Yep. Apple has grossly underestimated the mental/emotional aspect of screwing with our numbers. Clearly they need a better algorithm for that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Elliptical Work out a LOT lower calories than previous
- Thread starter MrXiro
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep. Apple has grossly underestimated the mental/emotional aspect of screwing with our numbers. Clearly they need a better algorithm for that.
Yep, I use an elliptical everyday with my Apple Watch since April 24 and I routinely burned 800-900 calories. Now I am lucky to hit 500. They must of changed the formula used to calculate total calories burned.
Same. I think after resetting though I'm getting slightly better calories now. But I need to further test. I haven't had a full work out yet since I reset my watch.
I think the old version of the OS might be the one with the higher than normal calories. I too thought it was more difficult to get the same calories until I started looking up actuals.
A typical male running a mile at 6.3 mph will burn 105 calories. Since that is a pretty good pace, that is basically 315 calories for 30 minutes or 600ish for an hour running at a very good hour pace. That means the man burned 600 calories running a 10k. Doesn't that seem low? I just ran for an hour at a lower pace and my watch said 500. I am starting to believe os2 is correct and we were overcompensating.
Treadmills and ellipticals are not the best for measuring accurately but I would need to check and make sure that each person is entering all of their specs before running as well.
I honestly cannot say I know what is right but I am at least beginning to wonder if the old calculations were just too high. The resting calories were too high as well and now they are fixed and we think calories are too low. 🙂
Was wondering how many of the previous posts actually programmed their stats into the elliptical before running? I can't on my X9i but could on my old cheaper model.
My elliptical workouts have been quite low since os 2 as well.
As a sample data point- a recent os2 elliptical workout with an avg HR of 131 credited me with 7.42 total calories per minute.
A recent elliptical workout with a Fitbit Surge with an avg HR of 128 credited me with 11 total calories per minute.
This is a pretty big difference per hour. I'm not sure which device is more accurate but the Surge was consistent with a polar and a basis peak for a similar situation... Either Apple is low or these other products are all overstating.
As a sample data point- a recent os2 elliptical workout with an avg HR of 131 credited me with 7.42 total calories per minute.
A recent elliptical workout with a Fitbit Surge with an avg HR of 128 credited me with 11 total calories per minute.
This is a pretty big difference per hour. I'm not sure which device is more accurate but the Surge was consistent with a polar and a basis peak for a similar situation... Either Apple is low or these other products are all overstating.
Most gym level equipment prompts for age, sex, weight input and also have heart rate monitors as well as the power they are exerting and absorbing. Many are now also keyed to Apps that keep your history. So unless you are on some entry level equipment, they know all that the AW knows plus more. Hence they have more dials to fiddle with in their algorithms. I trust them more than the AW, which as someone described above, is more of a general estimator that helps motivate you to do more. Nothing wrong with that. As a jack of all trades it does its job. FWIW, I've been hitting most of the same types and makes of equipment over the last four years. Since day 1 the AW has under estimated my calories compared to the machines by about half. OS2 hasn't changed that and it may have actually gotten a little better. The AW is closest on the treadmills, further away on the elliptical and stationary bikes, and about in the middle on the stair climbers, in my experience. Oddly, the treadmills do not measure heart rate, I never bothered to link my chest strap and keep my hands of the sensors when running. So why they are the closest is an interesting question.
I had the resistance at 16 out of 20 and at the time when I did it more regularly I dropped a ton of weight.
This. Everyone seems to be WAY over counting calories expended. 150lbs male @ 10min/mile pace is about 100 cal per mile. Elliptical is less than that.
In some ways logic would say that you expend more than running because you are exerting/ pushing against an object. In contrast, running is against the floor and air. Your arms, chest and back (and to a lesser degree your core) get a better workout with an elliptical.
It would depend on what resistance level you are set on, the speed/ RPM you perform. In that way machines with a wattage option would seem more accurate.
Right. Over in bicycling, riders are using power meters, not just HR, to estimate calories (which is more of a side effect, as they're usually trying to see how much power they can put out over a given span of time).
The fact is, you're not going to get a true calorie burn reading unless you've gotten yourself tested for oxygen consumption, wattage, HR, and whatever else your sports lab wants to measure. All these gym machines and fitness wearables are making estimates with very few variables.
Recently updated to 2.2 beta, and now I have this problem exactly. I workout on the same elliptical machine for the same duration at about the same time of day six days a week. Immediately after the 2.2 beta update, my Apple Watch began recording about half as many active calories in the Move area as before. Suddenly I stand no chance of meeting Move goals for the day after months of meeting them most every day. Sounds like the solution is just to lower the goal a bit or wait for Apple to fix this bug. I have done soft resets, but not a complete refresh of my watch with no improvement.
