I compared my Polar Heart Rate Monitor to my Apple Watch

ladybug4233
ladybug4233 Posts: 217 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I went on a casual bike ride yesterday and wore both my polar heart rate monitor and my Apple Watch. Now when I used my polar HR last year I was able to loose 30 pounds. I got the Apple Watch for Christmas last year so I started using it. Now the Apple Watch says I burned 556 active calories and my Polar says I burned 665 calories. Now last year I would have recorded that number. However my watch is 100 calories lower. What would you do?

Replies

  • eb8566
    eb8566 Posts: 249 Member
    You should be able to look over time at your total calories in/out and actual loss to determine the accuracy. I found my Fitbit to be overly generous with calories burned. I now use an Apple Watch and I feel like it is fairly accurate.
  • sammidelvecchio
    sammidelvecchio Posts: 791 Member
    I would log the lower one.
  • MelanieCN77
    MelanieCN77 Posts: 4,047 Member
    Does the Polar also separate out active and total calories? First I'd be sure you're taking the right numbers for comparison.
  • steveko89
    steveko89 Posts: 2,215 Member
    Personally, I would ignore those numbers and use my handy-dandy TDEE calculating spreadsheet to set my calories.

    I spun my wheels for too long eating too many calories "burned" during exercise and not losing any weight. There's a google sheet linked on the wiki of r/fitness that back-calculates TDEE based on daily weight and calorie intake. It requires daily weighing and complete logging but I've yet to find anything more accurate for me. My logging has improved tremendously since now it's data collection and data means nothing without integrity and accuracy. I won't claim 100% accurate but I'd put my logging accuracy against anyone on the platform and the requisite visibility that's provided for what my weight is doing is fantastic.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    I would take the number of Joules of work my power meter days I did, and go with that.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    ladybug4233 wrote: »
    I went on a casual bike ride yesterday and wore both my polar heart rate monitor and my Apple Watch. Now when I used my polar HR last year I was able to loose 30 pounds. I got the Apple Watch for Christmas last year so I started using it. Now the Apple Watch says I burned 556 active calories and my Polar says I burned 665 calories. Now last year I would have recorded that number. However my watch is 100 calories lower. What would you do?

    I'd confirm they were both looking at the same block of time, and only that.

    Then I'd confirm they showed at least the same avg HR since both are using that as bases for calorie burn.

    Then take lower if no differences.

    If Apple was off on the avgHR as many non-chest units are, it could be the difference, and it's lower is wrong.
  • naomi8888
    naomi8888 Posts: 519 Member
    ladybug4233 wrote: »
    I went on a casual bike ride yesterday and wore both my polar heart rate monitor and my Apple Watch. Now when I used my polar HR last year I was able to loose 30 pounds. I got the Apple Watch for Christmas last year so I started using it. Now the Apple Watch says I burned 556 active calories and my Polar says I burned 665 calories. Now last year I would have recorded that number. However my watch is 100 calories lower. What would you do?

    I have also changed from Polar to Apple. My burns now are recorded as lower because I go with the active rather than total calories.
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    I would take the number of Joules of work my power meter days I did, and go with that.

    What he said. I would also realize that wrist based HR is typically inaccurate when riding outside. As in, the readings are inaccurate. Look at any post about a watch HR from DCRainmaker and you'll see this. They're ok when you're riding uninterrupted, but once you have to stop (say at a traffic light, for an errant dog whose owner didn't keep it on leash, for a horse whose rider has stopped it in the middle of the trail, etc) then it's a crapshoot in terms of accuracy.
  • Cahgetsfit
    Cahgetsfit Posts: 1,912 Member
    steveko89 wrote: »
    Personally, I would ignore those numbers and use my handy-dandy TDEE calculating spreadsheet to set my calories.

    I spun my wheels for too long eating too many calories "burned" during exercise and not losing any weight. There's a google sheet linked on the wiki of r/fitness that back-calculates TDEE based on daily weight and calorie intake. It requires daily weighing and complete logging but I've yet to find anything more accurate for me. My logging has improved tremendously since now it's data collection and data means nothing without integrity and accuracy. I won't claim 100% accurate but I'd put my logging accuracy against anyone on the platform and the requisite visibility that's provided for what my weight is doing is fantastic.

    Exactly this. This is why I do the TDEE method too.

    By the way though OP, I keep meaning to do a workout using both my Polar and my Fitbit just to compare cals burnt out of curiosity (I never log them, just enter it as "1 calorie burnt"). I really should manage to get myself organised enough to do that one day!!
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    In your position I would use the Strava app instead of using HR as a basis for estimates, especially for what you describe as a casual ride.
  • ladybug4233
    ladybug4233 Posts: 217 Member
    So I looked at active and total calories on my Apple Watch and the Polar and total are within 10 calories of each other. I guess since I was using the polar last year and was successful I am surprised it was so much more.

Categories