as good as your phones? A quarter of a mile is a big difference though.
I use strava and I’ve found it accurate, measured my parkrun as 3.1 miles which of course is exactly 5k. Can’t speak for a Fitbit as I’ve never had one just as well I think I’m confused enough 😂😂
Yes gps discrepancies can be quite large. On my phone I need to make sure any power save / battery save mode is switched off during runs otherwise gps becomes very inaccurate.
I did the same thing last night just to compare and Strava gave me 3.86km and my wrist tracker 4.02km I also had on Relive which gave me 3.86km too. I'm going to try all 3 again for R2 and R3 of the week and see if it continues to give the same output
Of course both devices have gps. But there are different gps services. The original satellite constellation was called GPS (hence our name for the system) but the accuracy was limited for civilian us. I don’t remember the accuracy, but 10 meters comes to mind. Subsequently a new service called GLONASS was introduced, with greater accuracy.
Accuracy is important with gps, and for run tracking, the sample rate too. Imagine that you are on a windy track. The gps is sampled every second, and is accurate to 10 meters. All the watch can do is draw a straight line between your last know points, and this reduces the actual distance that you ran.
I believe that some Fitbits do not have gps and rely on step counts. Again the watch only knows your stride length from knowing your height, and this stride length is usually a walking estimate. At the end of the run the watch calculates number of steps x stride length for your total distance. Since the stride length is wrong, the distance is wrong. My Fitbit from 5 years ago had a calibration feature.
That’s an interesting thought. Both devices are GPS. I don’t have access to a track but I can certain run round the block a few times and compare.
I hadn’t thought about signal loss. I had one of the first Garmin GPS devices 15 to 20 years ago and used to run a loop through the woods as part of my run and it never measured it because of the trees. Took me 6 months to spot I was running a lot further than the device was telling me !
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Tracking runs 
Tracking runs (speed & distance etc)
Best run tracking devices - recommendations please? 
My NZ Summer morning running track.
