Curiously, can you both clarify which activity level you chose when you set up your watch? bigdogs would suggest you chose the Highly option and kitkat's would suggest the Moderately option.
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.
Resting Calories completely off
- Thread starter ditzy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Curiously, can you both clarify which activity level you chose when you set up your watch? bigdogs would suggest you chose the Highly option and kitkat's would suggest the Moderately option.
I think it has mine on the high side.
2470 resting calories, but MFP and other formulas come in around 1800/1900. I now question how accurate the activity calories are. Does it use your pulse to give accurate calorie use?
2470 resting calories, but MFP and other formulas come in around 1800/1900. I now question how accurate the activity calories are. Does it use your pulse to give accurate calorie use?
Yeh see i didnt have an option to choose my activity level because i set it up on the phone. The 1800/1900 is probably reflecting the lowest multiplier which is sedentary (~1.2x your RMR/BMR). 2470 would reflect a multiplier of about 1.55 which is the moderate setting and is the default one it chose for me.
The Active Calories is a combo of both the implied calories burned from your steps (does not use the HR; although my guess is that it does use the level of exercise as an intensity factor) and the calories burned for measured workouts (which does use the HR sensor to get a more accurate picture of calorie burn).
My limited experience is that if you want to accurately track calorie burn, you should use the lowest multiplier possible (Sedentary) and treat all calories burned according to your fitness band as Active and additive. Perhaps it underestimates your caloric burn from activities your band cannot capture but id rather have this then what is likely double counting occurring.
First of all--assuming that everything else you said is right, and I don't think it is--this is not the definition of resting calories for anyone else in the world. Not the website you provided. Not anywhere. Words have meaning, and in no place in the fitness world are "resting calories" equivalent to "estimated energy expenditures."
Second:
Let me give you some numbers based on the website you provided.
1) My Resting Energy Expenditure is 1824 calories.
2) Using the activity level I initially specified on my watch gives me a TEE of
3) The Resting Calories specified on my activity app are currently 3419 calories. This is a multiplier of 1.87 times my REE which would be equivalent to saying I was extremely active. I definitely did not choose "extremely active" when I set up my watch. I erred on the lighter side and choose the lowest possible activity level.
I would also like to point out that there are other reasons the numbers may look different for you than for me. The formula the watch is using for you may be right (or close to right) and wrong for me. For instance, the number may look right if your weight is relatively close to normal (mine isn't). Or, for instance, they may have gotten the formula right for men but messed it up somehow for women.
The fact that it looks right to you doesn't mean that it isn't completely screwed up for me.
Second, as to this:
As I understand your claim, it is that Apple defines "resting calories" as "estimated energy expenditures" and "active calories" as "everything above estimated energy expenditures."
Thus, my daily 3419 Apple Resting Calorie amount amounts to 2.37 Apple Resting Calories per minute. Of those 2.37 calories per minute, 1.27 calories are my actual resting calorie requirements, and around 1.10 calories are my estimated calorie requirement.
This morning, I walked my dog for 32 minutes, and Apple says I burned 144 active calories and 76 resting calories. You are telling me that the total calorie expenditure corresponds to 144 active calories + 40.6 actual resting calories + 35.4 estimated calorie expenditures, and that Apple is reducing my active calories by the estimated calorie expenditure requirement.
That may be true.
But even if you're right about workouts, this calculation method is going to end up being completely wrong at the end of the day. In order to make the math work out properly, every minute in which I do not exercise at all should result in negative Apple Active Calories. That way, if I spent the entire day in bed, Apple would get my correct calorie expenditure: It would say that my Apple Resting Calories were 3419 calories, and my Apple Active Calories were -1,595 calories due to inactivity, for a total calorie burn of 1824 calories.
If all Apple is doing is shifting calories from active to resting during workouts, it will be calculating calories incorrectly for every inactive minute.
Apple never applies negative active calories. (Because these are not what active calories are.)
If I go lie in bed for the remainder of the day, the Activity app at the end of the day will tell me that I burned 213 active calories + 3419 resting calories = 3632 calories.
In reality, I will have burned 2037 calories. So it will be wrong if I underexercise compared to what I put in.
Yesterday, I walked 11 miles (actually not--but Apple Watch was wrong about the miles, too--it's actually more like 9 miles as measured by GPS). This included my usual level of activity plus a long walk that I have done regularly, and so I have comparisons from my Fitbit Surge.
