GWF vs. Polar F6 Accuracy

jtintx

Ok, I plunked down some big bucks and invested in a GoWear Fit to try to accurately determine the calories I burn in a day. What I got from the device is quite a bit different than what the Exercise database in MFP gives me....but I'm ok with that. So then I start wondering why the big difference. So then I have to go out and buy a Polar F6 to see if it jives with the GWF. It doesn't! Now I'm really confused.

Example:
Running on treadmill for 40 minutes:
MFP: 389
GWF: 480
F6: 300

I won't even bother with cycling information...those numbers are REALLY different!!

For weight loss purposes I'm going with the lowest number. But how in the world are we supposed to know what we are really burning?

Anyone have any input on which device they think is the most accurate and why?

jtintx

Ok, I plunked down some big bucks and invested in a GoWear Fit to try to accurately determine the calories I burn in a day. What I got from the device is quite a bit different than what the Exercise database in MFP gives me....but I'm ok with that. So then I start wondering why the big difference. So then I have to go out and buy a Polar F6 to see if it jives with the GWF. It doesn't! Now I'm really confused.

Example:
Running on treadmill for 40 minutes:
MFP: 389
GWF: 480
F6: 300

I won't even bother with cycling information...those numbers are REALLY different!!

For weight loss purposes I'm going with the lowest number. But how in the world are we supposed to know what we are really burning?

Anyone have any input on which device they think is the most accurate and why?

xtina11179

OMG...I'm so glad I haven't bought either yet. God bless you for "plunking" down the money to get both to compare. I guess you must be a much more dedicated person than I am. I have been contemplating getting a Polar but haven't invested yet. The Elliptical machine at the gym has the HR sensors so I feel like I am getting a little better accurate reading than the treadmill that does not, and especially MFP. I'm 5'11" so walking at 3.5 on the treadmill is slow for me but for someone who is 5'3" and has a much shorter stride than I do, they're gonna be working harder than I do, therefore getting their heart rate up higher.

I would love to get the HRM but I would also like to know which one is more accurate before investing in one.

taylorgirl

I have a Polar F6 also and was told by my trainer to go by the Heart Monitor. Carido equipment does not contain all the personal data and information the H.M. does and equipment is set on a standard bases. The difference in my numbers also vary from 50 to over 100 calorie difference when doing carido on equipment, but when doing strength and training (especially when using weights) the results are very good and high.

MFS27

Ok, so I had never heard of GWF before, and did some quick research. If you google "go wear fit reviews" you can pull up amazon and other sites where people reviewed this product.

Apparently GWF looks like the body bugg (seems to be made by the same company, not entirely sure), but you have to pay a monthly fee to get your data. Sounds like a money-making scheme to me.

Anyways, you are not the first person to raise questions about calories burned. One woman noted that her GWF calories burned did not change that much between exercise and non-exercise day. Another said she only burned 300 calories per GWF, but machine said much higher, etc. So I'm kind of dubious about GWF's ability to track calories burned.

I am a faithful polar user, and I can definitely see the differences in calories between exercise and rest days. I also like the fact that polar does not force you to get a monthly subscription.

IMHO, I would send the GWF back and stick with the polar. HTH.

Oh, and a second thought - if you are really concerned about acuracy of calories burned, you could invest in a better-known HRM, such as the garmin with chest strap, etc. and compare that with the polar results. REI sells several HRM, and they are really good at helping you figure out what you need and taking things back if you don't want them (and no, I don't work for REI, I just love the store :laugh: )

jtintx

I know that online exercise calculators and gym equipment calculators aren't very accurate but I thought the GWF and/or the HR monitor with calorie tracking would be. The reason I bought the GWF is because it is supposed to be really accurate. I got the Polar F6 to compare the two because I don't plan on paying for the GWF online access forever. I just can't understand how in 40 minutes the two can have a 100 calorie difference. The GWF (or similar device) was originally designed for clinical use. If the GWF could monitor HR then I would trust it more. Does anyone have any specific knowledge that one is more reliable than the other?

rohdesl

The most reliable equipment for monitoring your calories burned are the heart rate monitors with the chest strap. I've heard that from running stores, and from internet research. Any other method is not as reliable. MFP is just estimating calories based on the average person (which doesn't apply to most people) and the same with health club equipment like treadmills. I'm not sure how the GWF works, but if it doesn't monitor your heart rate with a chest strap I wouldn't trust it.

jtintx

The GWF measures a variety of physical characteristics, including motion, steps, galvanic skin response (sweat), skin temperature, and heat flux. Like I said earlier...it is supposed to be very accurate but so are the Polar HR monitors....so why are the calorie counts so different?

