Wouldn't usually ask about exercise calories, but...
Losingthedamnweight
Posts: 535 Member
So I wouldn't normally ask because really, I've been sticking to a strict calorie budget and I know how out of control people can get eating back exercise calories and screwing up their diet.
But I got this nifty apple watch that tracks my heart rate continuously, while also tracking gps location, stride length and a host of other factors while I'm on my walks and runs
at the park and the science and tech aspect of it are just interesting to me. Especially after reading this article about how the Apple watch's accuracy is on par with an ekg, far surpassing other fitness trackers
http://www.digitaltrends.com/wearables/apple-watch-heart-rate-monitor-accuracy/
This was my walk after work
So far I'm doing alright on my exercise goals and it's only 6pm. Still got time to get a little more!
I've stuck with 1500 straight calories for awhile and it's worked great for me because it's a solid number. No thinking about it or anything. Never tried to add extra exercise. But what I'm thinking is 1500 will be my baseline, but if I go on walks or runs and get continuous exercise that makes my heart rate go up and gets me to sweat, I can add up to 500 calories. But no more. Anymore and I risk issues with accuracy and eating too much to lose weight.
What do you think? As a point of reference, I'm a 31 year old dude at 5'8 weighing 235lbs.
But I got this nifty apple watch that tracks my heart rate continuously, while also tracking gps location, stride length and a host of other factors while I'm on my walks and runs
at the park and the science and tech aspect of it are just interesting to me. Especially after reading this article about how the Apple watch's accuracy is on par with an ekg, far surpassing other fitness trackers
http://www.digitaltrends.com/wearables/apple-watch-heart-rate-monitor-accuracy/
This was my walk after work
So far I'm doing alright on my exercise goals and it's only 6pm. Still got time to get a little more!
I've stuck with 1500 straight calories for awhile and it's worked great for me because it's a solid number. No thinking about it or anything. Never tried to add extra exercise. But what I'm thinking is 1500 will be my baseline, but if I go on walks or runs and get continuous exercise that makes my heart rate go up and gets me to sweat, I can add up to 500 calories. But no more. Anymore and I risk issues with accuracy and eating too much to lose weight.
What do you think? As a point of reference, I'm a 31 year old dude at 5'8 weighing 235lbs.
0
Replies
-
At your size, 3 mile walk gets you about 210 calories (the Watch is actually pretty close!) A 3 mile run would be about double that.
Have fun!
0 -
You do realize that article is written by an online mag that's basically a shill for all things Apple, right? Also, the evidence of it being as accurate as an EKG is based on someone who posted a graph on twitter. Based on this one twitter posting, this article purports that the Apple Watch is as accurate as an EKG. LOL.
Don't get me wrong. I like it. I like all the wearables (have a surge myself). But still, LOL.
0 -
You can always try and see how it works out for you.0
-
You do realize that article is written by an online mag that's basically a shill for all things Apple, right? Also, the evidence of it being as accurate as an EKG is based on someone who posted a graph on twitter. Based on this one twitter posting, this article purports that the Apple Watch is as accurate as an EKG. LOL.
Don't get me wrong. I like it. I like all the wearables (have a surge myself). But still, LOL.
Lol maybe I should just carry an ekg with me on my walks and compare! The only reason that article was even in my mind was because a doctor friend (medical doctor) told me about it and said he was playing with his in his office and comparing with an actual ekg and said they were pretty damn close. Said nothing definitive, but he thought it was interesting. Apparently he and a couple colleagues are going to a lab to test it under more strenuous conditions and writing an article for a journal.
How do you like your surge? I came so close to getting it after being attached to my flex for so long!0 -
-
Losingthedamnweight wrote: »
Running is a different biomechanical motion. Lots more fighting gravity. Burns around 2x for the same distance, 4x for the same time.
Ignore heart rate. It doesn't correlate well with burns, most of the time, for most people.