The Activity app says that I burned 1175 active calories and 3419 resting calories for a total calorie burn of 4594 calories. So it is wrong if I overexercise compared to what I put in.
The total calorie burn is completely wrong. I really do understand what these terms mean. I really don't need anyone to link me to more websites explaining this.
There really is no explanation for why Apple says that I burned 4594 calories yesterday, 3419 of which were resting calories, except that it is completely wrong. It may only be completely wrong for some people under some conditions--I'm not exactly sure what those conditions might be.
But I do not think there is any way to look at the data I have presented here and say, "Yes, this is right, this comes out with a total calorie burn at the end of the day that is remotely right."
FYI not lecturing you on the topic, your probably know much more than me. Just making general comments about why the data could make sense regardless of poor naming /labeling choices. To each his own, I agree completely with you.
My perspective on the topic, it may not be a good idea to fully rely on fitness trackers as a good source of calories burned as they have proven to have large variances in accurately measuring TEE (for anyone interested i read these awhile ago -- http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/pdf/1479-5868-9-84.pdf and https://www.acefitness.org/prosourcearticle/5216/ace-sponsored-research-are-activity-trackers). Much too complicated of a process with the current gen of wearables.
However, what all of these fitness tracking companies are doing (incl. Apple) is trying to estimate for you, which is fine so long as you understand how to use or apply the data in a meaningful way to you. Since your TEE (or in what we are talking about Total Calories) is a measure of your RMR/BMR, TEF (total calories burned from just digesting food - i.e. 2000cals consumed takes about 200 cals to digest), and ADL (activities from daily living estimated by the activity multipliers), the ADL is prob the least accurate and what the devices are calculating.
I agree resting calories may be misleading but i think the point Apple was after was that you have all this other stuff (what they are calling resting calories) and then calories burned from activities the watch is trying to directly measure. Since I dont know what they are really doing I won't say i disagree with you, but I think the data can still hold in your case if the 3401 was the total estimate based not he activity level you chose.
Apple and others ask about your level of activity because they know that their devices cannot really capture all the ancillary calories you are burning and also cannot even accurately capture the calories burned from activities they are capturing. So there is a basic assumption built in which is that you need a fixed variable, in this case your resting calories -- as i am speculating which is the BMR, plus TEF, plus ADL multiplier. Of course this will vary widely on a daily basis but the assumption is that the is your average. The AW is then capturing additional calories burned above and beyond this and calling it active calories.
So in your example, if you wake up and directly burn 213 calories, the AW is still assuming you will largely burn your 3401 through other activities although it may be allocating some of that 213 to your resting group, which is what it probably should do. If you lay in bed the rest of the day, sure you would not come close to the 3401 but the AW isn't capable of measuring all you calories anyway so its always going to assume you burn them in some way regardless. All fitness trackers do the same thing. Some are just more aggressive or less aggressive with how they convert steps and intensity into active calories burned. So for example, my fitbit would not give me credit for anything beyond my projected TEE until i reached 7000 calories. This is because i chose lightly active. If i had chosen sedentary, it probably would have been more like 2000. AW is being more aggressive in the cases i have measured but not by much. They are just trying to reconcile your selected activity level with what they are measuring since there is going to be some level of double counting. Again, why i was suggesting that the best way to avoid this would be to choose the lowest activity setting and then let all the measured calories try and represent all the calories you burn in a day from activities.
Either way, they are both likely to be off dramatically from the actual. Ill be interested to see if we get more data on the topic and/or the perhaps change the name/label.
how are you calculating it though? your number can be off depending on if your adding cooked meat or using the raw numbers. I was off for years figuring 6 grams per ounce of protein for chicken when i was weighing all my meat cooked. 1900 is pretty low are you a girl? 1200-1300 is more of a hardcore cutting diet for a girl that is. What where your protein, carbs, fat numbers for that day?
Yea the handheld body fat testers are pointless it says I'm 4.4% on the one at the gym i use calipers to check progress. That and the scale on my lowest day to keep track.
Has it been confirmed that what we entered when setting up the Watch as "activity level" has any bearing on the calculation of "resting calories"? I was under the impression that activity level was only being used to determine your initial Move calorie target.
I've been using wearables for years. I know all this. Apple is the only company out there that is getting my total calorie count for the day off by nearly 100%, which is well outside the errors noted in the articles you link.
But it wasn't. And it isn't.
(1) I specifically chose the lightest activity level. I specifically remember doing this. There is absolutely no way that this is an estimate based on the activity level I chose.