I just looked at my calorie history last week for indoor cycling, and I concluded that the AW total calories is probably about half of what it should be. The other interesting thing I found is that BMR calories seem to be way off for my indoor workouts. My BMR calories during workouts are a very consistent 114 calories/hour, or about 2,800 calories per day. Coincidentally, this corresponds to about what the AW had for my BMR with OS1. However, the day total is correct.
So I suspect that Apple only partially fixed the OS1 BMR problem to make the day totals appear reasonable, but they did not roll he fixes through all of the workout calorie algorithms. We have calorie spaghetti code for now. Maybe it will be fixed yet again with OS2.2 or OS3.
Agreed. I did the exact lookups over and over again and people are way overestimating their calorie burn. Now, I'm not saying the Apple Watch is right, but the old version 1.x was way way too high. Now, it feels like it might be a little low but not as far off as some think.
[doublepost=1453751389][/doublepost]
You always have such good results to back your information. Thank you for that!
I am starting to wonder if it varies from person to person on how their watch is working or if there are other apps on their phones that might overwrite others. Not sure. OS1 was way off for me on BMR. It has me at 3900 per day and when I worked out it would go up close to 5000. My two hour golf outing carrying my bag was 1000 calories even though all stats I found online said I should burn about half that or roughly 200-300 per hour. Once OS2 came out, the same golf outings would total 550-650 and my BMR was back down to 2600 which was spot on to the basic formula and within 100 of the most accurate formula.
When I workout on the treadmill or elliptical using the proper choice in the workout app, my results are very close to everything I read online with my VO2 levels tested at the doctor. If you run a 10 minute mile for an hour, you burn approximately 600 calories. Factor in your conditioning raises this up or down by as much as 25% or more.
When I got the AW, I was giving it the benefit of the doubt about calorie calculation accuracy. Apple's marketing and the brand swayed me. But, as I did a little research on calorie calculation algorithms and started seeing first had the watch's seemingly erratic results, I now do not trust the AW at all. It is like a broken analog watch-- even that is correct twice a day-- if you happen to be one of the people that AW's algorithms match, great. But, how do you know that you are that person?
I don't know 🙂 when I went to the doctor to get a VO2 testing, I had to run on a treadmill for 15 minutes and it was not easy at all. I tracked the calorie burn on my watch to what the programmed and the Apple Watch was 101 calories and their machine had me at 110. That's as accurate as can be or at least I would imagine.
I don't trust the Apple Watch either but I do not believe it is off by 50% on the low side. I think people are overestimating their calorie burn similar to people under estimate how much they eat. 🙂
Believe me, I am not doubting you or your testing but I will believe the testing I did in a lab that has my entire measurements and stats.
I have learned a lot about calorie estimation and algorithms in this thread, so thanks. However, in my case, I am simply comparing data from the same AppleWatch doing the same workout for the same duration on the same piece of elliptical equipment before and after updating to the 2.2 beta. Before the update the calorie burn was about 50% or more higher than after the update. For me, the calories are just a number, but I would like that number to remain within the same frame of reference from one day to the next when other things are all constant.
Data from medical-grade equipment is definitely the trump card. Was that OS1 or OS2?
I'm currently running 2.2 beta and the calorie burn has not changed between it and 2.1 or 2.0. It was OS1 that had th way higher numbers for calories burned and BMR calories.
Here is the interesting part. Before I upgraded to OS2, I installed OS9 beta and that fixed the BMR which makes sense since the activity app is what had the numbers.
Makes me believe problems are different for others as it sounds like you didn't have a problem until the beta version. People may yell at you for complaining about a beta version. 🙂
[doublepost=1453758722][/doublepost]
My treadmill at home is usually higher in calorie burn and distance then what the Apple Watch says. Of course, my treadmill doesn't allow me to enter age or weight or height or sex so it can't be accurate.
Here is the interesting part. Before I upgraded to OS2, I installed OS9 beta and that fixed the BMR which makes sense since the activity app is what had the numbers.
Makes me believe problems are different for others as it sounds like you didn't have a problem until the beta version. People may yell at you for complaining about a beta version. 🙂
[doublepost=1453758722][/doublepost]
OS 2.1. I've since upgraded to OS2.2 beta and nothing has changed. It was only 15 minutes and it was off by about 10-12% on the lowe side though.
My treadmill at home is usually higher in calorie burn and distance then what the Apple Watch says. Of course, my treadmill doesn't allow me to enter age or weight or height or sex so it can't be accurate.
Last edited:
I use a TICRX HRM paired with the Polar App when I run or use my elliptical. I also wear my Apple Watch. When I do a 10 minute Elliptical the Apple Watch may give me 60-70 active calories burned and the Polar App using the HRM will show 110-120. The Elliptical Machine will show like 180, lol. I use the Polar APP measurement and take about 10% off. I Have found the HRM with the Polar App to be spot on with the Hear Rate to net calories burned formula.
When I run the Apple Watch is much closer to the TICRX HRM than the elliptical measurement. I don't know why but it just is.