apple watch workout is way off on calories

RealFitTrainer wrote:

I too found the calories to be way off by about 50% under the workout app. I selected "other" as I was doing circuit training. It said it was going to treat my workout like a brisk walk. LOL.. I've used the watch for running and the calorie burn is very close to my garmin. However, the preloaded workout app's gps isn't accurate, so I am using Runtastic which is fantastic and accurate. My biggest problem is the calorie burn for an intense resistance workout. I am a trainer and accuracy is important for me and for my recommendations to clients. Otherwise LOVE the watch. JUst need to tweak the accuracy for a strength/circuit/bootcamp/crossfit style workout.

I have found the watch to be quite accurate in many areas, in other areas initially not so much. However overtime I've come to the conclusion that it isn't that the watch is inaccurate in these areas but rather that Apple haven't done a very good job of explaining how it works and what to expect and that we are possibly interpreting the results incorrectly. I'm not blaming the victim here (although I'm sure some will think I am), I'm just suggesting we need to look a little deeper or perhaps even not so deep at all (perhaps we are just overthinking simplicity)

I Think the resting calories calculation needs to be made public for us to understand. My resting calories during all sorts of workouts is calculated by Apple watch at 1.2 cal/minute, which is resting calories about 1700 cal/day.

I am female, about 62 in and weigh 120 pounds. My calculated BMR is around 1200 cal/day, which is roughly equivalent to "resting calories".

THis is a big differerence -- have you looked at this for yourself? I am interested if others are having this issue. If Apple is using the HarrisBenedict equation to calculate resting calories and then adding active calories on top of that , that doesn't sound accurate to me.

Beyond the obvious which is deserving accurate data, why does it matter? If you know your resting calories -- which is a static number mostly (obviously it changes slowly as you lose/gain weight) - you are relying on the watch to calculate active calories anyway. So if its starting from a higher number (500 too high as you say), it will be so consistently. I agree it would be nice to understand what they are doing, but even if we did and didnt agree and they dont change, you would just have to make any adjustment to total calories manually (i.e. if you were inputting into some other app).

When you pay almost twice as much for a device. It should be accurate. My resting calories are 1000 calories too much.

Mine have been measured by various professional methods. Yes a 5 or 10% variation would be acceptable. 50% is not.

Apple should fix this issue pronto!! We should be able to go in manually at least to fix it. Cause if it is on this forum you can bet that Fitbit is jumping up and down with glee!

If you want Apple to hear your opinion, you need to go to the link below - Apple doesn't participate here - it's user to user.

I expect Apple to improve the software over time, but it would do no harm for you to tell them your experience

http://www.apple.com/feedback

Thank you. I just did that.

So here's a couple workouts that I've done:

• Cycling 1 - 278 active calories, 79 resting calories, duration 38:41
• Cycling 2 - 590 active calories, 149 resting calories, duration 1:13:48
• Cycling 3 - 782 active calories, 225 resting calories, duration 1:50:28

So now to compare those numbers against calculators that estimate calories:

• Cycling 1 - Apple: 357. Calculator: 368 (3% difference)
• Cycling 2 - Apple: 739. Calculator: 698 (6% difference)
• Cycling 3 - Apple: 1007. Calculator: 1038 (3% difference)

So that seems pretty consistent. Apple tends to return a little lower overall total calorie burn but it's within a few percent of the totals I get elsewhere. Also the app I'd previously used for calculating calorie burn when cycling is consistent with the online calculators (i.e. it's combining active and resting calories).

The calculation seems to have me burning about 2.05 calories per minute at rest which would mean I'd burn 2952 calories/day. Looking at the move section of the activity app, I see it's showing an average resting burn rate of around 2900 calories/day. When I go online to find a calorie burn calculator that incorporates an estimation of activity level, it matches quite well. So here you can see your BMR if you don't move at all, and how it is affected by your level of activity: http://www.bmrcalculator.org/

So for me, the base BMR came back as 1862/day. That number means what my calorie burn would be if I literally stayed in bed all day and didn't move. But the watch is assuming I have some moderate exercise (which is true). So based on that the number comes back as 2886, which is right in the ballpark of what the watch is estimating.

