Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

First evidence (from Apple) the HR sensor may not be accurate

A question for all those who say it is a photoshop publicity shot (which it could very well be). Why would Apple show a pic with info that would be wrong? If Apple is going to show an hour of running activity they should make the calorie count more plausible and in line with the activity.

It seems that Jay Blahnik would have a lot of input in making sure any simulated fitness related info published was as accurate as possible.
 
How long does it take to burn 72 calories resting? Quite a while.

This suggests her run wasn't anywhere near an hour long.

Perhaps she did a 15 minute run, and rested for 45 minutes, leaving the heart rate sensor on to monitor her recovery rate?

Without knowing how we got to those figures it is impossible for us to know.

Apple should probably do a better job at explaining just what the Watch is showing us.
 
M-5 said:
Apple could have just as easily rendered that screen in photoshop to make it look pretty with different readings.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. The screens Apple uses for marketing purposes are almost all guaranteed to be photoshopped and not represent actual usage.

Considering the heart pulse feature can send your heart rate to another nearby Apple Watch contact, I'm sure it's pretty accurate. The algorithm it uses to calculate calories on the other hand, as others have noted, can realistically be more or less an estimate.
 
An hour run for a woman of her size seems to jive with 300 calories burned. I'm not sure about the 72 resting calories though.
 
jabingla2810 said:
....Perhaps she did a 15 minute run, and rested for 45 minutes, leaving the heart rate sensor on to monitor her recovery rate?

Without knowing how we got to those figures it is impossible for us to know....
Click to expand...

Dwalls90 said:
I completely agree. The screens Apple uses for marketing purposes are almost all guaranteed to be photoshopped and not represent actual usage.....
Click to expand...


FrankySavvy said:
It is clear that most of what apple shows are simulated screens. I wouldn't read much into that.
Click to expand...

But we DO know what the run is or at least we should. This is not (directly) an Apple marketing site. It is a blog site devoted to her weekly training schedule so the information should be accurate and reflect that. She clearly states she did 2 runs last week and then posted a screen shot that is NOT one of them.

For her 8 mile run it should be more like:

  • Time: 1:12:30
  • Calories: 650-800

For her 14 mile run it should be more like:

  • Time: 2:25:00
  • Calories: 1300-1600

Apple is usually a stickler about making sure info is accurate. In this case something was over looked.

----------
leenak said:
An hour run for a woman of her size seems to jive with 300 calories burned. I'm not sure about the 72 resting calories though.
Click to expand...

She is 5'10" and while lean probably weighs at least 100 lbs or more. At the speed she runs she would complete about 6.5 miles in an hour. >300kcal for a 6.5mile hour long of running for a 100 lb person is VERY low. Should probably be over 450kcal.
 
It's not going to be accurate. That's a given. I can't wait to get mine and prove it once and for all against my Suunto Ambit 2 and HRM strap
 
Symtex said:
It's not going to be accurate. That's a given. I can't wait to get mine and prove it once and for all against my Suunto Ambit 2 and HRM strap
Click to expand...

One should always try to be as objective as possible when testing. If you are already looking for a certain result you tend to find it.;)

I plan on doing a 10 to 12 miles run comparing with my Garmin 620 on the 25th. I'm hoping that Apple has perfected the optical HR monitor, but it does seem technically changing to have done.

There is a great inside thread that show Apple is doing some serious research on fitness and the :apple:Watch.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1857842/

https://gma.yahoo.com/inside-apples...nce.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=tw
 
Julien said:
One should always try to be as objective as possible when testing. If you are already looking for a certain result you tend to find it.;)

I plan on doing a 10 to 12 miles run comparing with my Garmin 620 on the 25th. I'm hoping that Apple has perfected the optical HR monitor, but it does seem technically changing to have done.

There is a great inside thread that show Apple is doing some serious research on fitness and the :apple:Watch.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1857842/

https://gma.yahoo.com/inside-apples...nce.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=tw
Click to expand...

Of course I will remain objective but I am not that much in shape so I know I will hit ~170bpm on my run. It will be a great test.
 
Julien said:
She is 5'10" and while lean probably weighs at least 100 lbs or more. At the speed she runs she would complete about 6.5 miles in an hour. >300kcal for a 6.5mile hour long of running for a 100 lb person is VERY low. Should probably be over 450kcal.
Click to expand...

I somehow forget how tall models are. I was thinking an evening jog for an hour for a short, thin woman but it definitely seems like maybe a promo pic like others indicate.
 
It is just a picture. It was taken by a professional photorgapher under ideal conditions. It wasn't shot directly after a run. Yes the numbers are too low. The numbers probably work if she was doing some Yoga.

But seriously this is from a photo shoot is my guess.
 
Julien said:
But we DO know what the run is or at least we should. This is not (directly) an Apple marketing site. It is a blog site devoted to her weekly training schedule so the information should be accurate and reflect that. She clearly states she did 2 runs last week and then posted a screen shot that is NOT one of them.

For her 8 mile run it should be more like:

  • Time: 1:12:30
  • Calories: 650-800

For her 14 mile run it should be more like:

  • Time: 2:25:00
  • Calories: 1300-1600

Apple is usually a stickler about making sure info is accurate. In this case something was over looked.

----------



She is 5'10" and while lean probably weighs at least 100 lbs or more. At the speed she runs she would complete about 6.5 miles in an hour. >300kcal for a 6.5mile hour long of running for a 100 lb person is VERY low. Should probably be over 450kcal.
Click to expand...