I'd be interested in seeing more walk/run burn data from the Watch - I'd be great if Apple actually got this stuff right and shamed the other activity band makers into moving to reality-based burn numbers. That they got close with your walk burn instead of giving you a 2x number from TomorrowLand gives me cause for optimism....0 -
If a heart rate monitor can't count heart beat accurately, you shouldn't have it. So, comparing the Apple watch to an EKG doesn't mean much. Where HRMs fail is when they try to tell you how many calories you burned. Whether because people aren't setting them up right or because the database they're using doesn't match the person who is wearing it, HRMs do a sad job at calculating calories and I've seen nothing to indicate that Apple has done anything to improve on that.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »...and I've seen nothing to indicate that Apple has done anything to improve on that.
OP posted it, in the OP. It gave him a walking burn that was actually really close, instead of the usual 2x, BMR-double-counting nonsense so many other devices/calculators give.
Need more data to know if it's for real or just accidental, though.
0 -
Just doing a little background reading here....yep, Apple does NOT double count BMR/RMR calories, it calculates (or attempts to calculate) net burn calories. Forums have lots of posts complaining burn numbers are too low.
Awesome - that's definitely a step forward...
0 -
I just think all this is really interesting from a science perspective. We are in a new age of fitness tracking and this is an exciting time to be alive! I've loved my fitbits for the past couple years and when apple enters new markets, it tends to be disruptive for the better. The amount of thought apple puts into their products is insane, so I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't say it's 100% accurate, but it's definitely a useful tool in evaluating fitness.
I just got done watching this and I would like to know even more than what they are showing.
Behind the scenes look at Apple's top-secret health and fitness lab where it tested the Apple Watch.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mfcAoCVQcN0
I think I heard it was reported in the tear down of the Apple watch that they built in a pulse oximeter too but it's deactivated because of fda approvals and red tape. The patents they have for tech that will eventually go into the watch are fascinating to think about. We've heard that the first gen was actually supposed to be even more ambitious but they couldn't get if the way they wanted it, so they scrapped a lot of good ideas for now.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »...and I've seen nothing to indicate that Apple has done anything to improve on that.
OP posted it, in the OP. It gave him a walking burn that was actually really close, instead of the usual 2x, BMR-double-counting nonsense so many other devices/calculators give.
Need more data to know if it's for real or just accidental, though.
I've seen other people say that the number Apple watch was giving them were off. As with other HRM, I suspect that you have to get your data entered correctly for it to work. What I think they do is use the heart rate to measure intensity and then use the same look up tables that MFP and other tools are using to calculate calories burned. If it is removing BMR, that is great, as long as you aren't trying to track each activity throughout the day.0 -
Losingthedamnweight wrote: »You do realize that article is written by an online mag that's basically a shill for all things Apple, right? Also, the evidence of it being as accurate as an EKG is based on someone who posted a graph on twitter. Based on this one twitter posting, this article purports that the Apple Watch is as accurate as an EKG. LOL.
Don't get me wrong. I like it. I like all the wearables (have a surge myself). But still, LOL.
Lol maybe I should just carry an ekg with me on my walks and compare! The only reason that article was even in my mind was because a doctor friend (medical doctor) told me about it and said he was playing with his in his office and comparing with an actual ekg and said they were pretty damn close. Said nothing definitive, but he thought it was interesting. Apparently he and a couple colleagues are going to a lab to test it under more strenuous conditions and writing an article for a journal.
How do you like your surge? I came so close to getting it after being attached to my flex for so long!
I was a Force refugee -- didn't have the rash, but the thing fell apart about 7 months in. Still, I loved it and think it did an incredible thing for me in terms of weight loss.
The surge is ....meh. I'm not overly excited about it, but I still think it was the best compromise for me in terms of convenience, battery life, GPS, etc. Still think its the best product on the market, but there's a few things I hate about it. It's definitely not as ergonomic as the Apple Watch is. I don't mean just usability. The actual wearing of the surge is a pain (it's huge). And unlike the Apple, it's corners extend out too far before curving down. I didn't think it would bother me; but it's a pain to change while still trying to wear it. Also, it won't fit under most of my long sleeve dress shirts. There dashboard is dog-slow, and I can't export easily the things that I want. Only the things that Fitbit decides I can have...not a big fan of that.
