same. That's why I like my amazefit watch more than my garmin. The garmin always estiated around 150-200 kcal more than the amazfit does now and I feel that the amazfit is more accurate (I have to work much harder to burn 500 kcal/day in comparison)
Of course! Because this will motivate us to burn more calories. But if it's the other way around it means we're gaining weight! So, I'm happy with under-reporting but I do hope that newer watch models get closer to the real deal.
I also thought the devices would largely overestimate calories, but with them showing lower calories burned than actual, I suppose they could somewhat balance the tendency of folks to underestimate their food as they are burning more than they think they are.
that's the problem. People already underestimate how many calories are in food, and now they overestimate how much they burn aswell. this leads to them not being able to lose weight, because it fucks with their calorie counitng.
Guys. He's saying that since people USUALLY overestimate calories burned while underestimating calories consumed, this error from the watches can assist those people with weight loss by simply making them think they're burning significantly less calories than they are. This will hold them to consuming less calories to "balance out" their CICO to either maintenance or a deficit. He's dead on
Consistency > accuracy. Getting a smart watch lets people hold themselves accountable. I think everyone understands it’s not accurate, but it’s something to encourage them to keep going. If you’re considering one, I highly suggest it as it’s helped so many people around me and inspired us to challenge each other etc., in a fun healthy way⌚️💪🏼
Yeah no. Accuracy is the most important factor in measuring anything to me. I want to know exactly how many calories I burned or at least a margin of error around 0.01
I was strength training and doing cardio religiously prior to getting a smartwatch, since getting it I do not like to see that I did not workout unless it is a rest day. I still try to always hit above 10K in steps as a result of getting the watch so the $100 that I spent on the watch was worth it.
Having a smart watch change the fitness game for me personally, I was grossly under eating or over eating and even having a good guesstimation is invaluable to me. I got in the best shape of my life after having a smart watch, it keeps me honest.
@@the.sundew Fitbit versa 2, I bought a better wristband for it on Amazon for around 20 bucks and it does everything I need. The Charge 5 is a better cheaper option, I will probably end up getting one at some point myself.
@@IzzyTaps yh I wasn't complaining or anything. I already thought that the tracker wouldn't be too accurate. It just gives me baseline of how active i am from day to day and so forth.
They do a pretty good job of tracking individual trends, habits and changes over time when regularly used. Same as a scale, or bioelectrical impedance scale that provide rough estimates of body composition. They don't have to be that accurate, just consistent in the metrics they provide. From there, it's up to the individual user to adjust their behavior and habits to see resultant changes in the data.
The problem is some of these devices aren't even consistent. If they're consistently reporting 15% less Calories, then that's fine. The problem is when we see something like Samsung where it doesn't take into account your heart rate, something that's very critical to detect workout intensity. This means that whether you're exercising lightly or intensely, you're bound to spend the same Calories depending solely on the duration.
I used to be really fat. I was on the verge of developing serious health conditions. I remember not being able to tie my shoelaces and my sleep suffered as well. My life changed when I finally set my mind to the thinking that anything is possible if you decide so. I took a meal plan to start with. I created it from Next Level Diet, which was super helpful to me at that moment. I didn't have to worry about calories, macros, nutrients and all that stuff. I just focused on walking long distances and exercising after I got on a level where I could do some simple workouts. I hope my story will inspire you to do the same. To change your body you must first change your mind!
Very fair points, but I do wanna stress the final one. For me, it has been a tremendous help to stay motivated, and adds an extra gameification aspect to working out
On my experience I feel like the later Apple watches are great at tracking running/stairmaster/stationary bike, but it might overestimate at lifting weights. But I read somewhere that when it overestimates is like 25% max. Which if you burn 300 calories, is only 70 calories. And if it were to underestimate that’s just a bonus. Is not as crazy as when people underestimate how many calories their sauces have
Mans was running at the speed of light @ 6:39 🤣🤣🤣 Your too funny Picture Fit but it is relatable. When I see that I’m losing a lot it motivates me more
Learning how to self regulate is one of the most important things. Nutrition Labels can be off, fitness trackers aren't 100%. It's good to have estimations, but most people still need to learn when to put the fork down (or pick it up 💪)
Funny thing about watches is that even if they're not too accurate regarding tracking burned kcal, for most people including me it's about getting involved in activities and see the numbers go up, and you also get a perspective of what 500 kcal means in terms of food and in terms of cardio. It's definitely has had a very positive impact on me. I prefer Polar watches as they have around 20% margin of error, but I prefer Garmin when it comes to features.
I like my Fitbit to track my steps just to get me moving a bit more & for tracking my cardio… I know it’s never going to be 100% accurate but at least it motivates me ..
Same, I use it for active minutes and steps. However, the calories always says I burn 4K calories everyday and I work form home so I don't think my 30 minutes on a spin bike will get me to that many burned lol.
@@joelhaak7906 that's interesting to me that it says that for 30 minutes of biking. I do a 4 mile run and 45 minutes of weight training every week day, and I rarely get over 3,300 for the day. That's a large discrepancy between two fitbits.
When cutting and bulking I always thought of it as more “how many calories do i eat relative to my average “watch calories” burned?” I understand the watch never accurate. But I do find, in my experience, the watch is pretty precise with its measurements based on my activity.
I do similar thing except without smart watches and any other fancy technology except for the weighting scale and reading the labels that include calories on the products that I eat. It doesn't really matter if I track calories that I eat perfectly, I know that by my tracking I burn around 2200 calories per day if I am not going for a long walk, or long swim or something similar during the day. Thus, every day I eat less than 2000 calories as I count them.
2:05 I've built electronic devices and worked with sensors (including medical sensors like heart-rate measurment), so I know how fickle they can be and how hard it can be to get consistent, reliable readings. I'm always baffled when I see commercial device that are supposed to be able to do stuff like this with any sort of accuracy. Normally, the kinds of devices that do high-precision work use extremely expensive sensors that are manufactured to incredibly high standards. But those are industrial things for the military or hospitals; I don't think you're going to find a consumer smart-watch with a $50,000 sensor in it. 😒 2:30 Yeah, that "secret complex proprietary algorithm" is how they compensate for the low quality of the sensors. When your sensor isn't very consistent or reliable, you have to resort to using software to crunch numbers to try to get a reading. For example, if the heart-rate monitor keeps giving weird spikes or gaps, you have to use math to average it out instead of just reporting the raw data (though even with good sensors, you never really want the raw data, you usually want _some_ level of processing and validation-most people won't shoot RAW, maybe only some professional photographers-but you NEED it with poor sensors). 2:34 Like with other sensors, accelerometers are not some magic device. Paul McWhorter has a couple of videos about his work in MEMS and he shows some footage of microscopic machines they developed, including some examples of accelerometers. Watch that and you can see how they might not be perfect. 2:58 Exactly. The nutrition information is just an _average_ of the nutrition information for that particular food, it can vary from serving to serving. That's why those with a medical condition who need very specific, tightly controlled nutrition, can't eat normal food, they have to eat food that's specifically manufactured to tight tolerances to have exactly the same nutrition information for every serving, that's why they're so much more expensive than regular food. For example, while a diabetic human can eat a meal, prick their finger to check their blood-glucose and administer a commensurate dosage of insulin, you can't really do that for babies and pets, that's just too nasty to keep pricking them. Instead, you feed them special (and expensive) diabetic baby/pet-food so you can give them the same dose of insulin every time. 3:48 Yeah, well I'm not surprised by Apple. iPhones tend to nag you about using your phone while driving even when you're the passenger or biking or on the bus or train, or running, or just walking past your car while it's on. 😒 5:10 Yes, the manufacturers updated their top-secret software since 2019: _result = result +100; //add fudge-factor_ 6:55 This is all just psychology, it's just "gamifying" fitness. That's not new, and doesn't need a smart-watch; there have been such apps for years. Most things can be gamified to improve commitment. 7:18 A smart-watch is no different than the blood-pressure machine in a pharmacy (or an Edison machine from Theranos if that had ever actually worked); they come with the warning: "personal use only, not medical diagnostics, see a doctor". 🤷
I can back most of this up. I have also worked with sensors that track location and hart-rate (in relation to developing devices for football players, you can check "Barin Sports") and they are an estimated average. Now, we did it with high precision, since we were mostly working for multi-million dollar teams, but it still worth saying that even if you buy a 1000$ device, it would still be quite inaccurate. To add to that: I am a natural bodybuilder, advanced nutritionist and advanced fitness coach, so I have the overview of how the body works and the way we associate technology with our organisms. As someone with extensive training experience I have created workout and meal programmes for my friends, that I have had the opportunity to observe closely on a daily basis, and it baffles me as to how can people trust devices more than their eyes in a long-term programme. Example: One of my friends wanted to lose weight so not only did I create an eating and training regiment, I also started essentially working out with him so I can stimulate him by example which resulted in him pushing his limits with minimal effort and achieving great results. He got so much into it he decided to buy an expensive watch that tracks your energy expenditure all the time (even when he sleeps), as well as a scale that supposedly measures bodyfat %. As someone that regularly uses very expensive aperture to do that myself, I was extremely sceptical to him spending his money on these products, though he nevertheless did. Here's what happened: When we started training his daily caloric needs were between 2800-3200 calories (as per a programme that had the goal of muscle gain). Once he started wearing that watch he told me his energy expenditure for 24 hours is 3500-4200, to which I was very very sceptical to even be close, however he had so much trust in it, he decided to ignore my warnings and experience and started listening to that watch. For that he adjusted his daily caloric intake to be above the mentioned 3500 (he went to 3700-4000) and not surprising to me, he started gaining fat. In Layman's terms: to gain muscle you need to eat about 100-200 calories more than you burn. Part of these will create muscle, part of these will accumulate fat, but the higher you go, the worse the muscle to fat ratio becomes. Despite my initial warnings, despite seeing the results in the mirror, and despite my follow-up reminder about identifying the problem since the start and dropping the watch statistics to fix the issue, he decided to keep trusting the watch, and keep gaining fat. This expensive watch caused him to get demoralized to the point where he hasn't been in the gym for more than 1 year, and while he isn't obese, he is skinny fat, with his tall and slim, but fat carrying figure. With my experience in both training myself, other people, and developing and using such technology, I have long ago concluded that the only statistics I can and should use reliably is the accuracy of the heart-rate, that I can use to determine when I enter or leave certain aerobic or anaerobic zones. And my advice to all of you would be to not spend your money on them. Better hire someone that understands your goals and can help you identify and create the necessary plan. You will also learn a lot on the way that will allow you to understand your body better.
