Elliptical Work out a LOT lower calories than previous

[MrXiro]

Since updating to WatchOS2 the elliptical work out has been cut down by at least 1/2. I used to burn about 500-600 active calories on the elliptical at my gym but now it's more like 300 with about 450 total calories (new feature in activities). Either way you cut it, it seems low. Has anyone else had this issue?

 

[Hicks.]

Since updating to WatchOS2 the elliptical work out has been cut down by at least 1/2. I used to burn about 500-600 active calories on the elliptical at my gym but now it's more like 300 with about 450 total calories (new feature in activities). Either way you cut it, it seems low. Has anyone else had this issue?

I have found that exact same issue. Previously I used to burn around 90 calories every 10 minutes. I did an hour on the cross trainer yesterday and I burnt 406 calories. The Reebok cross trainer I use is shows more than that - something like 800. I'm sure the real calorie loss is somewhere between these two.

They have changed all the algorithms with watchOS 2. It's really easy to gain the exercise ring and much tougher to achieve the move ring now. I preferred it before.

 

[BlueMoon63]

I have found that exact same issue. Previously I used to burn around 90 calories every 10 minutes. I did an hour on the cross trainer yesterday and I burnt 406 calories. The Reebok cross trainer I use is shows more than that - something like 800. I'm sure the real calorie loss is somewhere between these two.

They have changed all the algorithms with watchOS 2. It's really easy to gain the exercise ring and much tougher to achieve the move ring now. I preferred it before.

Do either of you know if the cross trainer or elliptical ask and you program you height, weight, sex and age? If not, that is problem number one.

Not doubting either of you but want to be sure as most have said it is too easy to get calories with the new os2. My treadmill shows me running less distance than my watch but more calories than the watch and I don't believe it because it doesn't have any settings for age, weight, etc. and it doesn't know anything but perceived speed and incline and time. My watch is calibrated and knows all my specs so all that it can do for a cross trainer workout is use heart rate.

If I have to guess, the watch is closer to accurate and apple fixed the formulas for measuring as we all know resting calories and formulas were way off.

 

[Newtons Apple]

I guess we will have to wait for the next update to see if Apple changes the software again. Some kind of consistency would be nice.

 

[bking10]

The numbers on machines are notoriously inaccurate. But I'm not seeing how the watch is going to correctly predict elliptical exercise. It can know the resistance you have it set too. It misses a key variable

 

[BlueMoon63]

I guess we will have to wait for the next update to see if Apple changes the software again. Some kind of consistency would be nice.

Agree. How about apple explains their formulas and how dependent they are on the heart rate.

I can't agree with calories too low or too high without knowing if the equipment knows the vitals and stats of the person using it otherwise it is a very wild guess.

The numbers on machines are notoriously inaccurate. But I'm not seeing how the watch is going to correctly predict elliptical exercise. It can know the resistance you have it set too. It misses a key variable

It can't. All it can do is take your information for age, weight, height, etc, and calculate against your heart rate. Throw in some arm movement I suppose. However, it IS measuring resistance because the harder the resistance, the higher your heart rate will climb. Not sure what else is better than knowing your vitals and heart rate on a continuous basis to get an accurate calorie burn per workout? Way more accurate than ANY exercise equipment that doesn't know who is using them.

The calorie burn of a fit 150# 18yo could be 2-3 times less than a 40yo old man weighing 300 #'s and both doing the same exercise at the same speed.

 

[MrXiro]

Do either of you know if the cross trainer or elliptical ask and you program you height, weight, sex and age? If not, that is problem number one.

Not doubting either of you but want to be sure as most have said it is too easy to get calories with the new os2. My treadmill shows me running less distance than my watch but more calories than the watch and I don't believe it because it doesn't have any settings for age, weight, etc. and it doesn't know anything but perceived speed and incline and time. My watch is calibrated and knows all my specs so all that it can do for a cross trainer workout is use heart rate.

If I have to guess, the watch is closer to accurate and apple fixed the formulas for measuring as we all know resting calories and formulas were way off.

