Every 10 minutes isn't regular enough when not working out? What do other bands/watches do?
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
Every 10 minutes isn't regular enough when not working out? What do other bands/watches do?
What I mean is that if I have to run to catch the bus, and I'm in between measurements, it doesn't know I burned those extra calories. Or if I'm out with my dog and happen to run with him both times that the watch takes a measurement, it thinks I ran the whole time in between too. Either way, it's not very accurate.
My sport watches keep a regular beat and show the rate consistently while using them (similar but more consistent than the exercise app on the watch). I don't think we can expect the AW to do that all day long (it would use too much battery). It's not a shot down at the watch, it is what it is.
Doesn't matter since it doesn't use the Hr sensor to calculate calories at the default 10 min rate. Only during workouts when it's constantly on. Otherwise calories are being estimated likely by combo of your stats and steps and some measure of exertion not related to HR.
I find that if I'm not using the exercise app, if the watch can't sense my heart rate, the activity app doesn't register exercise. So it's using your heart rate for something (or at least mine is, LOL).
EDIT: Well i was just looking at their support page and it does say it uses HR and other data to approximate your calories so NVM.
Would be nice but unrelated I am pretty sure. From various commentary I have heard and even from Apples website (here where it shows you heart rate, gps, and accelerometer: https://www.apple.com/watch/health-and-fitness/) it says that HR sensor is only used during workouts and accelerometer (and gyro as its builtin as well) is a measure of all else. The guided video talks about exercise counting from not just workout but from things like "playing with your kids" which is the same language they use to describe the use of the accelerometer.
As an aside which you probably know but, when you read about CoreMotion (the framework in the iPhone that leverages the accel, gyro, and magnetometer), it shows you how powerful those three sensors can be when used together. Its can detect your motion in 3 dimensions, calculate your acceleration, understand if you are going up or down, etc. You therefore can (theoretically) calculate a level of exertion. So as the AW has the same sensors (minus the magnetometer but thats not as important here) it can be used similarly. The GPS in the iPhone I am pretty sure acts as a calibrator so when they talk about tethering for outdoor workouts, its to help calibrate the accelerometer algos probably to better judge your strides (which ultimately is how the AW translates steps into actual distance covered). Which makes sense because after enough data points (walks/runs), you probably can closely approximate each person's strides/distance covered. Doesn't mean Apple is doing it well only that it makes sense how they are leveraging all these sensors with each other. And from there, you can also better fine tune calorie burn but only up to an extent. Certainly never gonna be as accurate as a constant HR monitor but probably close enough for 97% or population which is always apples target market anyway.
The watch is smarter than this. It doesn't keep a fixed 10 minute interval no matter what, if it notices a jump in your heart rate it will start reading it more regularly until it settles back down again. You can see this in your Health data.
It has to take a reading to notice a jump in heart rate. If it's not reading, it's clueless.
Resting Calories
Resting Calories is a complete joke --- as of now 2205 BST, 467 active calories, perhaps a little generous and 2293 resting calories, total of calories 'used so far today' = 2760, about 600 too high.
Something is very wrong and could cause you to gain pounds when using as a guide on how much to eat.
Data taken from the MOVE section of the Activity App.
Resting Calories is a complete joke --- as of now 2205 BST, 467 active calories, perhaps a little generous and 2293 resting calories, total of calories 'used so far today' = 2760, about 600 too high.
Something is very wrong and could cause you to gain pounds when using as a guide on how much to eat.
Data taken from the MOVE section of the Activity App.
There are other cues that can alert it to take a reading, though. Suddenly increased movement, for example, like when you start sprinting.
So on the good news, bad news front...
I spoke to an incredibly helpful senior applecare+ rep who escalated the resting calories "issue" to apple engineers. Helped him explain the issue in detail and ultimately asking for them to provide the calculation. He just received a response back that said "they are aware of the issue and it has been reported from several people. The issue will require a fix that will be forthcoming in an update". He said this almost always means a software update (although not sure what other kind there is but...) but he offered to report back to me when he hears definitively. So I guess it is indeed an error and we will have to wait.
I spoke to an incredibly helpful senior applecare+ rep who escalated the resting calories "issue" to apple engineers. Helped him explain the issue in detail and ultimately asking for them to provide the calculation. He just received a response back that said "they are aware of the issue and it has been reported from several people. The issue will require a fix that will be forthcoming in an update". He said this almost always means a software update (although not sure what other kind there is but...) but he offered to report back to me when he hears definitively. So I guess it is indeed an error and we will have to wait.
Same here. And if you drill down into resting calories in the Health app, you'll see that Apple Watch is not registered as a source. So I don't think resting calories will be populated, which is annoying because I'd like to see my total calorie burn per day.
EDIT: Never mind, should have read the last few posts that state Apple is aware and working on a fix. That's good to hear.
Last edited:
Quackers, you seem to have hit the nail on the head with the resting calories issue.
It is taking the resting calories, which seems about right and adding on your active/ move calories to create your resting calories (why on earth would it do this, resting means exactly that; without anything on top)... and then adding them on again when you are hitting them/ burning them later on!
----------
Exactly. However, not sure if it kickstarts the heart rate monitor again though (it would certainly be the best thing to do if it detected a good bit of motion)
As has been said above... it doesnt always HAVE to work on the HR monitor. My partner has a Fitbit, without an HR monitor and looking back over her day, she has a section for active minutes.
Now, the only sensor in her Fitbit is an accelerometer that it can rely on. So it must pick up when her steps are going at a faster pace (whatever algo Fitbit have set it at) it really can be as simple as that.
