Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
True for calorific intake, but calorific expenditure, which is what the Apple Watch is meant to measure, should be consistent, no matter what you ate, or not?

Body fat percentage, muscle tone, ambient temperature, fitness levels. Lots of things affect exact numbers that can't be accurately measured on the fly, with any device.

The Apple Watch tells me I burn over 800 calories in an hour of tennis. No way, not believable; that amount of calories burnt in an hour would help! (In addition to avoiding the pizza).

My Series 6 said I burned 705 kcal on my Tuesday run. My Garmin said 502. Realistically I burned 400ish. I've been running 30 years and know my exertion levels pretty well. I have NO idea where it come up with 705. For a 30min yoga yesterday, it said 171 kcal.


Daily goal is 780.
 
Last edited:
My watch seems consistent measuring activities day to day, so it at least seems helpful to let me know if I burned as many calories as the day before.

Seems wildly inconsistent between me and my wife. We can go on a hike together and my watch shows 800 calories burned where hers shows 400. Maybe the fact the she’s half my weigh accounts for the difference, but still seems like a wide discrepancy.
 
I never believed the calories burned from any tracker/watch. However, if you treat it as “good enough for government” work, then it could be useful.

Exactly. As I said above, my daily goal is 780, and my watch is showing 173/780 currently. The numbers don't really matter, other than to show that I haven't been very active today, which is true..I've been stuck at my desk all morning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
I've only had a Series 3 and 9, but compared to my wife's TWO SE2 watches she has worn (She busted one), I'm consistently well under her calorie burn walking side by side for a mile a day... some days? Watch asks if I want to record an outdoor walk. The next? Might not trigger. Same sort of scenario when I'm gunning it with my reel mower up and down hills for a half hour with a 120 bpm heart rate. Majority of the time, activity ring remains motionless. Junk data when used on my wrist... Hers? Might be a bit closer to actuals.
 
At least if you knew if it was consistently high or low you could adjust for the numbers. Not knowing makes the feature pretty irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
of course wearables can just estimate the calories. they don’t know if you carry a heavy backpack, if you ride your regular bicycle workout track with the wind from behind or front, if you go upstairs while you carry heavy shopping bags or just your car key, in short its almost impossible to measure at the same accuracy level as under controlled clinical conditions.
 
If only there was a study that covered many of these questions!
And if only there was a way to "read" the article and extract information therefrom. For example, the paper discusses accuracy of sensor-based tracking and the algorithms used to interpret the sensor data. But the biggest factor they mention is thus:

"Resting metabolic rate (RMR) accounts for the largest contributor to total daily energy expenditure and is itself dependent on body size and body composition. While body size may be accurately assessed by inputting height and weight into wearable devices, many of these activity trackers are unable to assess body composition. Even if body fat percentages were known, many calculations on EE do not account for lean mass vs. fat mass or variations in EE that exist within lean tissue. Furthermore, a large variability in RMR—up to 250 kcal per day—exists outside of differences in body composition (Johnstone et al. 2005), and again would not be assessed using the traditional calculations for EE. Finally, energy balance also influences RMR where RMR may demonstrate an adaptive response to caloric restriction thereby predisposing individuals to weight regain (Fothergill et al. 2016)."

All of this seems like more or less random noise rather than just skewed.

On that last point, they note people who use exercise trackers often are on a weight-loss regimen, which causes untrackable RMR changes due to lean-muscle vs. fat composition changes. So, people likely to use the trackers (e.g. for weight loss) can have more kCal variability not accounted for by the trackers.
 
I can see this. Sometimes I do the exact same workout at the exact time of day and exact level of exertion and one day it shows 380 calories burned and another day 500.
 
If I'm on a workout machine that counts calories, the watch displays significantly more calories burned than the workout machine.
The machine can be wrong too. Do you enter your weight and height into the machine?

Calories burned include calories needed to move your body as well as to produce the work you are doing. The machine knows the speed and resistance so can calculate the work, but without knowing your body size, it won’t count how much more effort it takes to move fat legs, arms, gut around compared to slim bodies, or the moment arm differences of body length, etc
 
It also reports Low cardio fitness for people who run marathons. I wouldn't put too much stock into any of its metrics.

What is best at is alerting to major changes or trends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Will Tisdale 🎗
Folks who obsess over calories while working out are really doing themselves a disservice. No amount of exercise (while counting calories) is going to help you if your diet isn't on point. You can bike for 100s of miles and watch the calories add up - but if you go home and eat some pizza - you've wasted your entire day. Count carbs and limit sugars, period. Leave the calorie obsession behind....
Some of what you wrote isn't true. It's also harmful from a psychological and dietary perspective to say things like this: "You can bike for 100s of miles and watch the calories add up - but if you go home and eat some pizza - you've wasted your entire day."

That induces guilt over what people eat and can lead to eating disorders (that really happens). Exercise is not a waste, just because you eat pizza afterward. The exercise has benefits for health despite what we eat. Over-focus on calories can also be problematic, but take this as an opportunity to learn about the benefits of exercise regardless of our diet.

If you expend more calories than you consume, you will not gain weight (there is a little fuzziness around the edges of that statement but it's broadly true). In other words and to be more precise, from a strictly caloric perspective, gaining adipose tissue while consistently expending more calories than consumed is virtually impossible due to the laws of thermodynamics. Biology is complex due to hormones, water retention, inflammation, and other processes that occur as we eat and have daily activities, but the overarching laws of thermodynamics hold true for us.