I used to burn 1000 calories in 1 hr and 20 min on the machine. So 400 total (active and inactive) for 60 min is far too low.

 

[MrXiro]

I have found that exact same issue. Previously I used to burn around 90 calories every 10 minutes. I did an hour on the cross trainer yesterday and I burnt 406 calories. The Reebok cross trainer I use is shows more than that - something like 800. I'm sure the real calorie loss is somewhere between these two.

They have changed all the algorithms with watchOS 2. It's really easy to gain the exercise ring and much tougher to achieve the move ring now. I preferred it before.

I've since done a full reset on the watch and didn't restore. Started from fresh and it seems to have righted itself. Results are normal again. I'm at 448 total calories in 45 min right now.

 

[MrXiro]

The numbers on machines are notoriously inaccurate. But I'm not seeing how the watch is going to correctly predict elliptical exercise. It can know the resistance you have it set too. It misses a key variable

In theory it should measure based on HR and movement.

 

[Transammatt]

I have found that exact same issue. Previously I used to burn around 90 calories every 10 minutes. I did an hour on the cross trainer yesterday and I burnt 406 calories. The Reebok cross trainer I use is shows more than that - something like 800. I'm sure the real calorie loss is somewhere between these two.

They have changed all the algorithms with watchOS 2. It's really easy to gain the exercise ring and much tougher to achieve the move ring now. I preferred it before.

I agree with you. Move is much harder to get to but by the end of my day at work I get 32 min in the exercise ring.

 

[drewfus]

I've since done a full reset on the watch and didn't restore. Started from fresh and it seems to have righted itself. Results are normal again. I'm at 448 total calories in 45 min right now.

So, that did result in your losing your previous activity data/achievements then, right?

 

[Hicks.]

Do either of you know if the cross trainer or elliptical ask and you program you height, weight, sex and age? If not, that is problem number one.

Not doubting either of you but want to be sure as most have said it is too easy to get calories with the new os2. My treadmill shows me running less distance than my watch but more calories than the watch and I don't believe it because it doesn't have any settings for age, weight, etc. and it doesn't know anything but perceived speed and incline and time. My watch is calibrated and knows all my specs so all that it can do for a cross trainer workout is use heart rate.

If I have to guess, the watch is closer to accurate and apple fixed the formulas for measuring as we all know resting calories and formulas were way off.

My elliptical doesn't ask for my stats, which I know make it inaccurate. It does have a wattage count though, that apparently is unusual - so it measures the force needed to move the equipment. As an aside, mine also has a heart rate sensor on the fixed arms that is woefully inaccurate — it always reports a heart rate of <100; where the watch (and common sense) show it 140+.

The main concern for me isn't the disparity between the watch and elliptical, it's the fact that the watch calculates calories differently for the elliptical with watchOS 2. Knowing the effort I'm putting in I'm fairly confident that an hour of hard graft should burn more than 406 (active) calories.

 

[Hicks.]

The other thing to be sure of is that we're all talking about the same calorie count in this thread. I'm basing my experience on ACTIVE calories (i.e. excluding resting calories, that you burn through normal metabolic processes all the time), not the other option on the watch, which is TOTAL calories.

 

[Hicks.]

I did a workout this morning on my cross trainer for 40 minutes. I weigh 155 pounds (71KG) and am reasonably fit. Active calories = 243.

The watch didn't pick up my pulse well today and despite some mid-exercise fiddling it was reporting a low pulse towards the end of the workout. The Workout app recorded an average pulse of 116 (it was more likely 135/ 140).

 

[Transammatt]

So, that did result in your losing your previous activity data/achievements then, right?

I'm resetting mine now, fresh install and we'll see how it goes thank you !

 

[MrXiro]

So, that did result in your losing your previous activity data/achievements then, right?

Yeah all previous data lost. But that happened already when I switched to the 6s Plus.

 

[MrXiro]

The other thing to be sure of is that we're all talking about the same calorie count in this thread. I'm basing my experience on ACTIVE calories (i.e. excluding resting calories, that you burn through normal metabolic processes all the time), not the other option on the watch, which is TOTAL calories.