However, an HR monitoring calorie burn/ exertion is more precise, hence why it's used for a dedicated workout non-stop.
EDIT: Here's the info regarding Fitbit and active minutes...
https://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/What-are-very-active-minutes/
I've been using a non-HR Fitbit for 3.5 years and find the calorie burn numbers to be accurate. Fitbit uses the Mifflin St Jeor equation for calorie calculation. Try experimenting with the calculator here:
http://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html
My BMR is 1091 (skinny female)
Sedentary (ie resting): 1309 and
Moderately active: 1691
The moderately active 1691 is almost the same as my Watch 1658 'resting' cals, whilst my Fitbit average TOTAL calorie burn for last 30 days is 1690. I do an average 12k steps daily, Watch and Fitbit are fairly close.
On the Health app Resting Calories are described as 'an estimate of your basal metabolic rate (BMR) [...]' Then why don't they call them BMR?!
So Watch 'resting' calories should be BMR but are more like BMR x 1.5 - moderate activity already included - and then the Activity calories are added on.
Really don't get how they got this so wrong. It's not that difficult, you start with BMR. Then you add the Activity picked up by the Watch to it.
http://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html
My BMR is 1091 (skinny female)
Sedentary (ie resting): 1309 and
Moderately active: 1691
The moderately active 1691 is almost the same as my Watch 1658 'resting' cals, whilst my Fitbit average TOTAL calorie burn for last 30 days is 1690. I do an average 12k steps daily, Watch and Fitbit are fairly close.
On the Health app Resting Calories are described as 'an estimate of your basal metabolic rate (BMR) [...]' Then why don't they call them BMR?!
So Watch 'resting' calories should be BMR but are more like BMR x 1.5 - moderate activity already included - and then the Activity calories are added on.
Really don't get how they got this so wrong. It's not that difficult, you start with BMR. Then you add the Activity picked up by the Watch to it.
Last edited:
More thoughts
Amounting to the same thing, that Apple will need to fix, but here is a similar thread...
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7017355
Amounting to the same thing, that Apple will need to fix, but here is a similar thread...
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7017355
I thought it was asking your activity level to set your Move goal, that's why the options are red (like the Move ring). Your theory sounds plausible, though.
Anyway, my resting calories are also way off. I'm M/31/6'3"/223lbs, and it says my resting calories are 3141. It's impossible. If I ate that much every day, I'd be gaining weight like crazy (even with exercise). I don't recall exactly what I chose my activity level to be, but I think I chose lightly active, which gave me a ~300 calorie move goal. I later increased the move goal to 500 calories.
Last edited:
Actually.....
Using the BMI scale I am, even now, within the Green healthy weight zone.
I would need to drop another 5 lbs, down to 156 lbs before I was right on the line of being medically underweight on the BMI scale.
Using your own personal numbers of 6ft and 150lbs that is perfect re the BMI scale at just under half way up with healthy range = excellent weight/height.
If I'm honest, I think a lot of this "Oh you look underweight and ill" type comments is a lot due to the way we as a western culture as seeing fatter and fatter people everywhere, and it's skewing our internal mental image of what a healthy look should be.
You go back, say 100 years and you would probably find what now people regard as underweight and skinny would be quite normal, and what we, today see as normal would be viewed as overweight.
In the western world anyway.
I enjoy being on the thin side. I see so many people lose control of their weight, and almost all guys my age have bellies over hanging their belts.
It's so so so easy to get that way unless you look after what you eat.
I would like an Apple watch, or some activity watch for this reason, but if I'm honest, only if its accurate. I am very good when it comes to routine and wishing to meet a daily goal.
I was thinking the same thing. What we call "normal" sized people these days 100 years ago would be considered circus freaks. It's insane to think about. And with the "healthy at every size" movement promoting obesity as "just another size to love", I think we as a culture are on our way downhill.
You see it all the time on the fitness pal forums. Someone loses weight and gets to a healthy weight and family members start saying they look sickly and malnourished
Indeed yes, I totally agree.
Sadly, from my own personal experience it's women who are the worse.
I've lost count of the number of married/together couples I see whilst out shopping in various local towns, where the man (let's say early to late middle age range) is what you'd call a fairly typical size, but he's with his wife, like some walrus, waddling along with her ass wider than his chest!
As you say. Someone of middle age, who's belly if not over the belt and is slim. It's almost a comment about is there something wrong with them?
I know in other countries this is not the case, it's just our modern western world, with so many people at home pushing buttons, which they think is housework, driving to work rather than walking/cycling etc, and sitting on their ass all day and evening as opposed to older more manual jobs.
It's worrying that fat is now normal and normal is now ill in some people's eyes.
I noticed that my Resting Calories in the Activity app are always the same number (2402) at the end of every day
Anyone else with the same problem? Is it a known bug?
Resting calories are supposed to stay the same if your weight doesn't change. However it will be adjusted on you birthday, as you need less calories as you get older.
The bug is that the resting calories are wrong, not that they don't move.
Oh, useful information
I didn't know this. I thought resting calories would change based on the BPM detected by the AW throughout the day.This. Also it should change with height as well, but that doesn't seem to be changing the number, I think that's part of the reason that resting calories are off. I've never seen resting calories just based on weight.
Oh, useful information
I figured this was right as well...
You're right about height, I didn't say height because while people tend to lose or gain weight, for most of your adult life your height is static. But if the activity app isn't taking notice of height that would explain why resting calories are so off.