For example, if I burned 500 calories in a workout and then ate 300 calories of pizza, I would not gain weight. If I burned 500 calories in a workout and then ate 300 calories of broccoli, I would not gain weight.

Or, if my total caloric expenditure in a day was 2,200 and my food was pizza, sugary cereal, a hamburger, and one lettuce leaf drenched in ranch dressing but was only a total caloric intake of 2,100, I would not gain weight. I could develop some health conditions because of the what I was eating, but the exercise and caloric 'restriction' would counteract some, even many of them.

This doesn't mean pizza and broccoli are equally healthy, which is part of your point, but "calories out" >= "calories in" and exercise are associated with many health benefits, including longevity and quality of life, above and beyond the food we eat.

Again, food matters, it just matters less than calories from an overall weight and health perspective. That's at least true based on the current research in the field. This is important to know because it can help prevent weight gain. Diets and weight loss are notoriously difficult. Preventing weight gain takes work as well, but is relatively easier. A simple focus on keeping calories in <= calories out over time will prevent weight gain*. That's going to be true regardless of the food we eat and what quality of food we can afford.

It's easier to "obsess" over total calories than to "obsess" over what foods you are eating. My encouragement to my students when we cover exercise, diet, and health in one of my classes, is to focus first on general activity, exercise, and sleep (if you sleep less, you tend to eat more!) for health reasons, then focus on keeping "calories out" >= "calories in", then focus on the 'quality' of food -- more vegetables, healthy fats, proteins.

Prevention is much preferred over intervention. But if there needs to be intervention, the best diet is one you will eat and keep. That usually means keep what you are eating, just eat a little less of it. Rather than switch from pizza to kale and goat cheese, eat 2 slices of pizza instead of 3. Then gradually you can build in 'healthier' foods.

*There are some medical conditions and other issues and factors that complicate the picture, but the general principle is true.
 
Last edited:
I basically ignore the red ring... it's the only one I consistently close over long periods of time 😉 though even when I am doing regular workouts, I only look at Exercise (green) and keep an eye on Standing (blue) just to be sure I'm getting up and moving enough.

Though tbh I don't know what I'd suggest as a 3rd ring other than general "Movement" which is basically what it already is.
 
as long as they're are wrong in a consistent manner, they are still helpful in determining your level of activity each day relative to other days.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pauliaK
Is this a random error of 28%, or a deterministic one (i.e. bias), and if the latter, does the watch estimate consistently higher calorie burn, or consistently lower?
Exactly, maybe the official material is more specific but this telling of it is so vague
 
I wish they'd get rid of "calories" it's irrelevant.

The continued emphasis on “calories” is not only outdated but fundamentally misleading. Caloric measurement is an oversimplified and reductionist approach to health and nutrition. It fails to reflect the complex regulatory systems of human metabolism, individual differences in energy expenditure, and the profoundly different metabolic effects of macronutrients.

The notion that “a calorie is a calorie” ignores the fact that carbohydrates, fats, and proteins are metabolized through distinct biochemical pathways and exert different hormonal effects—particularly on insulin, satiety, and fat storage. For example, 100 calories of sugar is not metabolically equivalent to 100 calories of protein or fat.

If you’re trying to lose weight, reducing refined carbohydrates and emphasizing protein and healthy fats—while eating to satiety—tends to be far more effective than simply slashing calories. This approach aligns better with how the body actually regulates hunger, energy balance, and fat storage.

It’s time to move beyond the calorie and toward a more nuanced, biologically informed understanding of nutrition.
Help me out kill bill

They can’t get calories right, how on Earth will they get something more nuanced through based on your diet.
 
It also reports Low cardio fitness for people who run marathons. I wouldn't put too much stock into any of its metrics.

What is best at is alerting to major changes or trends.

I hadn't heard that and I've ran marathons. You referring to VO2 Max?

Garmin shows it as 45 and Apple shows 40.8. I don't pay any attention to the number and they both show above average, but it's interesting how different it is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: aParkerMusic
The calories burned on the Apple Watch is very inconsistent for me. Every morning for my morning walk, I walk the same path, duration, avg heart rate, and pace. Yet the active calories recorded for these workout session ranges from 300 to 400.

I'm not sure which other metrics Apple use to calculate calories.
That very interesting. I think my metrics are very consistent for both walking and running. I usually go on the same run every morning for 30 minutes and get basically the same 300 calories burned. Same with my walk during my lunch break at work, 30 45 minutes equates to about 200 calories based on pace and how often I have to stop for traffic.

May I ask what model you use? I have an Apple Watch Ultra (original).
 
If I'm on a workout machine that counts calories, the watch displays significantly more calories burned than the workout machine.
How does the machine count calories in your use case? Does it have a monitor that you wear, or link to the Apple Watch for heart rate data? I’m curious because I have the total opposite situation, the machine always says I burned more calories than my watch (no monitor or watch connection).
 
My watch seems consistent measuring activities day to day, so it at least seems helpful to let me know if I burned as many calories as the day before.

Seems wildly inconsistent between me and my wife. We can go on a hike together and my watch shows 800 calories burned where hers shows 400. Maybe the fact the she’s half my weigh accounts for the difference, but still seems like a wide discrepancy.
Body size is a huge factor. You cannot compare two people.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.