Message Boards Fitness and Exercise
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Galaxy Watch vs MFP

stephdmashstephdmash Member Posts: 16 Member Member Posts: 16 Member
I'm wondering if anyone sees a big discrepancy between calories burned using a galaxy watch vs logging on MFP? My watch shows 200 Cal's less burned than MFP 🤔


  • heybalesheybales Member Posts: 18,901 Member Member Posts: 18,901 Member
    YOU caused MFP estimate of daily burn by selecting an activity level guessed from 4 levels.
    It's supposed to be estimate with no exercise done.
    YOU add the exercise when actually done.

    Galaxy is likely giving you a daily burn estimate for everything it sees.

    So the difference would be you guessed wrong on MFP activity level if you are talking about a similar amount off daily.
    Or logging exercise calories too big.
    Or the watch isn't picking up all activity.
  • sijomialsijomial Member, Premium Posts: 18,551 Member Member, Premium Posts: 18,551 Member
    I don't see 200 cals as being a big discrepancy for estimating an entire day's calories using two very different methods, that's of course if you did estimate a whole day's calories using both methods as it's not really very clear what your two estimates are made up of.

    24x7 recording on your watch I assume versus what exactly?

    Methods and numbers would help.
  • cwolfman13cwolfman13 Member Posts: 39,304 Member Member Posts: 39,304 Member
    stephdmash wrote: »
    I'm wondering if anyone sees a big discrepancy between calories burned using a galaxy watch vs logging on MFP? My watch shows 200 Cal's less burned than MFP 🤔

    Are you talking about doing a specific exercise and your watch is giving you something different than selecting the exercise from the database?

    If that's the case, understand that everything is an estimate...a random database entry is going to be a rather substantial estimate in most cases as it has nothing to go off of other than your age, duration of that exercise, and perhaps your perceived exertion (which may or may not be equivalent to your actual exertion...especially if you're out of shape).

    Devices CAN give you a somewhat more accurate picture in that they are physically on your body and tracking what you're doing and usually synched to gps for distance and terrain...elevation changes, etc. But even that is an estimate and the figure will generally be a gross figure rather than a net figure...meaning the calorie burn your device is providing you includes the calories you burned during that particular exercise as well as the calories you would have burned anyway during the duration of that exercise had you done something sit on the couch.

    The most important thing to remember is that most everything is an estimate (though there are some pretty accurate methods for certain things like cycling)...and that in general, we don't really burn the calories we think we do or feel like we do for a given exercise effort. Generally speaking, exercise (in the context of your average person) doesn't burn a ton of calories relative to what we burn merely existing and then going about our day to day. Exceptions would be namely long endurance activities for which a large calorie burn is the cumulative effect of many hours spent doing something with little to no rest.

Sign In or Register to comment.