(2) Apple specifically adds active calories to its estimates. This makes no sense if the estimate includes activity.
You're trying to fit the data to your theory. Do it the other way around.
Over the last four years, I've used six or seven different activity trackers. The total calories calculated vary within a band of about 20-30%. I expect that margin of error.
This is particularly true since a total calorie count adds calculated calories from fitness trackers to BMR, and your basal metabolic needs dominate that number. You can be off by 100% in your active calorie estimates for a lightly active person and only be off by 10% in your total calorie estimates.
When Apple is within 20% of the active calorie counts of other calorie trackers that I've used, but off by 80% on the total calorie amounts, something is deeply screwy.
You're saying that:
(a) Apple specifically and intentionally mislabeled resting calories even though they meant something else;
(b) Apple's calculations are so bad that we should expect an 80% error rate on total calories;
(c) Apple can't manage to get a total calorie burn that is remotely close to its competitors, despite all the information we've seen about what is going on.
If that's the case, then the Watch is essentially useless as a fitness device, particularly in comparison to everything that has come before.
If what I'm saying is right, someone made a basic algebra error.
If I had to make a further guess as to what that basic algebra error was, I would be willing to bet that Apple's not using a formula to calculate resting calories that's linear in weight for clinically obese people. BMR stops being linear in weight; Apple's probably trying to be more accurate for those people. (E.g., here: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v57/n2/full/1601542a.html, and here: http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v37/n10/full/ijo2012218a.html).
BUT they made a mistake in their calculation for the clinically obese. Those who are close to normal will see accurate or close-to-accurate resting calories, because they'll be using the standard equations. Those of us on the heavier side of things will see less accurate calculations.
The likelihood that you are right, and that Apple is using words to mean something different than they say, and that despite having years-long testing labs that measured actual calories burned under specific circumstances, they can't manage what other trackers have done with much lower budgets, seems exceedingly low.
----------
No. This is a theory. It is disputed.
Thanks for the reply.
No not a girl, well, not the last time I checked anyway
I'm getting my calorie number by using raw figures (how many in one large egg, banana, orange etc)
For shop foodstuffs, in the UK, the large main retailers generally list the nutritional information on packets in recent years.
Such as this tin of salmon:
http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=254160069
(131kcal per 100g)
This bread: http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=276273651
(124 kcal per slice)
So, I'm adding things like that, together with raw numbers such as 110 cals for a medium banana.
I will admit, I'm not going to far as separating Protein and Carbs, just making sure, I try and eat the lowest fat items, and mean with high protein, only Fish and Chicken, and the fish high in Omega3.
There seems to be some debate about high protein and less carbs, however I'm basically trying to eat VERY healthily, no junk food whatsoever, and keep within a lowish total daily calorie count as that works and is the easiest to work out.
BTW: I know this is not really anything to do with this thread, so if anyone would rather PM me as opposed to posting in this thread as this is boring and of no interest to others then feel free to speak to me direct.
Thanks for the reply.
No not a girl, well, not the last time I checked anyway
I'm getting my calorie number by using raw figures (how many in one large egg, banana, orange etc)
For shop foodstuffs, in the UK, the large main retailers generally list the nutritional information on packets in recent years.
Such as this tin of salmon:
http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=254160069
(131kcal per 100g)
This bread: http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=276273651
(124 kcal per slice)
So, I'm adding things like that, together with raw numbers such as 110 cals for a medium banana.
I will admit, I'm not going to far as separating Protein and Carbs, just making sure, I try and eat the lowest fat items, and mean with high protein, only Fish and Chicken, and the fish high in Omega3.
There seems to be some debate about high protein and less carbs, however I'm basically trying to eat VERY healthily, no junk food whatsoever, and keep within a lowish total daily calorie count as that works and is the easiest to work out.
BTW: I know this is not really anything to do with this thread, so if anyone would rather PM me as opposed to posting in this thread as this is boring and of no interest to others then feel free to speak to me direct.
if you don't have a scale you should invest in one. Most of the food labels seem to be off on weight numbers from me doing this over the years. Sure its only a few grams here and there like bread is typically a few grams heavier. Very rare its under. Same i found with gatorades are over by 2-4 carbs. All these things add up and id suggest using a scale and actually adding up macros to see what your at. 1200 is very very low. You don't want to just jump right into that especially if you have no higher days of carbs at least(I'm assuming your cutting carbs). You want to slowly taper down based on sticking points. Your body will adapt to lower calorie level to a certain level and sticking points of going under 1200 won't be fun. Cycling calories might be better for you.