Just to tack on I had a Garmin vivoactive 3 and frankly for any actual exercise the heart rate sensor was absolute trash, years later got the venu and somehow it seems to be within a relatively good hr accuracy range for workouts as a polar h10 heart rate chest monitor (considered accurate) I don’t have the energy for long amazing posts like the people above me But in my experience with all the other far more valuable knowledge gained already (diet, training, lifestyle/recovery) it is possible to use an extra device with sensors to gather extra input on how you are performing to make beneficial adjustments
I’ve been wearing a Fitbit for 7yr now. I take all the data with a grain of salt. However… the difference between my resting heart rate when I was a D1 swimmer to now (a regular person) is shocking and definitely a wake up call. My weight has actually pretty much stayed the same and besides visible reduction in muscle tone (which is expected) the resting rate is by far the biggest wake-up call. The biggest downside I’ve seen to the watch pretty much only applies to swimming, but it doesn’t count my laps when I kick with a kick board which is extremely annoying. But other then that I can’t complain much.
I tried putting the watch on my ankle to count laps and it went as poorly as you might think. I just try to count in my head (which doesn't work great either)!
I like using mine for heartrate and sleep data, I take calories burned with a grain of salt and cant wear doing martial arts so there's that, found using the fitbit app to record my food useful handy too
Get a heart rate chest strap! Start the activity on your watch, make sure the watch is connected to the chest strap, take off the watch... boom, problem solved!
I've been wearing my Apple Watch Series 3 for several years. I've been surprised that for every 10K, half and full marathon I've ran the watch reports a very accurate distance being off sometimes by less than 0.03 miles. But I agree with the calorie info being a rough estimate.
If it helps anyone, the heart rate monitor readings from the Honor Band 6 (the same as Huawei Band 6) is spot on with the Polar T31 chest strap. I've trainned for a week using both at the same time to compare them in real time and was VERY impressed. However, the distance/step counting is 100% useless, at least on a treadmill while holding the grip, so the calories counter should also be ignored. Since my training is based on "time exercising at a target heart rate" it doesn't matter to me.
Under reporting burned calories seems like it could actually be a good thing if the goal is to lose weight. Especially since so many people tend to already underestimate how much they eat if they're not tracking food intake closely.
My job’s physical requirements vary greatly day to day. Using a fitness tracker helps estimate how much more I’ve worked each day, and combined with an accurate scale, I can start to create a relatively accurate measurement of how much more/less calories to eat that day to reach my body composition goals. TLDR: fitness bands are a helpful tool that should be used alongside others to help reach your fitness goals.
Sadly I just lost someone in my life and given a fitbit versa lite. I like it for estimated steps and kinda like watching the heart rate. I feel it measures sleep fairly well (at least the time I am in my bed) but not sure about other data. I don't feel any of the data is highly accurate. But I have enjoyed the Stats as you mentioned and will continue to wear it. Thanks for the info! Great timing!
i have a garmin and everyone on the my highschool's xc team has one and we all get extremely similar results when running together. we have run the same 0.6 mile warmup everyday and the most my watch has gone off was 0.62 mile
This is so interesting and so funny at the same time! Thank you so much for the laugh and education. I was so surprised that they UNDER estimate more often than over.
I use FITBIT and super helpful it makes sure I get enough sleep by tracking it , let's me measure my activity levels with steps and lets me see my heart rate during those activities to know how far I have pushed. But I don't think it's most accurate but my resting heart rate has gone down after wearing it daily for months the actual figure may be incorrect but the fact it's gone down is huge motivation and keeps me going.
My watch largely overestimates by about 2.5 times. I have power metering cycling pedals, that gives relatively accurate power output. The issue with all the smartwatches is that they use heartrate, but the amount of mechanical power output for a given heartrate varies massively from person to person. They would have to be calibrated to your given stamina, and even then they would vary too much to ever be useful.
I wonder how accurate the sensors on equipment at gyms, particularly planet fitness are. Like I know it said on the stairs at mine that it can be off, but I wonder just how off it was. I mean I'd be on there for an hour or so and consistently keep my heart rate around 160 to 180, usually wouldn't burn much calories still tho. Idk
I find most of them are as accurate as my Apple Watch. I’ve checked both against each other and they tend to be within 5 bags a minute of each other. Not bad when you are looking at a heart rate of 120-170 mid exercise.
They are not very accurate and their error margin is enourmous. From 10% up to 60%. Depending on the length and intensity of what you are doing. I am a natural bodybuilder, advanced nutritionist and advanced fitness coach, and in addition to that I am a mobile developer that has worked with exactly this kind of technology. I like testing these kind of things, and here's just a single example: With a steady-state cardio that I hold between 120 and 160 BPM I can run 10km in about 80-100 minutes. This presumably burns 600-800 calories according to most devices. In my experience it would burn 400-500, thought that really depends on other physiological factors. At the same time over the last 4 years I have ran 3 marathons in a controlled environment, so I can track statistics. I tried keeping the same BPM goal, though at some point it was hard for my heart to recover fast and instead I was between 140 and 170 BPM, which is still not bad for me, as I am quite athletic. The goal here was to attempt to eliminate oxygen hunger. I ran all 3 marathons (42 kilometers) with times between 6:45 and 6:59. So just under 7 hours of running (with small toilet breaks). According to the machines I was burning between 2200 and 2600 calories, which does not make sense, because in the long run I am getting lower calories burned per hour, despite having a higher chance of being oxygen deficient and running at a higher BPM. So you can see that these machines can overshoot, and undershoot drastically, and I personally don't trust them.
My smart watch was the single best thing I've bought for my fitness lifestyle. I was getting about 3k steps per day and since I've gotten my watch I've been able to hold myself accountable and now I get 10-15k steps per day and in the last 3 weeks since having it I have dropped 15 pounds.
