GWF vs. Polar with calories burned number?

angie_nrs

angie_nrs

Cathlete
For you GWF users, have you noticed a big difference with the number of cals burned with GWF vs. Polar? In doing CCPP this past weekend, my Polar HRM showed a 705 cal usage vs. my GWF that showed 460. I don't think the GWF takes HR into consideration like the Polar, but then again, the GWF incorporates body temperature into it's formula. So, which one do you think is more accurate?

Also, have any GWF users noticed any muscle twitches while wearing the unit? I know it sounds a bit weird, but I have had annoying pec muscle twitches on my left side intermittently for about 4 days now, which is about when I started wearing my GWF. So, today I put it on my right arm, even though I know that is not recommended. But, since I did this my muscle twitches on the left side have subsided. Coincidence??

Angie
 
I did not have any muscles twitches but when I wore it to do STS workouts it caused my a muscle strain in my tricep. I even would loosen it when working out and it still seemed to cause a muscle pull.
 
I haven't compared my GWF to a HR monitor. I think my GWF is pretty accurate. It's close to the online calculators. The GWF definitely 'favors' cardio to weights. :( I was very surprised by how few calories lifting weights uses. Although I do seem to burn more at rest after lifting. :D

I wear mine almost continuously through all kinds of activity, including STS. I've had no negative reactions. no twitches. no pulls.

Have you looked at the GWF site? or contacted them?
 
Last edited:
I also noticed that the calories burned according to my GWF were significantly less than the calories burned according to my Polar. I even wore them both at the same time once to make sure they were reading that differently, and GWF shows almost half the calories that Polar does (for me, anyway). I don't know which is more accurate, but I wore my GWF pretty much constantly for over a month and found that the numbers seemed about right given my calorie intake and weight gain/loss.

I don't know why calorie burn doesn't correlate to heart rate - intuitively it seems that it should. But I guess there's more to it.
 
Whoa that is scary because that would mean my Polar calorie burn showing about 2400 for a 24 hour period means I am really only burning 1200? Not good !

Did those of you who compared wear it for 24 hours or only during exercising? My Polar shows about 10 cals for a run or really hard workout like IMax. What does your GWF show for a run at about 6 mph? It also shows about a calorie or so for non strenuous time. What would the GWF show for that?

TIA because I am needing something consistent to try to figure out the energy in vs energy out to drop some weight.

BTW - Hey there Angie ! How's things with you these days? You must pop into Damage Control and let us know !
 
Hey there Jacque!;) Ahem - slight side note: did you put a hex on my RedWings???:mad::eek::p *lol* I'll try to stop by the DC forum soon.

OK - back on track - I usually burn about 600 cals with IMAX according to my Polar, but I haven't done it since I started wearing my GWF. I just started CLX last week so it may be a while before I get to an IMAX. I have just noticed that cardio workouts don't seem to register as high on the GWF as on the Polar.:( However, thus far GWF shows that I'm burning between 2100 - 2700 per day.:) Now, if I would just clean up my eating......:eek: I have only worn my Polar during exercise so unfortunately I can't shed any light on that front.

Thanks for the replies ladies. IA that the GWF favors cardio over weights. I have emailed the company and asked my questions there but no response from them yet.

Angie
 
My GWF says I burn an average of 2200 calories a day - my lowest was around 1700 and my highest was around 2600. That seems pretty accurate given how much I eat and given what the charts say I burn. So I do think the GWF is accurate, however that doesn't mean the Polar is necessarily inaccurate as to your total calories a day. The difference may just be more dramatic when you're measuring exercise. But I don't know.

Still, it seems that if you were only burning 1200 calories a day you would have noticed some weight creeping on by now!
 
Interesting question, Ange! (I bought a GWF after a certain friend from Michigan, ahem, put a bug in my ear. :D ) Please share if you get a response from the GWF folks.
 
petramom said:
Still, it seems that if you were only burning 1200 calories a day you would have noticed some weight creeping on by now!
Click to expand...

Actually if I don't keep to a max of 1500 "completely clean" cals a day I do gain and the weight has been creeping back up. Thus my interest in the answer to GWF vs Polar. I have the Polar and am hoping to figure this all out without purchasing the GWF ! ;)
 
If you're gaining at over 1500 cals/day, then one of two things is true: (1) you burn about 1500 cals/day at your current activity level or (2) you aren't counting your calories correctly. Are you pretty sedentary during the day? Do you have a desk job where you're stuck sitting down most of the time? I've noticed that even if I work out, my calories burned for the day can be low if I don't do much else for the other 15 hours I'm awake.

As far as your calorie intake, are you diligent about counting every calorie, including the two chips you grabbed here and the spoonfuls you ate while making dinner, etc.? Those can really add up. And even just having your calorie count wrong on one item that you eat regularly can throw your whole day way off. For example, I realized that I had miscalculated my usual end-of-day yogurt/fruit/granola mix at some point and had always recorded it as a 300 calorie dish when in fact it was about a 150 calories more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top