S-health and more so NikeRunning have sucked, what's going on? Recommendations for other apps?

[AlanRudy]

Sports workout- My friends 2 year old smartwatch records 1000 calories burned for him, only showed roughly 200 for me on Shealth and roughly 50 on Nikerunning on another day of same workout. There were other inaccuracies across the board in terms of distance/speed/etc. I mean activity tracking has to be one of the top reasons for a lot of purchases, why is it so bad? Is there another exercise app that's accurate?

 

[haus]

Which is closest - what was the workout?

 

[edubb256]

Actually mine, using S Health seems pretty accurate. Make sure you have setup your info (weight, etc.) and are selecting the right exercise in the S Health app. My watch recorded about 301 calories after 45 minutes in my last elliptical workout. The elliptical machine recorded roughly same amount. According the Mayo clinic website, 45 minutes on the elliptical burns 273 calories if you weigh 160 pounds and 341 calories if you weigh 200 pounds. I'm between that weight range so the watch seems reasonably accurate to me.

 

[icecreamw]

It's nearly impossible for these trackers to be accurate. If you're 175lbs @ 10% body fat vs 25% body fat, the amount of calories burned is markedly different. Also, keep in mind that everyone has a different metabolic rate which depends on many factors.

 

[edubb256]

That's a great point. Also, the tracker can't take into consider factors related to the intensity of the workout, like resistance level on an elliptical. I think major benefit is it to be able to track the relative amount activity (based on a target or day-to-day comparisons). I think it is sufficiently consistent/accurate for that purpose.

 

[alex346]

Ive actually been testing the accuracy of the s2's step tracking and whatnot this week against a jawbone that my wife uses an loves (she let me use it this last week for this comparison) and I did a few runs on our treadmill this week so on those days also compared it to the result the treadmill was displaying. I found that the S2 is actually right in line with the other products here are my test results

Monday Step Count;
Gear s2 - 5778 Jawbone Tracker - 5822

Tuesday Step Count
Gear s2 - 6833 Jawbone Tracker - 6927

Wednesday Step Count
Gear S2 - 10081 Jawbone Tracker - 10238

Thursday Step Count
Gear s2 - 5090 Jawbone Tracker - 5127
Thursday Teadmill Run/Jog/WalkTest
Gear s2 - Time: 25 Minutes Distance: 2.94/km Cals Burnt:169
Jawbone - Time: 25 Minutes Distance: 3.1/km Cals Burnt: 204
Treadmill Display - Time:25 Minutes Distance: 2.99/km Cals Burnt: 179

So both the s2 and jawbone for step counting were relatively close day to day. Even on the short treadmill test they were all within range of each other. All in all i can live with these results from the S2

The S2 does have one advantage over the jawbone. When i did my treadmill test the jawbone asked me to input the intensity of my run so that it could i assume guesstimate my calories burnt (my wifes jawbone does not have a heart rate monitor). The S2 and my treadmill 'have heart rate monitors so i don't need to guess my intensity it tracks how tough I'm working by monitoring my heart rate... as you can see on the treadmill test the S2 and Treadmill cals burnt are very similar compared to the jawbones

 

[AlanRudy]

Thanks for replies. haus#WP, the sport was soccer. Also wish there was an accurate reading of non-running activities like pushups, weights, etc. But usually walking/slow pace running with soccer, with bursts of faster running and sprinting. We play twice a week so one day I used S-health and the other Nike Running. S-health was more accurate but they both pretty much sucked. I do understand two different people could burn different amounts of calories on the same exercise but it was clear my friends stats were much more accurate based on the stats I mentioned and the intensity of the workout. And it wasn't just calories burned that had me thinking my friends 2 year old smartwatch was more accurate...as I mentioned, it was across the board with total distance run, fastest speed, etc.

 

[supersoulfly]

1000 calories for a game of soccer doesnt sound accurate at all.

 

[AlanRudy]

I looked it up and an average hour of competitive soccer is 611 calories, since we technically go over an hour, his numbers are more accurate. Again, it wasn't just calories burned that had me thinking my friends 2 year old smartwatch was more accurate...as I mentioned, it was across the board with total distance run, fastest speed, etc. But honestly, thanks for your reply, maybe <200 isn't too off since I'm a smaller build than he is.

 

[edubb256]

Also wish there was an accurate reading of non-running activities like pushups, weights, etc. But usually walking/slow pace running with soccer, with bursts of faster running and sprinting. We play twice a week so one day I used S-health and the other Nike Running. S-health was more accurate but they both pretty much sucked.

Well it's not perfect, but there is limit to what these trackers can do. I'd be pretty skeptical of the ability of any tracker to automatically give an accurate reading on non-running like pushups, weights, etc. With pushups and many weight lifting exercises (e.g., squats, leg extensions etc.) your wrist aren't even moving, watch has no way of know how much you are lifting etc.

 

[rickl43065]

Would be great if would work with or have app for Garmin Connect.