? for GWF users

[jimmie48]

I love my GWF and lately have really buckled down in counting my calories burned and consumed. But for some exercises it says my calories are one thing and according to the WM it says something else. For example today I did sts legs meso 2 wk 3. My gwf said I only burned 201 cal and the WM said I burned 312. Now I know that the WM is only an estimate but a difference of 111--come on! Would a HRM be better and more accurate?

 

[Shadowpup]

My GWF and my Polar 55 HRM usually read about the same ...

That said, there are a few exercises where they are different, and these seem to be things like:

* biking. The GWF is always on the low side relative to my HRM.
* strength training that's relatively steady. The GWF is usually higher. STS meso 3, the GWF is slightly lower for Legs.
* Cardio Coach interval work on the elliptical. Usually these meet after an hour, but early on, the GWF is a little lower.

On my body, anyway, the GWF tends to be a little lower when I'm doing really 'spiky' short/intense interval-oriented work, or biking (where the motion is supplemented by the bike instead of just being my body moving), or horse riding (same thing). I have noticed big differences for biking, but nothing as high as what you're reporting for a Cathe workout.


Hope that helps - these things are all individual. I tend to go with the GWF or a HRM, myself, and use the Workout Manager and other fixed numbers for cardio estimates as being a relative measure of intensity- a good relative estimate for what the workout will do compared to others, but not a number that will match what every given person will do on every given day. I rarely burn the same thing twice in the same workout

 

[fit_fairy]

I love my GWF and lately have really buckled down in counting my calories burned and consumed. But for some exercises it says my calories are one thing and according to the WM it says something else. For example today I did sts legs meso 2 wk 3. My gwf said I only burned 201 cal and the WM said I burned 312. Now I know that the WM is only an estimate but a difference of 111--come on! Would a HRM be better and more accurate?

JMO, but the WM here waaaay over estimates calories burned.

 

[angie_nrs]

I had noticed that with my GWF, it reported fewer calories than my Polar HRM during cardio workouts. So, I asked GWF about this and this is what they said:

It is important to note that the program is not intended to measure a single specific activity. The success and intent of the program is to measure the user’s total energy expenditure throughout the course of their daily activities.

We do not make performance claims for any single activity. Our strengths are with what the average consumer spends their time doing as well as where they accumulate the majority of their physical activity. Thus single activities where the performance is particularly strong include resting, walking and running. So, depending on the specific activity you were measuring, we may have over or underestimated. However the accuracy over an entire day, week, month will be within specification.

HTH

Angie

 

[NancyAZ]

JMO, but the WM here waaaay over estimates calories burned.

I agree. I completely ignore those numbers.