Trackers??

samarhefka2551
samarhefka2551 Posts: 15 Member
edited November 21 in Health and Weight Loss
Ok so I put on my Microsoft band to compare it's results to the treadmill. I'm blown away by the difference. Only part way through my workout treadmill says 1.5 miles and 235calories burned...band says 1.34 miles and 92 calories...
What are your favorite trackers ? How accurate do you find them to be? Do you find that the tracker built in to the machine is inaccurate??

EDIT - if it is helpful this was on a treadmill at a 5 incline and 3.3 speed. I am just thinking maybe my tracker is needing to be replaced, it's now 2+ years old. I just don't know what to believe lol

Replies

  • kapendell
    kapendell Posts: 10 Member
    I've actually been shopping around for a tracker too. My Max Trainer M7 shows I only burn 30-35 calories each session. There is no way it's only that much even with only 7 minutes on it. I own an older polar watch and an older Fitbit from when I used to be a very active person. They need updated big time. I've been leaning towards the Polar A370. Looking forward to seeing other people's choices!
  • Meelisv
    Meelisv Posts: 235 Member
    edited August 2017
    Both are relatevly inaccurate, and only serve as indicators.
    That said most decent modern fitness trackers adjust to wearers stats over time and become more accurate.
    As far as excersice goes, for steady state cardio, such as running, cycling or walking a tracker with heart rate strap is most accurate, that is more accurate than those with wrist based heart rate and specially more accurate than those wthout hr measuring capability.

    For exercise with random movements, like strength training, all bets are off.

    That said, as far as your example goes, a treadmill is more accurate regarding distance, since tracker estimates it based on steps, while treadmill counts actual spins and speed of the motor. As far as calorie count goes, treadmills are notoriously overestimating, even if they let you input your stats.

    Since you didn't tell what type of workout you were doing, it's hard to guess which one is closer to Truth, but given it's only 1.5. mile distance, I would say your Microsoft Band is way closer than treadmill.

    Few days ago I did a short treadmill run, 3.6 km with 5 min/km pace and my Garmin Fenix 3 watch with chest strap gave me 264 kcl. Which is almost in line with my usual ~ 70 kcal per km burn at that pace.
  • ctaps
    ctaps Posts: 5 Member
    I use the Wahoo TickR heart rate monitor. I calibrated it by following instructions for a 3 minute sitting, walking and running routine. This way it can provide a more accurate report on calories burned based on my heart rate. It tracks my distance too when I'm running outside, if I run on a treadmill I will trust the distance the machine says. The reason your band counted a different distance than the machine is a common criticism of treadmill running. Basically the machine belt keeps spinning between strides meaning the machine can potentially spin faster than you're actually running. I can effortlessly run 3 10minute miles on a treadmill, but when I hit the pavement its more like 12 minutes. Your wrist tracker will calculate distance based on step count, which doesnt take into account stide distance or incline. Generally if you increase the machine pace, try to increase your strides.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories