Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fitness tracker advice

Options
  • 18-01-2021 9:34pm
    #1
    R2potat2
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭


    I need some fitness advice.

    I recently got a activity tracker and there is options for recording a run a cycle a walk a hike and so on.. but there is one the is just other so when I was in work (grocery retail) I decided to put the other setting on and I was packing fruit and veg. And to my surprise for 1.5 hours of pack fruit and veg I managed to burn over 1000 calories

    So my question is. Is this accurate it measures your heart rate as you work and counts steps I am trying to get in shape so was wondering if I can count this a calorie burn or not...please help I put a screen shot of the app below


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    chuck eastwood
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭chuck eastwood


    R2potat2 wrote: »
    I need some fitness advice.

    I recently got a activity tracker and there is options for recording a run a cycle a walk a hike and so on.. but there is one the is just other so when I was in work (grocery retail) I decided to put the other setting on and I was packing fruit and veg. And to my surprise for 1.5 hours of pack fruit and veg I managed to burn over 1000 calories

    So my question is. Is this accurate it measures your heart rate as you work and counts steps I am trying to get in shape so was wondering if I can count this a calorie burn or not...please help I put a screen shot of the app below

    There are so many variables when it comes to counting calories burned. You would be far better off focusing on your calorie intake. I had the same discussion with a female cyclist friend last night wondering if a heart rate strap was more accurate than a Garmin watch and how accurate are either. I think it's a given that the strap is better but obviously not something you want to wear all day.

    I had my wife's fit bit on my left wrist, Garmin on my right wrist and they never came within 20bpm of each other on a paced trainer road cycle. It's grand for ball park figure but it no way accurate for calories burned


  • Options
    #3
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,310 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    No. It thinks you are walking not just moving your arms.


  • Options
    #4
    R2potat2
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭R2potat2


    ted1 wrote: »
    No. It thinks you are walking not just moving your arms.

    The step count was quite low but the calories burned were very high for a short period of time it was on because 10000 steps is only 400 calories give or take. So just counting the steps wouldn't add up


  • Options
    #5
    R2potat2
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭R2potat2


    chuck eastwood wrote: »
    There are so many variables when it comes to counting calories burned. You would be far better off focusing on your calorie intake. I had the same discussion with a female cyclist friend last night wondering if a heart rate strap was more accurate than a Garmin watch and how accurate are either. I think it's a given that the strap is better but obviously not something you want to wear all day.

    I had my wife's fit bit on my left wrist, Garmin on my right wrist and they never came within 20bpm of each other on a paced trainer road cycle. It's grand for ball park figure but it no way accurate for calories burned


    Thank you for the reply but I'm happy enough if it's not to the point accurate but if I could be sure it was close enough I would have a better chance of making sure I'm consuming less calories than I burn


  • Options
    #6
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,081 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    R2potat2 wrote: »
    And to my surprise for 1.5 hours of pack fruit and veg I managed to burn over 1000 calories
    That's not what it says. I think you miss read the numbers.
    I don't find that screenshot surprising really.
    ted1 wrote: »
    No. It thinks you are walking not just moving your arms.
    That's not how that work.
    And it's irrelevant whether you are moving you legs or not.
    chuck eastwood wrote: »
    I had my wife's fit bit on my left wrist, Garmin on my right wrist and they never came within 20bpm of each other on a paced trainer road cycle. It's grand for ball park figure but it no way accurate for calories burned
    How did the calorie data look over the same cycle?
    I'd have imagine completely different you where using a device calibrated for somebody else.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    JMR
    Registered Users Posts: 633 ✭✭✭JMR


    From the screenshot, it is telling you that over a period of 4hr 07min (247 min) you burned a total of 1074 kcal.

    As others have said, there's lots of other factors to consider but the above doesn't sound way off.


  • Options
    #8
    j@utis
    Registered Users Posts: 3,064 ✭✭✭j@utis


    As JMR pointed out, it's over period of 4hrs.

    I've got Xioami wristband and tested it along side the Polar chest strap. Interestingly they both record almost the same average heart rate but calories burned per hour might differ 50+kcal, with Polar being more generous. I think they use different algorithm to calculate it, with Polar matching closer to online calculators I used for cycling and running.


  • Options
    #9
    R2potat2
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭R2potat2


    JMR wrote: »
    From the screenshot, it is telling you that over a period of 4hr 07min (247 min) you burned a total of 1074 kcal.

    As others have said, there's lots of other factors to consider but the above doesn't sound way off.

    Thank you for the response but in that 4 hours I only packed for 1.5 hours. But in general I should assume it is close enough to the amount burned?


  • Options
    #10
    R2potat2
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭R2potat2


    And just to clarify guys if I don't switch on the other sports workout on the watch it just counts steps and calories burned along with those steps but with the other sports workout switched on when I am packing it's telling me I'm burning loads.

    And if that is the case should I just switch on the workout from the time I get up to the time I get home and let it calculate my day in terms of activity and not just walking, would that give me a better view on what I am actually burning


  • Options
    #11
    dobman88
    Registered Users Posts: 6,461 ✭✭✭dobman88


    R2potat2 wrote: »
    Thank you for the response but in that 4 hours I only packed for 1.5 hours. But in general I should assume it is close enough to the amount burned?

    In the 1.5 hrs you refer to, it says you burned 475cal, not 1000 as you first thought.

    You burned over 1000 in a 4 hour period. Given you were more active for the 1.5hrs you wanted to track, numbers add up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,081 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    R2potat2 wrote: »
    Thank you for the response but in that 4 hours I only packed for 1.5 hours. But in general I should assume it is close enough to the amount burned?

    As I said above, you are misreading the info.
    The 1000 cals was over 4 hours
    The packing was in the middle of that. A fraction of the time and calories.

    Without anything to compare to that looks not unusual.


Advertisement