I’ve always found that Apple watches over estimate calories burned (though from this video perhaps either not or not as much) while Garmin underestimate them but would agree as long as you get consistent reading for similar activities smart watches are a great way to track trend and increase activity levels.
As it was said, it’s better to under report than to over report. So if my Apple Watch says I burned 3000 calories in a day when it was really 3500 you’ll still be in a calorie deficit if your eating correctly. So to me that is a win
Surprised to see that the watches UNDER reported calories burned. In my experience with a fitbit, it was telling me I was cranking through 3500-5000 calories every day, even on off days when I did fuck all. Being a 5'6 165lb man, I suspected this was over-reporting my calories burned by at least 1000.
I think they serve their purpose. I've always assumed that my Fitbit isn't entirely accurate especially when I get steps counted from driving and to work every day. Recently I've used it to track my meals and macros and again, not entirely accurate. But just having that rough estimate of calories in/out is extremely helpful. You just have to know you can't take the data at face value.
I've been using the Amazfit T Rex for a month now, and the heart rate and calories tracking is almost identical to the cardio machines in the gym when using simultaneously, so I'm pretty happy with it
Been using mine for bout a year. Been very nice that it's been durable, although I'd like a few more features and a little more precision in certain things, but this watch is a super stable for me. Totally agree
Garmin is "close" which works for me. After you put in your height, weight, stride, rest vs. Active heart rate, FFMI, est. body fat%, age, and all other things into the app it can get "close". Rest days It'll say I burned about 2200-2300 cals which is accurate, normal fitness days I'll get around 2800, every now and then it'll bump to something absurd like 3500 but I know it's an outlier. And hey, they can only get better.
When I compare the calories burned from my Apple Watch vs the output from my Kickr Bike (which uses power meters and all that to calculate your power output, which is more accurate than HR alone) I find that the Apple Watch underestimates in that scenario. Same goes for my Concept2 Rower - Watch underestimates calories in comparison. I trust the equipment in these scenarios and overwrite calories burned since they use more accurate methods to estimate calories burned. When I run outside, the calories burned estimate flips and I find the Apple Watch overestimates slightly. When weight lifting I don't even try to track calories burned and typically replace calories burned with like 150 for weight lifting because lifting weights doesn't really burn many calories and consensus seems to be between 100 and 300. I don't really need the Apple Watch to be perfect, I just need it to be consistently inconsistent so I can account for it and tweak as needed.
I never really figured how inaccurate the watch was, but always subconsciously knew it was an estimation at best. My assumption like that mentioned, is that the manufacturers update their algorithms and formulae in the devices to improve said accuracy. Apple's ECG app/feature has to pass medical approval, and here in the UK the claim is that "In a clinical study using a 12-lead ECG as a reference device, the ECG app demonstrated 99.6% specificity in classifying sinus rhythm and 98.3% sensitivity in classifying AF for the classifiable results." But ultimately, it's a guide, a tool to use and I find it's most motivating by showing trends. It fascinates me how it gathers certain data (like how does it know when I'm sleeping or just sitting doing nothing?), but the results of that have guided me by the trends it generates.
I credit my Garmin Vivoactive for at LEAST 25% of my success in getting into the best shape of my life. I think the key for any calorie counting watch is consistency. If you count your calories carefully, weigh yourself regularly, and the watch measures calories consistently across activities then it doesn’t matter how much your actually burning. If the calories burned on the watch is greater than what you counted at each meal, then you just need to weigh yourself over the course of several months to know exactly what your average burned calories are. If you lost 5 lbs in 5 weeks and your watch had you at a 600 calorie deficit, then you know you’re watch is probably over estimating a bit. Regardless, my watch gave me a baseline and seeing the numbers tick up throughout the day is gratifying.
I like fitness tracking watches because of two things: 1) A watch, so I can tell the time. 2) A watch that can help me track general trends of how intense a workout goes. I can notice I worked out a lot better when I actually put in a lot more effort into my cardio, than when I don't. Which can help me get a good idea on how much calories I burned and how much I should eat.
I got a Fitbit charge 5 and it is quite bad at calorie tracking (gives me on average like 3.5-4k per day, if I ate that I'd be hella fat in mo time, I maintain at 2700-2800). What is great though is the sleep tracking and step counting. And if you find out how much you maintain at the calories are a way to show your activity level beyond just steps. It's not perfect but to me it was worth it (plus it's a nice smartwatch I can wear 24/7 without problem, so I have all the features like stopwatch/alarm/timers)
The think the heart rate monitor feature is the most useful feature of smart watches. It gives you an idea of how much you can exert yourself before it's too much.
As so many other people are saying here, it's not about the accuracy, nobody thinks that a smartwatch can perfectly track all the metrics involved in fitness activities. It's just a a helpful tool, you see on your watch you burned 5 calories all day in the evening, you skip on the ice cream, you see 1000 calories burned you treat yourself to a nice steak dinner. It's a tool, it has limitations and it is your responsibility to educated yourself about them and to learn how to use that tool to your advantage. All tools are flawed to a degree, from supercomputers to screwdrivers, the person who uses the tool must be aware of all pluses and minuses and use the tool accordingly.
I always used my food app to estimate the amount of calories I needed to eat to gain weight. However since getting my Apple Watch, I noticed my calories burned being roughly 300 or 400 more than what I'm eating. So I can say that due to my Apple Watch I am finally gaining that weight I've wanted to!
I just got a versa 3, wore it for the first time yesterday. My only exercise was a 30 minute incline walk. I'm 200lbs, 29 yrs okd. My calorie burn was supposedly over 5000 kcals for the day. I did 9500 steps
I used to work at Garmin and our watches do not accurately track calories. Garmin uses a formula that roughly calculates calories burned with your total heart beat. Put simply, the more heart beat you produce, the more calories the watch registers. It only provides a rough idea of how active you've been.
I didn't expect my smartwatch to be more than a general guess when I saw that it measures calories burned. I bought it to measure 10K steps and control Spotify without pulling my phone out of my pocket at work.
I wear a whoop, And based on research and their own Admission the estimate “is there because people want it… but their HR linked Calorie prediction has a +-30% inaccuracy” so If I want to eat a little more when cutting, I just add 70% of the prediction to my calorie intake
I use Huawei Honor, I found after 2 years of wearing that it's most useful to me for tracking my steps counting daily and make sure I stay active throughout my working times at the office. I think the best way to really track calories is by knowing your RMR, track the calories intake and track weigth loss or gains in a long period of time. Since I care more about muscle mass I track that by strength performance and looking in the mirror.
I assumed it would over report calories burned. Because of that, I never put in any activity, just let it read my heart rate. The information in the video is interesting.
Based on those studies is there a clear cut or a preferred fitness watch you would suggest? I just bought the Garmim vivoactive 4, so wanted to see what your opinion was on that. Thank you in advance!! 😁
Gloves mostly are a personal choice, no real performance pros or cons, none that are substantial at least. Lifting shoes just artificially increase ankle mobility by lifting the heels, this allows the tibula fibula angles compare to the ground to be more extreme, better for getting deep into squats if you struggle with that. That’s the main benefit of lifting shoes.
I have controlled my measurements using my own long-term measurements of in/output and energy expenditure due to exercise and I was surprised how well my tracker estimates what I burn. It works so well that I can 95% rely on those numbers to create a calorie deficit, which just totally makes my day. But actually, I don't even want to long term. I am just interested in keeping my step count up, and training for a half marathon. So I use the GPS, heart rate monitor, sometimes sleep tracker, and that's it.
I have always told people to use the smart watch as a baseline comparison when increasing activity. - Wear it for two weeks without paying attention to it. - Start increasing activity - NEVER activate exercise modes manually (they jack calorie estimates like crazy) - Use data as part of your plan of action I personally aim to fill the 500 calorie ring without activating exercise mode, not cause I think it's actually 500 cals for the day, but I sleep way better when I do. Just remember, if you become obsessive, throw it out
6:48 Couldn't the causality easily be the reverse? It'd be that people starting to exercise more are more likely to buy a smart watch, rather than the other way around.
For running, Garmin is the best watch out there. Also, apple watches are not even close to Garmin in terms of accuracy/quality (which specialises in smart watch manufacturing for years before Apple entered the market). Its like comparing Mercedes to Chevy.