I was talking about total calories since the elliptical stats don't break them down that way.

 

[Hicks.]

I was talking about total calories since the elliptical stats don't break them down that way.

Do you mean that the watch or the cross trainer doesn't break them down? The watch does

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Agree. How about apple explains their formulas and how dependent they are on the heart rate.

I can't agree with calories too low or too high without knowing if the equipment knows the vitals and stats of the person using it otherwise it is a very wild guess.

It can't. All it can do is take your information for age, weight, height, etc, and calculate against your heart rate. Throw in some arm movement I suppose. However, it IS measuring resistance because the harder the resistance, the higher your heart rate will climb. Not sure what else is better than knowing your vitals and heart rate on a continuous basis to get an accurate calorie burn per workout? Way more accurate than ANY exercise equipment that doesn't know who is using them.

The calorie burn of a fit 150# 18yo could be 2-3 times less than a 40yo old man weighing 300 #'s and both doing the same exercise at the same speed.

Any decent workout machines I've used make you enter weight to get a calorie estimate. The machine knows the distance you moved so the estimate shouldn't be too bad even if there are other factors. A reasonable estimate can be derived from heart rare as well. That's how Polar does it and I've seen pretty similar numbers to equipment that only knew my weight and my Polar watch didn't know my distance. I'm sure Apple will continue to improve their algorithms with Polar's accuracy as a target but these devices should never be assumed to be absolutely accurate. If it gives you a general idea of your workout intensity and motivates you to do more, I'd say it's doing its job.

 

[BarracksSi]

My elliptical doesn't ask for my stats, which I know make it inaccurate. It does have a wattage count though, that apparently is unusual - so it measures the force needed to move the equipment. As an aside, mine also has a heart rate sensor on the fixed arms that is woefully inaccurate — it always reports a heart rate of <100; where the watch (and common sense) show it 140+.

The main concern for me isn't the disparity between the watch and elliptical, it's the fact that the watch calculates calories differently for the elliptical with watchOS 2. Knowing the effort I'm putting in I'm fairly confident that an hour of hard graft should burn more than 406 (active) calories.

I'll take wattage over HR-to-calorie estimates, but it's all still a bit funky unless you can test your body's calorie expenditure in a sports lab.

More forum reading:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/ra...riathlons/calorie-watt-calculator-118479.html

 

[MrXiro]

Do you mean that the watch or the cross trainer doesn't break them down? The watch does

The Elliptical machine does not. I noticed on the watch now they show Active Calories and also Total now. That is a change from OS1, which only showed Active Calories in the Workout app.

 

[drewfus]

Yeah all previous data lost. But that happened already when I switched to the 6s Plus.

Argh. I switched to the 6s Plus too and retained my data, but am curious to see whether resetting the watch will result in better calibration. I've definitely noticed lower numbers for similar workouts since I updated to watchOS 2 also. I guess we'll see if the numbers annoy me enough.

 

[Pjstock42]

I do the same exact workout for the same amount of time on the same machine 6 days a week and I've been tracking it with the Apple Watch since day one. Every 'workout' on the watch would be between 600-650 calories but since WatchOS2/iPhone6S I can barely crack 300. Something has definitely changed and it's caused me to drastically reduce my goal for the day which is rather frustrating.

 

[Hicks.]

I do the same exact workout for the same amount of time on the same machine 6 days a week and I've been tracking it with the Apple Watch since day one. Every 'workout' on the watch would be between 600-650 calories but since WatchOS2/iPhone6S I can barely crack 300. Something has definitely changed and it's caused me to drastically reduce my goal for the day which is rather frustrating.

We can hope that a third party app might be released that integrates into the Activity app.

 

[flur]

The numbers on machines are notoriously inaccurate. But I'm not seeing how the watch is going to correctly predict elliptical exercise. It can know the resistance you have it set too. It misses a key variable

The resistance setting is irrelevant, as how a given setting impacts a person varies by the person. Higher resistance increases the work that your muscles need to do, which increases your heart rate. The watch reads the heart rate to determine how hard you're working. HR is the only variable that matters here.