I Tested Apple Watch's Calorie Burn (vs Sports Lab)

Summary

This video explores the accuracy of calorie burn measurements from wearable devices like the Apple Watch, Garmin, Whoop, and Oura Ring. Through various tests at sports laboratories and comparisons with actual calorie expenditure, the creator finds significant discrepancies, with devices often overestimating by up to 100%. The video also highlights the importance of considering mental health alongside physical fitness, promoting BetterHelp for accessible therapy. It concludes that while wearables can provide insights, they should not be solely relied upon for accurate caloric expenditure data.

Takeaways

• 📊 Wearable devices like Apple Watch, Garmin, Whoop, and Oura Ring show varying levels of accuracy in measuring calorie burn, often differing significantly from lab results.
• 🏃‍♂️ In one test, the Whoop was the closest to actual calorie burn during a running exercise, while in another test, Garmin and Apple Watch were more accurate.
• ⚠️ Calorie burn estimates on wearables can be highly inaccurate, with some devices overestimating by as much as 115%, according to scientific studies.
• 🔄 The accuracy of wearables can vary widely depending on the type of exercise, with running, cycling, and different lab tests producing inconsistent results.
• 🩺 Factors like watch strap tightness, skin color, hair, tattoos, and movement during exercise can all impact the accuracy of calorie burn measurements on wearables.
• 💡 It's important to approach wearable calorie data with caution, as they can lead to incorrect assumptions about calorie expenditure, potentially affecting diet and weight management.
• 🔬 A Stanford study found that most wearables had a 40-80% error rate in measuring caloric expenditure, especially when relying on wrist motion and heart rate.
• 🚴‍♂️ In a cycling test, the order of accuracy among devices was completely different from running tests, showing the inconsistencies in wearable data.
• ⚖️ The most reliable way to monitor calorie intake versus expenditure is to weigh yourself consistently and track changes over time, rather than relying solely on wearable data.
• 🤔 The video emphasizes that wearables are not perfect tools for tracking calorie burn and that users should be mindful of their limitations when using them for diet and fitness decisions.

Q & A

What is the main purpose of the video script?

The main purpose of the video script is to test and compare the accuracy of calorie burn measurements from various wearable devices such as the Apple Watch, Garmin, Whoop, and Oura Ring across different types of exercises.

What method was used in the first test to calculate the actual calorie burn?

In the first test, a step test was conducted where the speed was increased every four minutes. The actual calorie burn was calculated by dividing the four minutes by 60, multiplying by the hourly calorie burn for each pace, and then summing up the values for each segment.

How did the Apple Watch and Whoop perform in the first test?

In the first test, the Apple Watch overestimated the calorie burn at 550 calories, while the Whoop was closer to the actual calculated burn of 323.07 calories with a reading of 327.

What was the conclusion from the article by AIM7 regarding the accuracy of wearables?

The AIM7 article concluded that wearables could have a 20% error rate for heart rate and up to a 100% error rate for caloric expenditure, indicating significant inaccuracies.

What is the potential issue with relying solely on wearables for caloric expenditure calculations?

Relying solely on wearables for caloric expenditure calculations could lead to incorrect assumptions about energy intake and expenditure, potentially causing individuals to consume more or less calories than necessary, which could affect their weight and health goals.

What was the result of the second test at HSS with running exercises?

In the second test at HSS, the wearables showed varying results with Garmin being the closest at 593 calories, followed by the Apple Watch at 636, Whoop at 430, and Oura at 739, based on the actual 597.2 calories burned.

What is the significance of the BetterHelp promotion in the script?

The BetterHelp promotion in the script serves as a reminder of the importance of mental health and offers a service that aims to make therapy more accessible and affordable, with the creator sharing his personal experience with the platform.

What factors can affect the accuracy of heart rate and caloric expenditure measurements by wearable devices?

Factors such as how the device is worn, the type of strap used, the weight and generation of the device, skin color, hair, tattoos, the tightness of the band, and the amount of movement during exercise can all impact the accuracy of heart rate and caloric expenditure measurements.

What was the outcome of the third test involving cycling exercises?

In the third test involving cycling, the results were inverse compared to the second test, with the Oura Ring being the closest at 320 calories, followed by Whoop at 352, Apple Watch at 466, and Garmin at 471, based on the actual 380.3 calories burned.

What is the most accurate method for measuring caloric expenditure according to the script?

The most accurate method for measuring caloric expenditure mentioned in the script is by wearing a mask that measures CO2 and O2 levels, which is considered the gold standard for calories burned.

What is the final takeaway message from the script regarding wearable devices and caloric expenditure?

The final takeaway is that wearable devices are not very accurate when it comes to measuring caloric expenditure, and the information they provide should be taken with caution, not as the ultimate truth of what is happening with one's body.