I believe it's more important to use the same device consistently. It doesn't have to be accurate as a chamber. It just needs to be consistent. And, if consistent, then it can be used for tracking.
But there is one question left: How good are those old school heart monitors from polar? You know, those where you had to strap a belt around your chest so you can monitor your heart rate.
Can confidently say that the calorie measuring of all smartwatches/fitness bands are complete nonsense. HOWEVER. These things did get very, and I mean very accurate in terms of step counting. And if you know your step distance, height, kg, etc. you can actually calculate your calorie expenditure yourself with the steps you are doing. Which is an excellent way of calculating cardio calories. That, and the heart rate tracker (although that is not quite as accurate as the step counter) are the only 2 reliable measurements they are capable of doing though. Also note that the step counter only is hitting accurately when you WALK. This does not apply to running, jump roping or any other exercise. You'll also be stepcounted for doing bicep curls sometimes, but if you're grinding, you can count those steps validly as you burn some calories on a curl too. Just in case anyone is wondering if these are worth buying, if you do ~20k steps/day like me, this is a very good investment since you can track the steps from morning to evening comfortably. If you just want to buy one because you want to know how your "sleep quality" is - don't bother.
I love my watch as a step-counter, calander, music remote and voice to reminder. Everything else is whatever, I'd not spend money on it but having gotten it for free I genuinely enjoy it.
It's pretty basic why the watches under report. Some heart rate pulses are not felt due to watch tightness, processing glitches, or lack of sensitivity to vibration.
I've noticed huge inconsistencies especially with the Apple Watch. This one time a friend and I played badminton, with me playing for a little longer. But my smart band said I burned 250 calories but her Apple Watch said 600 calories, which is insane.
Did either of you start a workout when you started playing, or did you go off it just tracking general calorie burn? I've heard that for certain activities you have to start a workout of some kind for whatever reason. I think it's because it uses a different algorithm when calculating active calories from working out in conjunction with the calories you'd burn just existing. I don't know though. It's all a little confusing lol
You know that even though you’ve been doing the same sports simultaneously doesn’t mean burning the same amount of calories right? My gf and I do a lot of sports but she generally burns a lot less just by being way smaller and less muscular.
When you exercise, your body makes up for it in other ways by making you more hungry, sleep more, move less. It is very tough to truly burn 100s of cals consistently from exercise alone, especially since your body compensates. In my experience, I do fine by focusing on creating a calorie deficit from making small, long lasting, changes to my diet. I only count exercise calories if i do more than 15 mins of cardio, and even then I only use half of what fitness apps tell me when calculating my calories. Strength training hardly burns any, so i never count it. People tend to overestimate their TDEE. Some people will say they are "active" when filling out the TDEE questionnaire because they go to the gym regularly, which brings up their TDEE. Then they will count the calories burned from their exercise, which is a bad idea because their TDEE already accounts for it because it is an "active" TDEE.
Turn off the fitness apps, put the Mick Gordon Doom Soundtrack on it and sync it up to your earbuds. You'll burn far more calories running like a doom slayer than checking your step count every 12 seconds.
Putting aside the worst smartbands or the ones with fake instruments. If a fitness band or watch is consistent and precise with its reading it is good idea to use it. You don't need accurate measurements everytime, all you need is precise measurements. Having a little error won't Matter if the sample set is big enough.
These newer wrist based monitors are quite a bit better than the ones from even just 3-4 years ago. I have paired my Apple Watch SE with a chest strap and it’s pretty close, even with strength workouts. With older wrist based ones it would only be close if I wasn’t gripping anything and my hand wasn’t relaxed. These studies aren’t as relevant in regards to heart rate as the tech has gotten better. Calorie expenditure is super hard to estimate but using a watch is a decent rough number. As a doctor of physical therapist with a degree in exercise physiology, you can’t get much more accurate without using unrealistic equipment. Apple and other companies simply use the same formulas for estimating VO2 max with weight height, etc. they can’t account for things like genetics, body type, metabolism, % body fat etc. they will always be off. I think you hit the nail on the head though, knowing how many calories go in you is far more important than what you expend through exercise. I know ultra marathon runners who struggle to lose any weight because they don’t watch their diet close enough. So despite running an insane amount of miles, they are still heavy.
I'm not sure how accurate they really are but i have been using a Samsung Gear S3 for years and when i needed to lost weight the tracked calories burn were perfectly align with my rate of weight loss.
I really thought it would be over reporting, i follow my fitness with heart rate strap and usually take the calories burned with a grain of salt but when you do quite a bit of exercise it is nice to know that the calories that the watch is showing is actually under the actual expenditure.
Fun fact: despite having equipped with heart rate monitor, Samsung devices and Samsung Health do NOT use your heart rate to count calories burnt. Even if it display to you the heart rate. You'll realize this that your most intense 10 minutes workout will produce the exact same calorie burnt compared to 10 minutes of sitting and watching TV as long as you select the same workout.
I track my calories in a notebook and adjust my calorie intake based on how much weight I lose over the course of a few weeks of taking readings from my scale. Trying to lose a certain amount of fat before I focus more on the gym, so my cardio routine stays the same, the only thing I adjust is my diet. So these trackers have always seemed like a waste of money.
I track calories burned but not for the reason you may think. I usually rely on calorie counters. However, I only assume that I burned 50% of what is shown and I do not eat what I burn. I only use burned calories as a reason to make myself workout harder and as a measure of how hard I workout.
From the beginning of getting a fitbit to my purchase of an apple watch I always used the data to construct an understanding of the relevance of the numbers.
I gave up on relying on accurate numbers the moment I realized I got my stand goal…by sitting. But I wouldn’t have been motivated to even workout in the first place if it wasn’t for my Apple Watch. Seeing the estimated calories burned and the amount of time in the gym is another kind of high for me.
It's accurate enough for me. I'm ending my diet today after getting my fitbit. -1000 cal diet for 11 weeks with mostly running/ push-ups, and I've lost 21 pounds. Now, I just have to slowly figure out how to eat like a person.
Admittedly I'd prefer under reporting rather than over lol
Exactly what I'm thinking. If it encourages me to burn MORE calories than i think I've burned while continuing to eat the same it is good by me
Same, i see this as an absolute win. Especially if youre just doing your program based of your TDEE anyway
Exactly. I’d rather have burned more calories than I thought I did.
same. That's why I like my amazefit watch more than my garmin. The garmin always estiated around 150-200 kcal more than the amazfit does now and I feel that the amazfit is more accurate (I have to work much harder to burn 500 kcal/day in comparison)
Of course! Because this will motivate us to burn more calories. But if it's the other way around it means we're gaining weight! So, I'm happy with under-reporting but I do hope that newer watch models get closer to the real deal.
I also thought the devices would largely overestimate calories, but with them showing lower calories burned than actual, I suppose they could somewhat balance the tendency of folks to underestimate their food as they are burning more than they think they are.
that's the problem. People already underestimate how many calories are in food, and now they overestimate how much they burn aswell. this leads to them not being able to lose weight, because it fucks with their calorie counitng.
thats the opposite of balancing out...
Guys. He's saying that since people USUALLY overestimate calories burned while underestimating calories consumed, this error from the watches can assist those people with weight loss by simply making them think they're burning significantly less calories than they are. This will hold them to consuming less calories to "balance out" their CICO to either maintenance or a deficit. He's dead on
@@adhir.8348 how? It is balancing
@@stonehillproductions129 he said the watches underestimate calories
Consistency > accuracy. Getting a smart watch lets people hold themselves accountable. I think everyone understands it’s not accurate, but it’s something to encourage them to keep going. If you’re considering one, I highly suggest it as it’s helped so many people around me and inspired us to challenge each other etc., in a fun healthy way⌚️💪🏼
true, since I got the little watch I am way way more active and compete with friends weekly
Yeah no. Accuracy is the most important factor in measuring anything to me. I want to know exactly how many calories I burned or at least a margin of error around 0.01
@@petelee2477 then this wont cut it :/
THIS! this is so true. i like how the apple watch lets you challenge friends. it just makes it a bit more fun to have a little competetion lol.
@@petelee2477 The answer pretty much always is: Not much. Which isn't very precise, but it is accurate
I was strength training and doing cardio religiously prior to getting a smartwatch, since getting it I do not like to see that I did not workout unless it is a rest day. I still try to always hit above 10K in steps as a result of getting the watch so the $100 that I spent on the watch was worth it.