No, she clearly does those two runs that week, the 8 and 14 mile run. This is not one of those runs, this is just the daily run, she runs everyday with two long runs each week. Standard training.
 
Maybe the battery failed halfway through and she had to wait till she got home to charge it up?
 
Ries said:
A 8 mile run would burn at-least twice that, even with her low weight.
Click to expand...

That sounds about right for the amount of calories she burn running 8 miles. I would ride from my house out to the lake with rolling hills in between each way. My cadence would be between 80-95 rpm with my HR 125bpm. And I would burn that amount of calories riding 10mi one way. I am also using the GARMIN HR Monitor, which has two sensors position close to my heart. Which gives pretty accurate reading to my GARMIN 500 bike computer. it also depends on how hard she is running. Also if she is a well tuned machine, which I think she his. She will use up less calories if she is running at a comfortable pace. People who are in great shape usually have go harder and longer to burn a lot of calories. And if she does this lets say 4days per week, she would end up burning a lot of calories a week.
 
01silver4 said:
That sounds about right for the amount of calories she burn running 8 miles. I would ride from my house out to the lake with rolling hills in between each way. My cadence would be between 80-95 rpm with my HR 125bpm. And I would burn that amount of calories riding 10mi one way...
Click to expand...
Besides being fundamentally different than running, biking will burn less than ½ the amount of calories per mile covered with a similar exertion. Biking is more than 2x as efficient as running. I burn about 40% to 50% less calories per mile with road biking than running. Here is a good article that explains it.

http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2007/9/24/running-vs-cycling-burning-calories.html
 
I wouldn't read anything into it. If that were an actual output and it wasn't displaying proper stats for the activity, they'd have seen that right away and photoshopped it.

I am guessing that's an elapsed hour with some of that time being active.

And they probably didn't think anyone would assume they'd be dumb enough to put a display on the internet that was faulty.

Because... they would not be. They're Apple, not HuffPo.

:D
 
Julien said:
Besides being fundamentally different than running, biking will burn less than ½ the amount of calories per mile covered with a similar exertion. Biking is more than 2x as efficient as running. I burn about 40% to 50% less calories per mile with road biking than running. Here is a good article that explains it.

http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2007/9/24/running-vs-cycling-burning-calories.html
Click to expand...

Agree that they are different in some ways, but with cycling it depends on what gear u are riding in, your cadence, if u are riding into a head wind etc, I could ride for 8mile in a 53/12 gearing with a cadence 85-95. And end up burning more calories than anyone running the same 8mile. In cycling your body is like an engine powering your gears wheels etc. I never ran that far before, it was always sprinting for me. 50,100,200m's for me. Running was always apart of my life as a boy growing up in Jamaica. But I do agree though running can take a lot out of u. Every now and again I would do a 40 yard dash, but do most of my sprinting now on this machine.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    2.8 MB · Views: 82
01silver4 said:
Agree that they are different in some ways, but with cycling it depends on what gear u are riding in, your cadence, if u are riding into a head wind etc, I could ride for 8mile in a 53/12 gearing with a cadence 85-95. And end up burning more calories than anyone running the same 8mile. In cycling your body is like an engine powering your gears wheels etc. I never ran that far before, it was always sprinting for me. 50,100,200m's for me. Running was always apart of my life as a boy growing up in Jamaica. But I do agree though running can take a lot out of u. Every now and again I would do a 40 yard dash, but do most of my sprinting now on this machine.
Click to expand...

Not really. You may burn more calories per minute but you get there faster making overall effort same or less. Head wind is an obvious exception. I'd argur that you'd burn more calories "spinning" due to friction and more loss from moving your legs more cycles for less distance. Sort of like running in place.
 
All this means is I'm going to have to run 8 miles to see how accurate my new watch is;)

Makes me wonder how many new Apple watch users are going to keel over testing the new features.
 
On average a person burns about 100-115 calories per mile ran, doesn't matter how long it takes you.
 
Watched the fitness lab video...

Damn!
After watching that I think there's no way Apple has errors on calories burned data!!! That guy was OOZING with confidence... he said Apple, over the last two years, had amassed from their employees, one of the largest fitness data sets known to man! Further, they had really honed in on when & how actual calories are burned. I think this will yield more precise data on that front than previously possible...
Am I reaching?
 
imaginex20 said:
On average a person burns about 100-115 calories per mile ran, doesn't matter how long it takes you.
Click to expand...

That sounds about right. I still think the guy who photoshopped it put the wrong data in. :)

Quick! Alerts Phil on twitter.
 
Tycho24 said:
Damn!
After watching that I think there's no way Apple has errors on calories burned data!!! That guy was OOZING with confidence... he said Apple, over the last two years, had amassed from their employees, one of the largest fitness data sets known to man! Further, they had really honed in on when & how actual calories are burned. I think this will yield more precise data on that front than previously possible...
Am I reaching?
Click to expand...

Please remember, irrespective of what it looked like, he was repeating a heavily per scripted sakes pitch written by people at apple who are very skilled with words and using all of ths as Planned PR for the launch of a new product.

Would you really expect him to say anything else.

The whole thing is PR to sell a product.
That dies not mean its all a lie, but just to accept the reality of what you see and hear in any official piece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back