I selected the lowest level of activity, actually. I broke my foot BADLY last summer and I'm still not 100%. (7 screws and a plate)
Besides, the active calories add to the resting calories for your total calories burned. Your BMR is solely based on height/weight/gender...and that should be resting calories.
So i rang Apple support about this. They said to reset the watch so it asks me again for my activity level. So this time I'm paying more attention when setting it up.
I think i know where its going wrong.
So i got asked again (pictures attached) by the App.
I think its wrong straight from the start. Why is it even asking me how active i am? Thats what the watch is for, to record my activity accurately. It should be set at my BMR and then topped up depending on how active i am with 'Activity calories'
So im 32, 6ft 3", male. My BMR depending on if you do Harris Benedict, Harris Benedict Revised or some other formula my bmr calories should be about 1900. Thats if i was in bed all day. So to take into account energy digesting food or sitting up i would say my resting calories are 2100 if sedentary. Well the Activity app says i am using it 2486 every day as resting calories. Now as you can see on the screen shot, lightly active for me is 380 calories, if i take 380 away from the 2486 resting calories i get 2106, which is very close to what i would expect my resting calories to be.
So it seems like the watch is double counting some of the active calories. Because if i go for a walk it will class these as additional walking calories, but they are already added to the lightly active 380 calories.
It should be 2106 + active calories, not 2106 + light activity (380 calories) + active calories.
But curiously the next screen on setup sets your goal to the activity level on the previous screen. But as you can see from the screenshot of the activity app, its still double adding them, as i was not active at all yesterday, but its still done 2496 resting and added 347 active calories on top. There is no way i used up 2843 calories yesterday.
Plus on another note what is the actual point of the heart rate monitor? Why take my pulse every 10 minutes if its not going to use this information to give more accurate resting calorie information? I just get 2496 every day so its obviously using formula only.
I think i know where its going wrong.
So i got asked again (pictures attached) by the App.
I think its wrong straight from the start. Why is it even asking me how active i am? Thats what the watch is for, to record my activity accurately. It should be set at my BMR and then topped up depending on how active i am with 'Activity calories'
So im 32, 6ft 3", male. My BMR depending on if you do Harris Benedict, Harris Benedict Revised or some other formula my bmr calories should be about 1900. Thats if i was in bed all day. So to take into account energy digesting food or sitting up i would say my resting calories are 2100 if sedentary. Well the Activity app says i am using it 2486 every day as resting calories. Now as you can see on the screen shot, lightly active for me is 380 calories, if i take 380 away from the 2486 resting calories i get 2106, which is very close to what i would expect my resting calories to be.
So it seems like the watch is double counting some of the active calories. Because if i go for a walk it will class these as additional walking calories, but they are already added to the lightly active 380 calories.
It should be 2106 + active calories, not 2106 + light activity (380 calories) + active calories.
But curiously the next screen on setup sets your goal to the activity level on the previous screen. But as you can see from the screenshot of the activity app, its still double adding them, as i was not active at all yesterday, but its still done 2496 resting and added 347 active calories on top. There is no way i used up 2843 calories yesterday.
Plus on another note what is the actual point of the heart rate monitor? Why take my pulse every 10 minutes if its not going to use this information to give more accurate resting calorie information? I just get 2496 every day so its obviously using formula only.
Attachments
Doesn't write to the health dashboard. Only writes active. Not sure why although resting is more static anyway and not the focus. Still they included it in Health so you would think they would want to appear capturing as many data points between apps/devices.
Thanks. That makes sense. When I entered a data point it gave me a number that's probably fairly close to my BMR so I at least have a starting point. Overall I know the exact numbers don't matter just a reliable tracking number I can work around.
Still seems weird there's a dashboard option...
Still seems weird there's a dashboard option...
Yep. Mine are off by about 500, which is a pretty big amount given the numbers. I'm a 5'7", 135lb female - I'm basically the defaults for an exercise machine - so I don't think I could be considered an outlier body type.
I've had my watch for a week and the resting calorie number has been consistent each day, so they're not adjusting it based on anything I do.
FWIW, I haven't done any comparisons against my Polar or Timex HRMs for active calorie burn, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the active numbers the watch is giving, based on the fact that it doesn't keep a regular heart rate unless you're using the exercise app.
I *have* found the step count to be fairly accurate when compared to my Up band.
----------
I have this in there. Still off by 500 calories in the activity app.