My T-Rex 2 goes for about 10 days between charges. I get my watch faces from AmazFaces app.
You need a fitness tracking smartwatch
- Thread starter AshleyC
- Start date
My fitness watch. I'm an anolog guy. I record my meals and workouts in MyFitnessPal.
I use Amazfit
GTR 4 LE
T-rex ultra
T-rex 2
They do for me. I just carried on from the original bip watch after pebble but the dust. Easy to use and set up.
GTR 4 LE
T-rex ultra
T-rex 2
They do for me. I just carried on from the original bip watch after pebble but the dust. Easy to use and set up.
- Thread starter
- #24
I'd be lying if I said I never wanted one of those Seiko chronos. I just make due with the "Arnie"...when I wear it. Unfortunately, I have become a "smartwatch" pod person.
That screenshot. Does it state with 4.22 miles you burned 2200 kcalories?
Is it walking, or running 4.22 miles? I seriously doubt you burned that much. Should be 7-9 times less.
- Thread starter
- #27
It's because steps/miles walked doesn't include some calories burned in other workout sessions.
Those are the "exercise sessions" I did yesterday at the gym, for example. "Indoor Fitness" is a generic setting I use for a machine called an Arm Ergometer, or Arm Bike. I use it for warmup and burning calories and it does add to your step count. "Strength Training" is weight lifting, and it is a pretty good calorie burn that adds to your calories burned count, but not to your step count. That is why there is a discrepancy in that first screenshot.
I also did quite a bit of walking yesterday. Had I done a screenshot, my step count ended at just over 15,000 and calories burned was around 1950.
So does that 1950 include only the 15000 steps or also some exercise.
My point: 15000 steps equals roughly 6.5 miles.
I really do not believe that burns 1950 kcalories.
4 miles of walking will roughly burn 250-350 kcalories.
Even if you walk fast I don't think you will burn more than 500 per 4 miles.
EclipseRedRing
I smell like a Christmas pudding
Maybe the resting basal calories are included, in addition to those consumed by the exercise alone.So does that 1950 include only the 15000 steps or also some exercise.
My point: 15000 steps equals roughly 6.5 miles.
I really do not believe that burns 1950 kcalories.
4 miles of walking will roughly burn 250-350 kcalories.
Even if you walk fast I don't think you will burn more than 500 per 4 miles.
My cheapo fitness watch shows the following from today's winter trail run:
36 min
894 calories
5086 steps
4.75km
138 steps/min
36 min
894 calories
5086 steps
4.75km
138 steps/min
That's running. We are talking walking. Running will typically burn ~2,5 times more calories than walking.
Agreed. Just adding for perspective and to support your take on it. I agree with you thinking the numbers are off.
Ones age/height/weight also affects calories burned and how the watch will calculate it's estimate.
If I want more calories burned and steps, I strap it to my dog for the run.
Last edited:
And your body's characteristics. I used to walk much. Still do, but my feet are't that good now. So I wondered how come much walking doesn't affect my weight. Then an acquaintance of mine who is a fitness instructor explained it to me. I have a stronger lower body. And walking for me takes very little energy.
- Thread starter
- #34
It is steps/miles walked, plus seperate exercises to get that total calorie number. Some machine cardio exercises will add to your step count. Like the elliptical runner, arm ergometer, and the simple treadmill--provided you swing your arms as you walk the treadmill. If you grip the heart rate sensors on the machine, there will be no swing to generate a "step".
Bicycling, either outdoor or stationary, adds to your calories burned, but not your step count. Weight lifting will also burn calories, but not add steps. My watch does detect my reps and sets while I lift using my arms.
So that is how I can get high calories burned on days when it looks like I didn't do much walking.
But there is a discrepancy I've noticed about walking. If I go for a walk and start it as a "walking" workout session for record, it says I burn more calories than if I simply walk out the door and use the pedometer as it is when moving around the house, taking out the trash, etc.
A short while ago this afternoon I walked 2.3 miles in exactly one hour. Speed, obviously, at 2.3 miles per hour. Average heart rate of 115 bpm. It credited me with 619 calories.
Keep in mind it factors in weight, so a heavier guy walking that will burn more than someone lighter. I'm not Orson Welles, but there IS a reason I'm exercising!
But it would not credit me with that many calories if I simply walked that same course without designating it as a workout. My guess is the calculation for just normal walking, short distances, home or office, is a different calculation than is used for a dedicated walk workout.
- Thread starter
- #35
Just to demonstrate what I mean about the difference between a walk designated as a workout session and simply walking around, I just walked for 57 minutes just as I walked yesterday for an hour.
Today as a walk
57 minutes
181 calories
2.41 miles
6016 steps
Yesterday as a workout
60 minutes
619 calories
2.3 miles
6148 steps
Rather a big difference in calorie computation.
Today as a walk
57 minutes
181 calories
2.41 miles
6016 steps
Yesterday as a workout
60 minutes
619 calories
2.3 miles
6148 steps
Rather a big difference in calorie computation.
It seems that in general many WIS despise smartwatches, which is a shame because they all have their purpose. I also recently bought my first smartwatch, a Garmin forerunner 245. Very useful to me as I am a rower, and the watch has a built in rowing function (both outdoor and indoor!). If I didn't need the rowing function I would most likely already have bought an apple watch. I recently handled the newest series 9 and I have to same I was quite impressed.
What does this mean?
WIS = Watch Idiot Savant. A person who is somewhat of a watch nut, aficionado, geek, fan, admirer, etc; especially for more traditional mechanical watches or even quartz just as long as they are largely capable of being self-sufficient at keeping time.
A watch that is more or less a wrist sized computer screen, that needs frequent recharging or is largely dependent on a smartphone is often not considered to be a "real" watch. But of course everyone is free to wear what they like, and some even like to double wrist, to wear a traditional timepiece as well as a health monitor/exercsie tracker.
Thanks.
I have an Apple Watch and I don’t like like the look of it. But, I do like being able to exercise outside and have the ability to make an emergency call if necessary. Not having to carry a phone is a real plus for me when I am on a trail.
The other day my wife felt a little off. It was nice to be able to check her 02, heart rate and take a ecg.
The other day my wife felt a little off. It was nice to be able to check her 02, heart rate and take a ecg.
Similar threads
