Is this watch truly accurate when it comes to calorie counting?
1308166
It is not "truly 100% accurate" but cose enough for most people's needs. A device that accurately measures your calorie burn is expensive and cumbersome and would need to measure more than just your heart rate.
1308167
So I bought this watch and been using it for about 1 month. I can assure you that there is a difference on the caloric expenditure displayed on the cardio machine verses the one on the watch. But I made some research and really the POLAR watch seems to be the one to trust. The watch has info on height, weight, age, real-time heart rate monitoring so it has all the info needed to generate the actual caloric expenditure. On the machine however, usually the only 2 info you give is weight and age. At the end of the day, long story short, the POLAR FT7 is pretty much accurate and serves perfect for the individual who wants to monitor his/her caloric expenditure during any kind of aerobic exercise. I DEFINITELY RECOMMEND!
1876589
In my understanding the watch is sensing my hand moving and assuming that i am walking if my hand has a wavy or rhythmic motion. So I'd think it will sense your lifting weights also as walking. Also hence the calories credited will not be corrected. ButI think their customer support can answer this best.
1158226
While the watch can calculate (recorded to be exact) heart rate during any activity (given the HR strap is used), i'm not sure whether the calories burn calculation is accurate. You can check TomTom watch's FAQ or ask the question directly.
791521
The answer is no but realistically there's no reliable calorie counter that is affordable. Besides it's irrelevant. Work out- burn calories.
1946117
It DOES show calories burned. The two people below are wrong. After you completed the workout you get a summary of how long the work was, how long you were in the "zone" (set up by you), avg hr, max hr, calories burned. I had this watch for about 4 years now.
1869352
Yes. Calories is one of the items it monitors and shows on the screen. I've never ridden with it displayed, though. I usually have the 'clock' or 'distance' on display.
1533528
When I bought the Garmin 110, the heart rate monitor was about $65 extra. I regret buying the monitor as I find it gives inaccurate calorie counts. I walk 4 miles one day and it says that I used 90 calories and the next day 4 miles and it says that I used 300 calories. I am only interested in the calorie count.
48248
Yes, hours, minutes, seconds, date, steps taken, calories burned & pulse rate. I LOVE this watch!!!!
1410019
As far as I can tell, very accurate and consistent. The scale is very sensitive to minor changes such as removing a watch.I weigh on a very regular basis and compare the weight I get on my scale to the digital scale at one doctor's office as well as another office with manual scales. (I always take notice if the scale is balanced at o before I weigh on the manual scale.). For those of us who are weight conscious this scale is a godsend.
580339
Thanks for your detailed insights. From your post and others I've read, seems like I'll stick with the 305. I am very happy with the accuracy and ease of use, I just need to find some way to make it not rub my wrist so much. And the only other thing, and this is minor, is that it does not calculate calories expended unless you are using the GPS. I would think they could make an estimate when you are using the footpod indoors, but they don't. (The Polar R200sd does do this.)Maybe they will get the kinks worked out of the 405 sometime and I'll think about it then. Until then, I guess it doesn't pay to be an early adopter. Thanks for your detailed insights. From your post and others I've read, seems like I'll stick with the 305. I am very happy with the accuracy and ease of use, I just need to find some way to make it not rub my wrist so much. And the only other thing, and this is minor, is that it does not calculate calories expended unless you are using the GPS. I would think they could make an estimate when you are using the footpod indoors, but they don't. (The Polar R200sd does do this.)Maybe they will get the kinks worked out of the 405 sometime and I'll think about it then. Until then, I... » Read More Thanks for your detailed insights. From your post and others I've read, seems like I'll stick with the 305. I am very happy with the accuracy and ease of use, I just need to find some way to make it not rub my wrist so much. And the only other thing, and this is minor, is that it does not calculate calories expended unless you are using the GPS. I would think they could make an estimate when you are using the footpod indoors, but they don't. (The Polar R200sd does do this.)Maybe they will get the kinks worked out of the 405 sometime and I'll think about it then. Until then, I guess it doesn't pay to be an early adopter. « Show Less
1615359
All I can say is that I wore both the New Balance watch and my Polar watch and oh boy...what a major difference in calorie calculations. I trust my polar watch because when I work out at the gym my Polar watch matches calories burned on the machine I am using but the New Balance watch was way off by 150+ calories...You decide! I wouldn't purchase it over a Polar watch but another suggestion is the New Fitbit....awesome fitness trainer device!!
1865829
Heart rate: yes, definitely.Calories: NO. (and I don't really believe the calorie tracking anyway, it depends too much on a individual's metabolism).
1466555
What is computed by machines is typically wrong, as it over estimates what your fitness level, weight, etc are. The HRM takes into account your body type, fitness level and heart rate and calculates from there. Typically you can get the transmitter to work with both the watch and the machine, but I'd still rely on the watch for your cals burned.
557963
It DOES take the Heart Rate Monitor into consideration. The vivofit estimates calories burned from activity in addition to resting calories (aka metabolic calories, aka being alive) calories. WITHOUT a Heart Rate Monitor the activity calories are based on steps (and height/weight/age/gender). WITH a Heart Rate Monitor the activity calories take heart rate into consideration. So at the end of the day you have a pretty accurate estimate of how many calories you've burned. (Well technically you have to wait until midnight because that's when the steps/calorie count resets.) There is a detailed review with more info here: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/03/garmin-vivofit-review.html#how-calorie-tracking-works
1776108
No, it does not count calories. It acts as a stopwatch and counts your heart rate.
795843
Yes. The chest strap monitors your heart rate and that is how it calculates calories.
316271
It only counts them as you put your heart rate in. It is very sensitive so you cant move your arm around while you are trying to capture your heart rate, I actually have to stop running for a minute and press the buttons to get a reading. It will then calculate the calories burned based on the time elapsed at the heart rate that you captured, so for example if you run for thirty minutes you would need to stop a couple times during your run to get a heart rate reading and if you stop the timer before your last heart rate reading it will not calculate those calories. So long story longer I like it to get and "idea" of my calories but it is a pain to stop several times to get the heart rate reading and I question how truly accurate it is since it is not real time for the heart rate only when you actually press the buttons to capture the heart rate...but I hate chest straps so this is the next best thing for me. Hope that helps