Especially if it helps you stay tuned into the process.💪🏽
I’m the exact same, the Watch sits on my desk when I don’t workout. It’s only ever on when I’m active but I’d agree it was still worth it 👍🏼
@@Fitness4longevity Exactly! I literally do not wear any of my other watches. Those are now a waste of money...lol
What smartwatch did you get?
@@sirblack1619 miband is cheap and alright but the idle steps counter and calorie counter on mine is broken and vastly overestimates it
Having a smart watch change the fitness game for me personally, I was grossly under eating or over eating and even having a good guesstimation is invaluable to me. I got in the best shape of my life after having a smart watch, it keeps me honest.
💪🏽
which kind did you get?
@@the.sundew Fitbit versa 2, I bought a better wristband for it on Amazon for around 20 bucks and it does everything I need. The Charge 5 is a better cheaper option, I will probably end up getting one at some point myself.
Me: Buys a fitness tracker
Picture fit literally two days later:
😂
Literally within 24 hours for me 😂
Better to be under actual burned calories. So you lose more weight than actually planned.
@@IzzyTaps yh I wasn't complaining or anything. I already thought that the tracker wouldn't be too accurate. It just gives me baseline of how active i am from day to day and so forth.
@@jesse-jamesahlijah6266 I know you weren’t complaining bro don’t worry :). Stay active!
They do a pretty good job of tracking individual trends, habits and changes over time when regularly used. Same as a scale, or bioelectrical impedance scale that provide rough estimates of body composition. They don't have to be that accurate, just consistent in the metrics they provide. From there, it's up to the individual user to adjust their behavior and habits to see resultant changes in the data.
Well said!
This.
The problem is some of these devices aren't even consistent. If they're consistently reporting 15% less Calories, then that's fine. The problem is when we see something like Samsung where it doesn't take into account your heart rate, something that's very critical to detect workout intensity. This means that whether you're exercising lightly or intensely, you're bound to spend the same Calories depending solely on the duration.
I was also surprised when my dad showed me his watch report of the day after a day skiing in the resort. Reported other things like speed.
I used to be really fat. I was on the verge of developing serious health conditions. I remember not being able to tie my shoelaces and my sleep suffered as well. My life changed when I finally set my mind to the thinking that anything is possible if you decide so. I took a meal plan to start with. I created it from Next Level Diet, which was super helpful to me at that moment. I didn't have to worry about calories, macros, nutrients and all that stuff. I just focused on walking long distances and exercising after I got on a level where I could do some simple workouts. I hope my story will inspire you to do the same. To change your body you must first change your mind!
Did you use a tracking watch during that?
You didn’t tell us if you actually lost body fat and how much and you failed to say anything about a fitness tracker. What a useless comment
I feel personally attacked by these noises. Loved the vid
Very fair points, but I do wanna stress the final one. For me, it has been a tremendous help to stay motivated, and adds an extra gameification aspect to working out
On my experience I feel like the later Apple watches are great at tracking running/stairmaster/stationary bike, but it might overestimate at lifting weights. But I read somewhere that when it overestimates is like 25% max. Which if you burn 300 calories, is only 70 calories. And if it were to underestimate that’s just a bonus. Is not as crazy as when people underestimate how many calories their sauces have
All of them do, even if you use a HR chest monitor. Strength training is, ironically I guess, their kryptonite.
Mans was running at the speed of light @ 6:39 🤣🤣🤣 Your too funny Picture Fit but it is relatable. When I see that I’m losing a lot it motivates me more
Learning how to self regulate is one of the most important things. Nutrition Labels can be off, fitness trackers aren't 100%. It's good to have estimations, but most people still need to learn when to put the fork down (or pick it up 💪)
Exactly, and tracking your weight trend over time is the only way to really know if you are getting the desired results.
or both for the best results
No they cannot
Hello dad
Greg is here
I find that it’s simply a personal motivator.
Getting even just a little motivation is helpful.
Funny thing about watches is that even if they're not too accurate regarding tracking burned kcal, for most people including me it's about getting involved in activities and see the numbers go up, and you also get a perspective of what 500 kcal means in terms of food and in terms of cardio. It's definitely has had a very positive impact on me. I prefer Polar watches as they have around 20% margin of error, but I prefer Garmin when it comes to features.
I like my Fitbit to track my steps just to get me moving a bit more & for tracking my cardio…
I know it’s never going to be 100% accurate but at least it motivates me ..
Same, I use it for active minutes and steps. However, the calories always says I burn 4K calories everyday and I work form home so I don't think my 30 minutes on a spin bike will get me to that many burned lol.
@@joelhaak7906 that's interesting to me that it says that for 30 minutes of biking. I do a 4 mile run and 45 minutes of weight training every week day, and I rarely get over 3,300 for the day. That's a large discrepancy between two fitbits.
When cutting and bulking I always thought of it as more “how many calories do i eat relative to my average “watch calories” burned?” I understand the watch never accurate. But I do find, in my experience, the watch is pretty precise with its measurements based on my activity.
I do similar thing except without smart watches and any other fancy technology except for the weighting scale and reading the labels that include calories on the products that I eat. It doesn't really matter if I track calories that I eat perfectly, I know that by my tracking I burn around 2200 calories per day if I am not going for a long walk, or long swim or something similar during the day. Thus, every day I eat less than 2000 calories as I count them.
2:05 I've built electronic devices and worked with sensors (including medical sensors like heart-rate measurment), so I know how fickle they can be and how hard it can be to get consistent, reliable readings. I'm always baffled when I see commercial device that are supposed to be able to do stuff like this with any sort of accuracy. Normally, the kinds of devices that do high-precision work use extremely expensive sensors that are manufactured to incredibly high standards. But those are industrial things for the military or hospitals; I don't think you're going to find a consumer smart-watch with a $50,000 sensor in it. 😒
2:30 Yeah, that "secret complex proprietary algorithm" is how they compensate for the low quality of the sensors. When your sensor isn't very consistent or reliable, you have to resort to using software to crunch numbers to try to get a reading. For example, if the heart-rate monitor keeps giving weird spikes or gaps, you have to use math to average it out instead of just reporting the raw data (though even with good sensors, you never really want the raw data, you usually want _some_ level of processing and validation-most people won't shoot RAW, maybe only some professional photographers-but you NEED it with poor sensors).
2:34 Like with other sensors, accelerometers are not some magic device. Paul McWhorter has a couple of videos about his work in MEMS and he shows some footage of microscopic machines they developed, including some examples of accelerometers. Watch that and you can see how they might not be perfect.
2:58 Exactly. The nutrition information is just an _average_ of the nutrition information for that particular food, it can vary from serving to serving. That's why those with a medical condition who need very specific, tightly controlled nutrition, can't eat normal food, they have to eat food that's specifically manufactured to tight tolerances to have exactly the same nutrition information for every serving, that's why they're so much more expensive than regular food. For example, while a diabetic human can eat a meal, prick their finger to check their blood-glucose and administer a commensurate dosage of insulin, you can't really do that for babies and pets, that's just too nasty to keep pricking them. Instead, you feed them special (and expensive) diabetic baby/pet-food so you can give them the same dose of insulin every time.
3:48 Yeah, well I'm not surprised by Apple. iPhones tend to nag you about using your phone while driving even when you're the passenger or biking or on the bus or train, or running, or just walking past your car while it's on. 😒
5:10 Yes, the manufacturers updated their top-secret software since 2019: _result = result +100; //add fudge-factor_
6:55 This is all just psychology, it's just "gamifying" fitness. That's not new, and doesn't need a smart-watch; there have been such apps for years. Most things can be gamified to improve commitment.
7:18 A smart-watch is no different than the blood-pressure machine in a pharmacy (or an Edison machine from Theranos if that had ever actually worked); they come with the warning: "personal use only, not medical diagnostics, see a doctor". 🤷
Very informative response 👍️
I can back most of this up. I have also worked with sensors that track location and hart-rate (in relation to developing devices for football players, you can check "Barin Sports") and they are an estimated average. Now, we did it with high precision, since we were mostly working for multi-million dollar teams, but it still worth saying that even if you buy a 1000$ device, it would still be quite inaccurate.
