Iwatch accuracy

Eagles8080
Eagles8080 Posts: 200 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Is the iwatch move calories pretty accurate compared to mfp?

Replies

  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    For me they were not. My Watch gave me more calories burned than MFP does. Part of me thinks it's because the Watch had my HR higher than it actually was during my intense workouts and weightlifting days, which resulted in a reported higher calorie burn.
  • IncredibleMulk77
    IncredibleMulk77 Posts: 63 Member
    I have found the exact opposite of Elleen_S...Apple Watch calories burned for me are FAR less than what MFP will tell me. I tend to believe the Apple Watch more than MFP.
  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    Using my Apple Watch for one hour of weightlifting said I burned 283 calories, MFP says I burn 185. Today I used my Polar FT 7 chest HRM to monitor my burn which said I burned 191 for for one hour. I wasn't doing anything different or less than my first test. Knowing that the amount of calories burned "during" a weightlifting session isn't going to be that high, I tend to believe what MFP as well as my Polar FT 7 said that I burned. Considering the reported HR from that Apple Watch was higher than what my actual HR was I tend to believe it overestimated my burn on more than just one occasion.
  • IncredibleMulk77
    IncredibleMulk77 Posts: 63 Member
    Eileen_S, what workout are you using to track your weightlifting on your Apple Watch? I track my weightlifting sessions using the "Other" workout setting and it is right in-line with what my Polar says. When I run (say 60 min at 6.0) the Apple Watch puts me around 900 cals burned and MFP wants to give me 1800! Our bodies are all different, so I'm sure that has something to do with how these are calculated.
  • annaskiski
    annaskiski Posts: 1,212 Member
    If you don't put the watch into an exercise mode, it only checks your heart rate every 10 min. Since there isn't a 'weightlifting' mode yet, I'm assuming you're either not entering a mode, or using 'other', as Incredible mentions.

    HRMs are not accurate for weight lifting, only steady state cardio. I assume they will eventually will come up with new formulas for this...
  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    IncredibleMulk77 wrote: »
    Eileen_S, what workout are you using to track your weightlifting on your Apple Watch? I track my weightlifting sessions using the "Other" workout setting and it is right in-line with what my Polar says. When I run (say 60 min at 6.0) the Apple Watch puts me around 900 cals burned and MFP wants to give me 1800! Our bodies are all different, so I'm sure that has something to do with how these are calculated.

    Yup, I used "other" to track both weightlifting and when I did HIIT workouts. That's a huge difference that you are seeing for running. I usually around the same + or - a few calories. I don't really rely too much on any of the wrist HRM since they are not meant to be as accurate as a chest strap monitor. Overall I like the Apple Watch, but it still has work to do as far as being good with fitness tracking.
  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    annaskiski wrote: »
    If you don't put the watch into an exercise mode, it only checks your heart rate every 10 min. Since there isn't a 'weightlifting' mode yet, I'm assuming you're either not entering a mode, or using 'other', as Incredible mentions.

    HRMs are not accurate for weight lifting, only steady state cardio. I assume they will eventually will come up with new formulas for this...

    Thanks. Yes, as mentioned above I was using it in exercise mode using "Other". I do realize that HRM are only good as a guide for the type of exercises that I do such as Weightlifing and HIIT. I just found it interesting that for my Weighlifting that MFP and my Polar FT7 were fairly equal in the amount of calories that I burned. The Apple Watch also had issues picking up my resting HR a few times. Reported that my HR was in the high 60's when in fact it was actually 48-53 at the times that I checked it myself. Again, this is due to a wrist type monitor which isn't as accurate as Chest type monitors. I do think that in time they too will catch up, but for now should only be used as a guideline.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    annaskiski wrote: »
    HRMs are not accurate for weight lifting, only steady state cardio. I assume they will eventually will come up with new formulas for this...

    A heart monitor isn't useful for weight lifting, but it isn't limited to "steady" cardio by any means! Here's a graph from a recent hill repeat workout I did.

    25135415559_3948a49385_o_d.jpg
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    annaskiski wrote: »
    HRMs are not accurate for weight lifting, only steady state cardio. I assume they will eventually will come up with new formulas for this...

    A heart monitor isn't useful for weight lifting, but it isn't limited to "steady" cardio by any means! Here's a graph from a recent hill repeat workout I did.

    25135415559_3948a49385_o_d.jpg

    More accurately, strap hrm are accurate all the time (within reason, they aren't EKGs). They'll give you your hr all the time.
    Whether the calorie number it spits out is close is a different story.

    Note: this doesn't apply to optical hrm. Some, like scosche, Garmin fr, or TomTom are good when exercising. Most others, like iwatch, Fitbit, are crap.

Categories