GCDog

I think comparing the three different versions is like comparing apples to oranges to bananas. Although they are all fruit, they are not designed to be the same.

MFP is an average. Average means that if you put the same data in that I do, we get the same response back. I don't know how hard you worked, you don't know how hard I worked, so by definition, our numbers should be different.

HRM only monitor your heart rate. There are varying views on if this is the best option or just a better option than the average.

GWF/BB monitor a variety of things on the body but not your heart rate. According to their site, this is the best option. Obviously, better than the average but again, varying views on if it's the best option.

I wouldn't expect the numbers to be the same. 3 different tools, collecting data 3 different ways, will return 3 different numbers. Personally, I stopped wearing my HRM and I only use GWF.

rohdesl

Ok. I've been looking around on-line for the difference, and here's what I understand. The heart rate montior measures how many additional calories you burn during exercise. This is above and beyond the calories you need to survive. The GWF measures how many calories you burn all day (exercise calories plus the calories you burn by being alive), even when sleeping. The GWF is meant to be worn all day.

So, if you use the GWF it will show you that you burned 2000 calories in a 24 hour period. The Polar HRM will only show what you burned when your heart rate is raised during exercise. If you are looking to track your total calories burned in a day, then the GWF is the best choice. But if you are looking to track what you burned during exercise then the GWF will be higher than a HRM because it is measuring the calories you are burning just by being alive and the calories you are burning by exercising. The HRM is just measuring the additional calories from exercise. If you are tracking your exercise calories on MFP, the GWF may give you too high of a number. It all depends on how you want to measure your calories.

That's what I'm understanding anyway.

jtintx

Ok. I've been looking around on-line for the difference, and here's what I understand. The heart rate montior measures how many additional calories you burn during exercise. This is above and beyond the calories you need to survive. The GWF measures how many calories you burn all day (exercise calories plus the calories you burn by being alive), even when sleeping. The GWF is meant to be worn all day.

So, if you use the GWF it will show you that you burned 2000 calories in a 24 hour period. The Polar HRM will only show what you burned when your heart rate is raised during exercise. If you are looking to track your total calories burned in a day, then the GWF is the best choice. But if you are looking to track what you burned during exercise then the GWF will be higher than a HRM because it is measuring the calories you are burning just by being alive and the calories you are burning by exercising. The HRM is just measuring the additional calories from exercise. If you are tracking your exercise calories on MFP, the GWF may give you too high of a number. It all depends on how you want to measure your calories.

That's what I'm understanding anyway.

This makes perfect sense!!!! Knowing that the HR monitor only measures net calories, total calories burned minus BMR calories, sheds a whole new light! That's why the GWF is showing higher - it is giving me total calories, BMR plus exercise calories for the given time period! So they are both pretty much right on the mark when looked at it that way! rohdesl thank you so much!!!! Now I can trust what I'm seeing. You really helped me out. :flowerforyou:

MacMadame

Knowing that the HR monitor only measures net calories, total calories burned minus BMR calories, sheds a whole new light!

Except that's not what a HRM does. It measures your HR and it plugs that into a formula to estimate how many calories burned during the time you have it on. It's not subtracting anything.

The reason the two are giving you a different number is two-fold:
1) All these calorie burned numbers are estimates based on formulas. They aren't all using the same formula
2) GWF doesn't measure HR but a lot of other things. If it also measured HR, it would be the most accurate thing out there. But some of the measurements it takes can be thrown off by external factors. For example, if you exercise in hot weather, it may under-estimate your calories because the heat in the air throws off the measurement of your body heat.