To add to that: I am a natural bodybuilder, advanced nutritionist and advanced fitness coach, so I have the overview of how the body works and the way we associate technology with our organisms. As someone with extensive training experience I have created workout and meal programmes for my friends, that I have had the opportunity to observe closely on a daily basis, and it baffles me as to how can people trust devices more than their eyes in a long-term programme. Example:
One of my friends wanted to lose weight so not only did I create an eating and training regiment, I also started essentially working out with him so I can stimulate him by example which resulted in him pushing his limits with minimal effort and achieving great results. He got so much into it he decided to buy an expensive watch that tracks your energy expenditure all the time (even when he sleeps), as well as a scale that supposedly measures bodyfat %. As someone that regularly uses very expensive aperture to do that myself, I was extremely sceptical to him spending his money on these products, though he nevertheless did. Here's what happened:
When we started training his daily caloric needs were between 2800-3200 calories (as per a programme that had the goal of muscle gain). Once he started wearing that watch he told me his energy expenditure for 24 hours is 3500-4200, to which I was very very sceptical to even be close, however he had so much trust in it, he decided to ignore my warnings and experience and started listening to that watch. For that he adjusted his daily caloric intake to be above the mentioned 3500 (he went to 3700-4000) and not surprising to me, he started gaining fat.
In Layman's terms: to gain muscle you need to eat about 100-200 calories more than you burn. Part of these will create muscle, part of these will accumulate fat, but the higher you go, the worse the muscle to fat ratio becomes.
Despite my initial warnings, despite seeing the results in the mirror, and despite my follow-up reminder about identifying the problem since the start and dropping the watch statistics to fix the issue, he decided to keep trusting the watch, and keep gaining fat. This expensive watch caused him to get demoralized to the point where he hasn't been in the gym for more than 1 year, and while he isn't obese, he is skinny fat, with his tall and slim, but fat carrying figure.
With my experience in both training myself, other people, and developing and using such technology, I have long ago concluded that the only statistics I can and should use reliably is the accuracy of the heart-rate, that I can use to determine when I enter or leave certain aerobic or anaerobic zones.
And my advice to all of you would be to not spend your money on them. Better hire someone that understands your goals and can help you identify and create the necessary plan. You will also learn a lot on the way that will allow you to understand your body better.
That's a lot of knowledge
Thanks a lot for the clarification
Just to tack on I had a Garmin vivoactive 3 and frankly for any actual exercise the heart rate sensor was absolute trash, years later got the venu and somehow it seems to be within a relatively good hr accuracy range for workouts as a polar h10 heart rate chest monitor (considered accurate)
I don’t have the energy for long amazing posts like the people above me
But in my experience with all the other far more valuable knowledge gained already (diet, training, lifestyle/recovery) it is possible to use an extra device with sensors to gather extra input on how you are performing to make beneficial adjustments
I’ve been wearing a Fitbit for 7yr now. I take all the data with a grain of salt. However… the difference between my resting heart rate when I was a D1 swimmer to now (a regular person) is shocking and definitely a wake up call. My weight has actually pretty much stayed the same and besides visible reduction in muscle tone (which is expected) the resting rate is by far the biggest wake-up call.
The biggest downside I’ve seen to the watch pretty much only applies to swimming, but it doesn’t count my laps when I kick with a kick board which is extremely annoying. But other then that I can’t complain much.
I tried putting the watch on my ankle to count laps and it went as poorly as you might think. I just try to count in my head (which doesn't work great either)!
I like using mine for heartrate and sleep data, I take calories burned with a grain of salt and cant wear doing martial arts so there's that, found using the fitbit app to record my food useful handy too
Get a heart rate chest strap! Start the activity on your watch, make sure the watch is connected to the chest strap, take off the watch... boom, problem solved!
I've been wearing my Apple Watch Series 3 for several years. I've been surprised that for every 10K, half and full marathon I've ran the watch reports a very accurate distance being off sometimes by less than 0.03 miles. But I agree with the calorie info being a rough estimate.
If it helps anyone, the heart rate monitor readings from the Honor Band 6 (the same as Huawei Band 6) is spot on with the Polar T31 chest strap. I've trainned for a week using both at the same time to compare them in real time and was VERY impressed. However, the distance/step counting is 100% useless, at least on a treadmill while holding the grip, so the calories counter should also be ignored. Since my training is based on "time exercising at a target heart rate" it doesn't matter to me.
Broo. Just got a fitbit and this drops? The gains lords blessed us
Under reporting burned calories seems like it could actually be a good thing if the goal is to lose weight. Especially since so many people tend to already underestimate how much they eat if they're not tracking food intake closely.
My job’s physical requirements vary greatly day to day. Using a fitness tracker helps estimate how much more I’ve worked each day, and combined with an accurate scale, I can start to create a relatively accurate measurement of how much more/less calories to eat that day to reach my body composition goals.
TLDR: fitness bands are a helpful tool that should be used alongside others to help reach your fitness goals.
Sadly I just lost someone in my life and given a fitbit versa lite. I like it for estimated steps and kinda like watching the heart rate.
I feel it measures sleep fairly well (at least the time I am in my bed) but not sure about other data. I don't feel any of the data is highly accurate.
But I have enjoyed the Stats as you mentioned and will continue to wear it. Thanks for the info! Great timing!
Smartwatches can't count absolute calories, but they can count relative calories burned. At that is basically what folks need.
This is a very good way of putting it!
i have a garmin and everyone on the my highschool's xc team has one and we all get extremely similar results when running together. we have run the same 0.6 mile warmup everyday and the most my watch has gone off was 0.62 mile
I love how you mentioned the devices specifically by brand.
This is so interesting and so funny at the same time! Thank you so much for the laugh and education. I was so surprised that they UNDER estimate more often than over.
I use FITBIT and super helpful it makes sure I get enough sleep by tracking it , let's me measure my activity levels with steps and lets me see my heart rate during those activities to know how far I have pushed. But I don't think it's most accurate but my resting heart rate has gone down after wearing it daily for months the actual figure may be incorrect but the fact it's gone down is huge motivation and keeps me going.
My watch largely overestimates by about 2.5 times. I have power metering cycling pedals, that gives relatively accurate power output. The issue with all the smartwatches is that they use heartrate, but the amount of mechanical power output for a given heartrate varies massively from person to person. They would have to be calibrated to your given stamina, and even then they would vary too much to ever be useful.
Your edits are awesome! The info is on point and made my day!
I wonder how accurate the sensors on equipment at gyms, particularly planet fitness are. Like I know it said on the stairs at mine that it can be off, but I wonder just how off it was. I mean I'd be on there for an hour or so and consistently keep my heart rate around 160 to 180, usually wouldn't burn much calories still tho. Idk
I find most of them are as accurate as my Apple Watch. I’ve checked both against each other and they tend to be within 5 bags a minute of each other. Not bad when you are looking at a heart rate of 120-170 mid exercise.
They are not very accurate and their error margin is enourmous. From 10% up to 60%. Depending on the length and intensity of what you are doing. I am a natural bodybuilder, advanced nutritionist and advanced fitness coach, and in addition to that I am a mobile developer that has worked with exactly this kind of technology. I like testing these kind of things, and here's just a single example:
With a steady-state cardio that I hold between 120 and 160 BPM I can run 10km in about 80-100 minutes. This presumably burns 600-800 calories according to most devices. In my experience it would burn 400-500, thought that really depends on other physiological factors.
At the same time over the last 4 years I have ran 3 marathons in a controlled environment, so I can track statistics. I tried keeping the same BPM goal, though at some point it was hard for my heart to recover fast and instead I was between 140 and 170 BPM, which is still not bad for me, as I am quite athletic. The goal here was to attempt to eliminate oxygen hunger.
I ran all 3 marathons (42 kilometers) with times between 6:45 and 6:59. So just under 7 hours of running (with small toilet breaks). According to the machines I was burning between 2200 and 2600 calories, which does not make sense, because in the long run I am getting lower calories burned per hour, despite having a higher chance of being oxygen deficient and running at a higher BPM. So you can see that these machines can overshoot, and undershoot drastically, and I personally don't trust them.