I do like that the battery life lasts awhile, and that it has a built in GPS which has been extremely accurate for me. I travel a lot for work so I like being able to have a map of my runs. It is a bit redundant however, since I almost always have my iPhone with me anyways.
I dunno. Overall, wearables aren't quite there yet. My guess is the Apple watch uses the same tech as the surge in terms of HRM. I don't think one is vastly superior to the other in that regard.
All in all, these wearables do one thing extremely well: It enhances something known as the "observation effect". The act of observation changes the behavior of the thing being observed. I.E. you move more just because you're now keeping an eye on it. That makes all of these products a "recommend" in my book.0 -
I do like that the battery life lasts awhile, and that it has a built in GPS which has been extremely accurate for me. I travel a lot for work so I like being able to have a map of my runs. It is a bit redundant however, since I almost always have my iPhone with me anyways.
I .
Glad you like it. I didn't get it because I thought it was pretty ugly and if I'm wearing a fitness tracker every single day (not just when tracking runs and stuff) I want something that looks good. And for just $100 more, I got something that has great battery life, looks damn good, has interchangeable bands that are dead sexy, a great ui and apps that work well for it that aren't just singular fitness centric stuff. Controlling my Apple TV with my watch is just...orgasmic. Even if you're just into fitness, it's cool having non Fitbit apps on there to use. I used map my run for Apple watch earlier. Couldn't do that on a Fitbit. Fitness pal is also on the Apple watch.
I think if you're just doing the basics, surge is overkill. The cheaper heart rate one seems to work well as far as I hear. Fitbit has lost a little magic for me over the past year after all my cheap rubber bands wore out and fell apart. Maybe it's just me though.0 -
The newest jawbone has pretty much the same sensors, and the micrsoft fitness watch does the same. I am really starting to get interested in the microsoft fitness watch. But my bodymedia is fine, does a good job.
.
I think the Microsoft band deserves more credit than people give it. It looks every bit as solid as a Fitbit but with even better smart watch like features. Only deal breaker for me would be size and comfort. It looks like it wouldn't be comfortable to wear in day to day life. It's big and the shape isn't very forgiving. Also not being able to change bands would irritate me after awhile. Maybe I'm just spoiled though.
I think people hear Microsoft and are instantly turned off, but they have really come around as a company. Wonder how well the Microsoft band works with iPhone. This is only the beginning of an era of fitness trackers. It'll be interesting to see where they are 5 years from now. Anybody have a time machine I can borrow?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P0H-qQR7LCQ 0 -
Losingthedamnweight wrote: »
I do like that the battery life lasts awhile, and that it has a built in GPS which has been extremely accurate for me. I travel a lot for work so I like being able to have a map of my runs. It is a bit redundant however, since I almost always have my iPhone with me anyways.
I .
Glad you like it. I didn't get it because I thought it was pretty ugly and if I'm wearing a fitness tracker every single day (not just when tracking runs and stuff) I want something that looks good. And for just $100 more, I got something that has great battery life, looks damn good, has interchangeable bands that are dead sexy, a great ui and apps that work well for it that aren't just singular fitness centric stuff. Controlling my Apple TV with my watch is just...orgasmic. Even if you're just into fitness, it's cool having non Fitbit apps on there to use. I used map my run for Apple watch earlier. Couldn't do that on a Fitbit. Fitness pal is also on the Apple watch.
I think if you're just doing the basics, surge is overkill. The cheaper heart rate one seems to work well as far as I hear. Fitbit has lost a little magic for me over the past year after all my cheap rubber bands wore out and fell apart. Maybe it's just me though.
Wait...hold on a second. I was tracking you up into the point you said "...that has a great battery life." That's kind of fanboi territory...a nightly charge for a watch is not my idea of great battery life.0 -
Losingthedamnweight wrote: »
I do like that the battery life lasts awhile, and that it has a built in GPS which has been extremely accurate for me. I travel a lot for work so I like being able to have a map of my runs. It is a bit redundant however, since I almost always have my iPhone with me anyways.
I .