The reality is that this is all a pretty complicated interplay of how our bodies work. If you don't move at all, the number is simple. When you exercise regularly, not only do you have the calories burned from exercising, but you also have the calories burned from maintaining your body being increased. So if you are moderately active, even if on a given day you sat on the couch all day, you'd still burn more than your BMR suggests because your body is still keeping all that muscle mass, etc. It would shift over time. Also, this is why weight lifting can be beneficial to weight loss (it ups your maintenance calorie burn).

The question in my mind is how the watch adjust this over time. Does it detect my activity level and adjust my resting calorie burn accordingly. If I become more active does the number go up? If I become less active does it go down? Not sure...

I have fully "calibrated" my Apple Watch by walking over 5 miles (over the span of a few days) in an "Outdoor Walk" exercise with my iPhone 6 (GPS enabled) on me. Yesterday I pedaled for 48 minutes on an "Indoor Cycle" exercise (recumbent lifecycle) and the result was 3 Active Cal (yes - 3!) with a resting of 60 and total of 63. That's absurd. I should have burned more than that sleeping for 48 minutes let alone pedaling at a reported average of 133bpm. This was my 3rd "Indoor Cycle" routine of similar length and with similar reported results. Even a 22 minute "Outdoor Walk" for 1.11miles resulted in only 46cal total (still way more than 48 minutes on the indoor cycle). Something just isn't right here.

Heys guys wondering if anyone can help.

my girlfriend and I both have an apple watch sport And have both been reading our calories burned each day. She is extremely active, goes to the gym and I can be active but tend to be a lot lazier than her and I burn double the calories she does!?

As you can imagine this is driving her mad! Haha

We think it might be because I am bigger than her maybe?

I am 6.1 tall 82kg and she is a lot less lets just say..

is the watch just being inaccurate or is there some science behind this?

We think it might be because I am bigger than her maybe?

You think right. Heavier people will burn more calories doing the same thing.

Today was my first 'workout' with the watch. I have weight and age set, and an elliptical workout selected (for the gym cross-training machine). For a 30 minute continuous exercise, my calorie reading was about 50 percent off due to the heart rate monitor occasionally reading 65 to 80 bpm instead of my typical 135 to 140 bpm. I attribute this to sweat under the sensor (I do have the watch band set snug), and, since I cannot move at my desired rate without sweating (doesn't everyone sweat?), I do not understand how I will ever get an accurate calorie or heart reading. Any suggestions?

Where do you wear your watch on your arm? I sweat a ton but have never once had the HR drop out. This is over 10-12 runs and countless walks. I wear tight, clear above my wrist bone.

itsolutionz wrote:

Today was my first 'workout' with the watch. I have weight and age set, and an elliptical workout selected (for the gym cross-training machine). For a 30 minute continuous exercise, my calorie reading was about 50 percent off due to the heart rate monitor occasionally reading 65 to 80 bpm instead of my typical 135 to 140 bpm. I attribute this to sweat under the sensor (I do have the watch band set snug), and, since I cannot move at my desired rate without sweating, I do not understand how I will ever get an accurate calorie or heart reading. Any suggestions?

Surely it would need to read your heart rate as 65-80 all the time in order to be 50% out, not just occasionally.

I think it did read a rate of 65 to 80 bpm for the majority of the exercise (or as soon as I started to sweat--the watch sensor area was dripping with moisture when I temporarily removed the watch after exiting the elliptical machine). And in answer to dhy8386, I wear the watch on my left arm just above the wrist bone. If it helps, I am light boned with virtually no fat, have very tan skin from gardening; and as I am approaching 70 years old, I do have relatively thin and freckled skin as most do at my age. As I mentioned, this was my first 'test' of the watch (having just received it), so perhaps I was premature in raising the issue and I may need to experiment more. (But thanks for the replies!)