Increase your heart rate to at least 120 when doing cardio, way better for heart health
@@MethodicalGaming yeah no, my bad, I mean 160 to 180. Lol
Yeah. Stair master doesn’t know my height and weight. It’s usually 50% less then what my watch shows
My smart watch was the single best thing I've bought for my fitness lifestyle. I was getting about 3k steps per day and since I've gotten my watch I've been able to hold myself accountable and now I get 10-15k steps per day and in the last 3 weeks since having it I have dropped 15 pounds.
1.4 pounds per day? How did you do it? Just steps?
@@GrandmaSezSo Definitely monitoring food intake as well
I actually look forward to these vids! 😂
I’ve been reloading my UA-cam constantly to see if I’ve missed it
Thanks!
It doesn't matter if its accurate or not. It gets people doing shit when they normally wouldnt
I’ve always found that Apple watches over estimate calories burned (though from this video perhaps either not or not as much) while Garmin underestimate them but would agree as long as you get consistent reading for similar activities smart watches are a great way to track trend and increase activity levels.
I can tell when I'm getting sick cause my resting heart rate will be different.
As it was said, it’s better to under report than to over report. So if my Apple Watch says I burned 3000 calories in a day when it was really 3500 you’ll still be in a calorie deficit if your eating correctly. So to me that is a win
Surprised to see that the watches UNDER reported calories burned. In my experience with a fitbit, it was telling me I was cranking through 3500-5000 calories every day, even on off days when I did fuck all. Being a 5'6 165lb man, I suspected this was over-reporting my calories burned by at least 1000.
What you do is truly awesome man. Thanks
I think they serve their purpose. I've always assumed that my Fitbit isn't entirely accurate especially when I get steps counted from driving and to work every day. Recently I've used it to track my meals and macros and again, not entirely accurate. But just having that rough estimate of calories in/out is extremely helpful. You just have to know you can't take the data at face value.
1:20…PictureFit has Police puns for days!
I've been using the Amazfit T Rex for a month now, and the heart rate and calories tracking is almost identical to the cardio machines in the gym when using simultaneously, so I'm pretty happy with it
Been using mine for bout a year. Been very nice that it's been durable, although I'd like a few more features and a little more precision in certain things, but this watch is a super stable for me. Totally agree
Garmin is "close" which works for me. After you put in your height, weight, stride, rest vs. Active heart rate, FFMI, est. body fat%, age, and all other things into the app it can get "close". Rest days It'll say I burned about 2200-2300 cals which is accurate, normal fitness days I'll get around 2800, every now and then it'll bump to something absurd like 3500 but I know it's an outlier. And hey, they can only get better.
bro welcome back we've missed you
Underreporting? Damn so my 400kcal burned while running could be higher!? Thats great! I've been improving a lot lately and never felt better.
When I compare the calories burned from my Apple Watch vs the output from my Kickr Bike (which uses power meters and all that to calculate your power output, which is more accurate than HR alone) I find that the Apple Watch underestimates in that scenario. Same goes for my Concept2 Rower - Watch underestimates calories in comparison. I trust the equipment in these scenarios and overwrite calories burned since they use more accurate methods to estimate calories burned.
When I run outside, the calories burned estimate flips and I find the Apple Watch overestimates slightly. When weight lifting I don't even try to track calories burned and typically replace calories burned with like 150 for weight lifting because lifting weights doesn't really burn many calories and consensus seems to be between 100 and 300.
I don't really need the Apple Watch to be perfect, I just need it to be consistently inconsistent so I can account for it and tweak as needed.
It’s crazy how your thumbnail answered the question
Hi Picturefat love your videos
I never really figured how inaccurate the watch was, but always subconsciously knew it was an estimation at best. My assumption like that mentioned, is that the manufacturers update their algorithms and formulae in the devices to improve said accuracy. Apple's ECG app/feature has to pass medical approval, and here in the UK the claim is that "In a clinical study using a 12-lead ECG as a reference device, the ECG app demonstrated 99.6% specificity in classifying sinus rhythm and 98.3% sensitivity in classifying AF for the classifiable results." But ultimately, it's a guide, a tool to use and I find it's most motivating by showing trends. It fascinates me how it gathers certain data (like how does it know when I'm sleeping or just sitting doing nothing?), but the results of that have guided me by the trends it generates.
I credit my Garmin Vivoactive for at LEAST 25% of my success in getting into the best shape of my life. I think the key for any calorie counting watch is consistency.
If you count your calories carefully, weigh yourself regularly, and the watch measures calories consistently across activities then it doesn’t matter how much your actually burning. If the calories burned on the watch is greater than what you counted at each meal, then you just need to weigh yourself over the course of several months to know exactly what your average burned calories are. If you lost 5 lbs in 5 weeks and your watch had you at a 600 calorie deficit, then you know you’re watch is probably over estimating a bit. Regardless, my watch gave me a baseline and seeing the numbers tick up throughout the day is gratifying.
I like fitness tracking watches because of two things:
1) A watch, so I can tell the time.
2) A watch that can help me track general trends of how intense a workout goes.
I can notice I worked out a lot better when I actually put in a lot more effort into my cardio, than when I don't. Which can help me get a good idea on how much calories I burned and how much I should eat.
I got a Fitbit charge 5 and it is quite bad at calorie tracking (gives me on average like 3.5-4k per day, if I ate that I'd be hella fat in mo time, I maintain at 2700-2800). What is great though is the sleep tracking and step counting. And if you find out how much you maintain at the calories are a way to show your activity level beyond just steps. It's not perfect but to me it was worth it (plus it's a nice smartwatch I can wear 24/7 without problem, so I have all the features like stopwatch/alarm/timers)
The think the heart rate monitor feature is the most useful feature of smart watches. It gives you an idea of how much you can exert yourself before it's too much.
Thanks to my watch I was motivated to lose 50 lbs in a year.
As so many other people are saying here, it's not about the accuracy, nobody thinks that a smartwatch can perfectly track all the metrics involved in fitness activities. It's just a a helpful tool, you see on your watch you burned 5 calories all day in the evening, you skip on the ice cream, you see 1000 calories burned you treat yourself to a nice steak dinner. It's a tool, it has limitations and it is your responsibility to educated yourself about them and to learn how to use that tool to your advantage. All tools are flawed to a degree, from supercomputers to screwdrivers, the person who uses the tool must be aware of all pluses and minuses and use the tool accordingly.
I always used my food app to estimate the amount of calories I needed to eat to gain weight. However since getting my Apple Watch, I noticed my calories burned being roughly 300 or 400 more than what I'm eating. So I can say that due to my Apple Watch I am finally gaining that weight I've wanted to!
this
I just got a versa 3, wore it for the first time yesterday. My only exercise was a 30 minute incline walk. I'm 200lbs, 29 yrs okd. My calorie burn was supposedly over 5000 kcals for the day. I did 9500 steps
I used to work at Garmin and our watches do not accurately track calories. Garmin uses a formula that roughly calculates calories burned with your total heart beat. Put simply, the more heart beat you produce, the more calories the watch registers.
It only provides a rough idea of how active you've been.
I didn't expect my smartwatch to be more than a general guess when I saw that it measures calories burned. I bought it to measure 10K steps and control Spotify without pulling my phone out of my pocket at work.
I wear a whoop, And based on research and their own Admission the estimate “is there because people want it… but their HR linked Calorie prediction has a +-30% inaccuracy” so If I want to eat a little more when cutting, I just add 70% of the prediction to my calorie intake
Perfect video! I was thinking of getting a smart watch for this feature
I use Huawei Honor, I found after 2 years of wearing that it's most useful to me for tracking my steps counting daily and make sure I stay active throughout my working times at the office. I think the best way to really track calories is by knowing your RMR, track the calories intake and track weigth loss or gains in a long period of time. Since I care more about muscle mass I track that by strength performance and looking in the mirror.
I assumed it would over report calories burned. Because of that, I never put in any activity, just let it read my heart rate. The information in the video is interesting.
Me: Buys a smart watch
Also me: Only tracks steps taken
Based on those studies is there a clear cut or a preferred fitness watch you would suggest?
I just bought the Garmim vivoactive 4, so wanted to see what your opinion was on that. Thank you in advance!! 😁
Can you make a video on how gloves can affect your workout? Or even if lifting shoes are actually beneficial
Gloves mostly are a personal choice, no real performance pros or cons, none that are substantial at least. Lifting shoes just artificially increase ankle mobility by lifting the heels, this allows the tibula fibula angles compare to the ground to be more extreme, better for getting deep into squats if you struggle with that. That’s the main benefit of lifting shoes.
My fitbit definitely tells me I'm burning way more calories than other sources (like the screen on exercise machines) so I tend to ignore it lol.
I have controlled my measurements using my own long-term measurements of in/output and energy expenditure due to exercise and I was surprised how well my tracker estimates what I burn. It works so well that I can 95% rely on those numbers to create a calorie deficit, which just totally makes my day. But actually, I don't even want to long term. I am just interested in keeping my step count up, and training for a half marathon. So I use the GPS, heart rate monitor, sometimes sleep tracker, and that's it.
I have always told people to use the smart watch as a baseline comparison when increasing activity.
- Wear it for two weeks without paying attention to it.
- Start increasing activity
- NEVER activate exercise modes manually (they jack calorie estimates like crazy)
- Use data as part of your plan of action
I personally aim to fill the 500 calorie ring without activating exercise mode, not cause I think it's actually 500 cals for the day, but I sleep way better when I do.
Just remember, if you become obsessive, throw it out
6:48
Couldn't the causality easily be the reverse? It'd be that people starting to exercise more are more likely to buy a smart watch, rather than the other way around.
For running, Garmin is the best watch out there. Also, apple watches are not even close to Garmin in terms of accuracy/quality (which specialises in smart watch manufacturing for years before Apple entered the market).
Its like comparing Mercedes to Chevy.
I believe it's more important to use the same device consistently. It doesn't have to be accurate as a chamber. It just needs to be consistent. And, if consistent, then it can be used for tracking.
I love your sens of humor
But there is one question left: How good are those old school heart monitors from polar? You know, those where you had to strap a belt around your chest so you can monitor your heart rate.
Can confidently say that the calorie measuring of all smartwatches/fitness bands are complete nonsense. HOWEVER. These things did get very, and I mean very accurate in terms of step counting. And if you know your step distance, height, kg, etc. you can actually calculate your calorie expenditure yourself with the steps you are doing. Which is an excellent way of calculating cardio calories. That, and the heart rate tracker (although that is not quite as accurate as the step counter) are the only 2 reliable measurements they are capable of doing though. Also note that the step counter only is hitting accurately when you WALK. This does not apply to running, jump roping or any other exercise. You'll also be stepcounted for doing bicep curls sometimes, but if you're grinding, you can count those steps validly as you burn some calories on a curl too. Just in case anyone is wondering if these are worth buying, if you do ~20k steps/day like me, this is a very good investment since you can track the steps from morning to evening comfortably. If you just want to buy one because you want to know how your "sleep quality" is - don't bother.
But they can drain wallet
@@Devil-ig7kl Lol you'll have to figure if its suitable w/ your financial position.
I love my watch as a step-counter, calander, music remote and voice to reminder. Everything else is whatever, I'd not spend money on it but having gotten it for free I genuinely enjoy it.
It's pretty basic why the watches under report. Some heart rate pulses are not felt due to watch tightness, processing glitches, or lack of sensitivity to vibration.
I've noticed huge inconsistencies especially with the Apple Watch. This one time a friend and I played badminton, with me playing for a little longer. But my smart band said I burned 250 calories but her Apple Watch said 600 calories, which is insane.
Did either of you start a workout when you started playing, or did you go off it just tracking general calorie burn? I've heard that for certain activities you have to start a workout of some kind for whatever reason. I think it's because it uses a different algorithm when calculating active calories from working out in conjunction with the calories you'd burn just existing. I don't know though. It's all a little confusing lol
You know that even though you’ve been doing the same sports simultaneously doesn’t mean burning the same amount of calories right?
My gf and I do a lot of sports but she generally burns a lot less just by being way smaller and less muscular.
Does she weigh almost double of what you do?
@@amritbanerjee no...
When you exercise, your body makes up for it in other ways by making you more hungry, sleep more, move less. It is very tough to truly burn 100s of cals consistently from exercise alone, especially since your body compensates. In my experience, I do fine by focusing on creating a calorie deficit from making small, long lasting, changes to my diet. I only count exercise calories if i do more than 15 mins of cardio, and even then I only use half of what fitness apps tell me when calculating my calories. Strength training hardly burns any, so i never count it. People tend to overestimate their TDEE. Some people will say they are "active" when filling out the TDEE questionnaire because they go to the gym regularly, which brings up their TDEE. Then they will count the calories burned from their exercise, which is a bad idea because their TDEE already accounts for it because it is an "active" TDEE.
Turn off the fitness apps, put the Mick Gordon Doom Soundtrack on it and sync it up to your earbuds. You'll burn far more calories running like a doom slayer than checking your step count every 12 seconds.
Putting aside the worst smartbands or the ones with fake instruments. If a fitness band or watch is consistent and precise with its reading it is good idea to use it.
You don't need accurate measurements everytime, all you need is precise measurements. Having a little error won't Matter if the sample set is big enough.
These newer wrist based monitors are quite a bit better than the ones from even just 3-4 years ago. I have paired my Apple Watch SE with a chest strap and it’s pretty close, even with strength workouts. With older wrist based ones it would only be close if I wasn’t gripping anything and my hand wasn’t relaxed. These studies aren’t as relevant in regards to heart rate as the tech has gotten better. Calorie expenditure is super hard to estimate but using a watch is a decent rough number. As a doctor of physical therapist with a degree in exercise physiology, you can’t get much more accurate without using unrealistic equipment. Apple and other companies simply use the same formulas for estimating VO2 max with weight height, etc. they can’t account for things like genetics, body type, metabolism, % body fat etc. they will always be off. I think you hit the nail on the head though, knowing how many calories go in you is far more important than what you expend through exercise. I know ultra marathon runners who struggle to lose any weight because they don’t watch their diet close enough. So despite running an insane amount of miles, they are still heavy.
I would be very interested in seeing the research on cellphone based fitness tracking, such as Google Fit, without the extra sensors from the watch.
I'm not sure how accurate they really are but i have been using a Samsung Gear S3 for years and when i needed to lost weight the tracked calories burn were perfectly align with my rate of weight loss.
just wear it tight.
I used to watch your vehicle simulator videos years back, didn't knew you worked out too >:O
I really thought it would be over reporting, i follow my fitness with heart rate strap and usually take the calories burned with a grain of salt but when you do quite a bit of exercise it is nice to know that the calories that the watch is showing is actually under the actual expenditure.
Fun fact: despite having equipped with heart rate monitor, Samsung devices and Samsung Health do NOT use your heart rate to count calories burnt. Even if it display to you the heart rate. You'll realize this that your most intense 10 minutes workout will produce the exact same calorie burnt compared to 10 minutes of sitting and watching TV as long as you select the same workout.
Back at it again
Great vid!
I track my calories in a notebook and adjust my calorie intake based on how much weight I lose over the course of a few weeks of taking readings from my scale.
Trying to lose a certain amount of fat before I focus more on the gym, so my cardio routine stays the same, the only thing I adjust is my diet. So these trackers have always seemed like a waste of money.
It doesn’t matter if it is accurate or not. What matters is that you are using the same metric to track over time
my watch makes me a lot more aware of my lack of movement throughout the day lol
I track calories burned but not for the reason you may think. I usually rely on calorie counters. However, I only assume that I burned 50% of what is shown and I do not eat what I burn. I only use burned calories as a reason to make myself workout harder and as a measure of how hard I workout.
I love this guys animation
From the beginning of getting a fitbit to my purchase of an apple watch I always used the data to construct an understanding of the relevance of the numbers.
I gave up on relying on accurate numbers the moment I realized I got my stand goal…by sitting.
But I wouldn’t have been motivated to even workout in the first place if it wasn’t for my Apple Watch. Seeing the estimated calories burned and the amount of time in the gym is another kind of high for me.
It's accurate enough for me. I'm ending my diet today after getting my fitbit. -1000 cal diet for 11 weeks with mostly running/ push-ups, and I've lost 21 pounds.
Now, I just have to slowly figure out how to eat like a person.