Apple Watch - issues with Workout app

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Eric87, May 5, 2015.

  1. Eric87 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    #1
    There's 2 issues that I've seen recently on my Watch:

    1) Can't change the units from miles to kilometres. Anybody else experience this/know a fix?

    2) Calorie reporting is all wrong. It's all set up correctly with gender, weight, age, etc. but while my Polar FT4 recorded a good 800 calories, the Watch only went as far as 120! This is a huge difference. Aspects: heartrate measured correctly on Watch, I've used the workout "Indoor Run" for a 15' treadmill session. What did I do wrong? I know calories are dependent on the heart rate and that was ok (190 almost constantly), but it didn't count calories. Anyone know what this is about?
     
  2. Armen macrumors 604

    Armen

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #2
    Many articles on the web state that if you exercise outdoors to take your phone with you a few times so the watch can learn your stride. This way calorie calculations become more accurate. Also, wear your watch at least a couple of inches away from your hand for the most accurate Heart rate reading.

    I'm afraid I can't help you on the km/miles question as I don't see a setting for it anywhere. Is your region setup properly?
     
  3. AppleFan360 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    #3
    When in the workout app and setting up your run, force touch on the "Set Miles" to change to KM.
     
  4. bradkrischel macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    1) https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7015436

    2) https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204516
     
  5. PoppaKap macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
  6. modernaccord macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Location:
    Seattle, WA region
    #6
    How accurate is the watch for calorie count for bootcamp style workouts? I rarely go out for runs or do treadmill anymore...mostly weights and TRX style stuff.
     
  7. Eric87 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    #7
    I've had my phone 60cm away from the watch during the entire workout. And again the heart rate reading was spot on.

    ----------

    Only the article related to km/miles was useful, but the other one is totally useless. I have done everything in there but it just throws away weird results. I'm going to try again tomorrow, this time without setting a workout.
     
  8. Eric87 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    #8
    So, it doesn't work. I've tried it again today and still throwing away ****** results. I'm going to talk to Apple and try and fix it. will keep you updated. If in the meantime anyone finds a better solution, do share.
     
  9. lchlch macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    #9
    Is the polar measuring total calories?
     
  10. Eric87 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    #10
    If you're referring to active calories vs resting, I assume it's measuring as a total, I don't think it's that smart to tell the difference. Anyhow, it doesn't matter, because I did a like-for-like, active calories only test. When you're going for 15 minutes on a treadmill without any changes in pace, incline or anything, you can't have 2 devices showing 2 completely opposite results. Unless one of them is not calibrated correctly. My money's on the Apple Watch.
     
  11. lchlch macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    #11
    It's possible for both to show different results. Calories burned is at best, a best guess. It's not an exact science.
     
  12. kevroc macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    #12
    If you did a 15m run and something says you burned 800 calories, that's obviously wrong. Like another poster said, calorie burn is an estimate at best, the watch can determine movement and heart rate, but those two things aren't the only factor in how hard your working. Your muscle activity isn't detected by the watch and contributes to calorie burn as well. For example, hiking with a loaded backpack will cause your to "work harder" but your heart rate will be lower. There's no way for the watch to know that. On some fitness devices there's an option in the workout to "add weight" so the workout can account for this in the calorie estimation, but not many do that.

    Here's an example of what you can expect to burn:
    http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburned.htm

    Another thing to keep in mind, if you body burns an average of 200 calories an hour for basic function (a 2400 calorie per day), if you exercise for an hour does the watch take the 200 into account when reporting "total calories burned" during that hour? My polar does, my garmin reports calories burned for the workout, not the total. So each may be different...
     
  13. Eric87 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    #13
    I'm under the impression that 1) you need glasses 2) you have no clue about fitness.

    1) It's not 800, it's 300. And that's completely reasonable. If you say you've got a Polar watch, try what I've told you and then let me know what is your calorie count with the Polar. Of course, bearing in mind my average BPM is around the 180-185. 15 min treadmill, 10 incline, 5 speed.


    2) Hiking with a loaded backpack will burn more calories. Why? Simply because it requires more energy. You sweat more, your pulse goes up. How can your heart go lower when you've got more intensity than before?


    Check your answers before posting.
     
  14. tivoboy macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    #14
    24 hour days

    Wouldn't the basic function, BMR be more like 100 per hour, 24 hours in a day, 24x100 = 2400?
     
  15. kevroc macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    #15
    Your post says 800, don't know what to tell you...

    "How can your heart go lower when you've got more intensity than before?"

    The fact that you don't know just shows that you don't know... that's all.

    ----------

    Yes, but you're not going to burn consistently throughout the day. If you take sleep into account and the time spent sitting, your're probably burning 150-200 during normal hours and 50-100 during down hours, it's not just 100 straight across for 24 hours.

    The issue is that some watches include that in the calorie number, and some watches display calories burned as a result of the exercise. You can't necessarily compare one watch to another and think that one is more accurate.

    Most watches don't even take into account "Fitness Level". Some do, and you can identify what your fitness level is and it will use that to determine a more accurate burn rate.

    Lastly, some watches don't even let you customize your HR Zones. It uses 220 - your age to determine your max heart rate. That way it knows if your HR is 160 and your 60 years old, you are at MAX HR (100%). But if your 20 years old then you're at 80% HR Max and therefore not working as hard. So it's not just that your HR is 160, it depends on other factors. You may also have an HR Max that doesn't follow the formula above (mine does not) so the ability to customize what my Max HR is can be quite important for it to accurately determine how hard I'm working on any given exercise.
     

Share This Page