Glad you like it. I didn't get it because I thought it was pretty ugly and if I'm wearing a fitness tracker every single day (not just when tracking runs and stuff) I want something that looks good. And for just $100 more, I got something that has great battery life, looks damn good, has interchangeable bands that are dead sexy, a great ui and apps that work well for it that aren't just singular fitness centric stuff. Controlling my Apple TV with my watch is just...orgasmic. Even if you're just into fitness, it's cool having non Fitbit apps on there to use. I used map my run for Apple watch earlier. Couldn't do that on a Fitbit. Fitness pal is also on the Apple watch.
I think if you're just doing the basics, surge is overkill. The cheaper heart rate one seems to work well as far as I hear. Fitbit has lost a little magic for me over the past year after all my cheap rubber bands wore out and fell apart. Maybe it's just me though.
Wait...hold on a second. I was tracking you up into the point you said "...that has a great battery life." That's kind of fanboi territory...a nightly charge for a watch is not my idea of great battery life.
I don't mind charging nightly. I never used to wear my watch to sleep anyway. So I just charge it right next to my iPhone. If that's a concern of yours, a Fitbit would be better. Ending my 12 hour shift today with 63% didn't feel too bad0 -
Losingthedamnweight wrote: »I've stuck with 1500 straight calories for awhile and it's worked great for me because it's a solid number. No thinking about it or anything. Never tried to add extra exercise. But what I'm thinking is 1500 will be my baseline, but if I go on walks or runs and get continuous exercise that makes my heart rate go up and gets me to sweat, I can add up to 500 calories. But no more. Anymore and I risk issues with accuracy and eating too much to lose weight.
What do you think? As a point of reference, I'm a 31 year old dude at 5'8 weighing 235lbs.
So your TDEE is at your height, weight, and age, about 2600 assuming a sedentary baseline activity level. That means you're doing somewhat over a 1000 calorie daily deficit, and you don't add extra exercise to your total??
Wow! So many people shooting for these huge deficits.0 -
Losingthedamnweight wrote: »I've stuck with 1500 straight calories for awhile and it's worked great for me because it's a solid number. No thinking about it or anything. Never tried to add extra exercise.
I'm a 31 year old dude at 5'8 weighing 235lbs.
Sorry, but ur doing it wrong. I'm 5'2" & 120 lbs., and I eat more than 1,500 calories.
Please, read the Sexypants post: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants/p1
Food is fuel, and we should all be looking for the maximum number of calories at which we lose weight—never the minimum.0 -
editorgrrl wrote: »Losingthedamnweight wrote: »I've stuck with 1500 straight calories for awhile and it's worked great for me because it's a solid number. No thinking about it or anything. Never tried to add extra exercise.
I'm a 31 year old dude at 5'8 weighing 235lbs.
Sorry, but ur doing it wrong. I'm 5'2" & 120 lbs., and I eat more than you.
Please, read the Sexypants post: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants/p1
Food is fuel, and we should all be looking for the maximum number of calories at which we lose weight—never the minimum.
Reading the link now. I put my activity level as sedentary and fitness pal gave me 1500 calories. I've talked to a lot of guys my height and weight that have lost weight and they almost all said their goal was 1500 also. Maybe it warped my perspective a bit being around people like that so much. How many do you think I should eat? If I move up to lightly active, fitness pal gives me only 200 more, so not much of a difference.0 -
Your default MFP calorie goal already has your deficit built in. Then you're supposed to log your exercise and eat back those calories, too. Chronic undereating won't get you to goal any more quickly.
Step 1: Read the Sexypants post.
Step 2: Learn to log everything you eat & drink accurately & honestly.
Weight loss takes a whole lot of trial & error to find what works for you. Logging is simple, but it ain't easy. Logging works.0 -
OP, I'm wondering why your heart rate is so high when you are walking at such a casual speed.
Have you checked your heart rate by other means and compared that with what the Apple Watch is telling you?0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »So, comparing the Apple watch to an EKG doesn't mean much.
What would you rather compare it with?
0 -
You really need to stop posting random studies from PubMed that you clearly don't understand.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions