JUMP TO SOLUTION Solved

Original topic:

Galaxy Watch Calorie Tracker - Active 2 vs GW4

(Topic created: 09-05-2021 04:06 PM)
userXN0eF6UKdM
Cosmic Ray
Options
Galaxy Watch

A week ago I ran 10KM with my GW active 2 at a 6 minute/km pace. Samsung Health estimated I burned 625 calories. Yesterday I ran 10KM on the same course and at the same pace with my new GW4. Samsung Health estimated 1016 calories. That's a staggering 60% difference. 1. Yikes, Samsung! 2. Which one is more accurate?

6 Replies
Options
Galaxy Watch
I'm still cheering on the Tizen side.
0 Likes
Reply
userAxQWk0WmGr
Asteroid
Options
Galaxy Watch

What is your weight and your average heart rate during the run? Also male or female?

0 Likes
Reply
userXN0eF6UKdM
Cosmic Ray
Options
Galaxy Watch

88 KG. 143 BPM.

0 Likes
Reply
userAxQWk0WmGr
Asteroid
Options
Galaxy Watch

Online calculators give around 900 kcal, so it seems that the GW4 is more accurate.

0 Likes
Reply
userXN0eF6UKdM
Cosmic Ray
Options
Galaxy Watch

Thank you. Yes, I ran these calculators as well. Still, it seems strange that the Active 2 would be off by 60% compared to both the GW4 and online calcs, considering it's been out for 2+ years now. If it were a matter of modifying the calorie calculation formula, Samsung could have done that long ago. Looking at both runs, for steps, distance, HR, cadence and VO2 Max, both watches are within 2%-4% of each other, so they've got the same info to feed into the the calorie calculation, but somehow the results are way off.

0 Likes
Reply
Solution
userAxQWk0WmGr
Asteroid
Options
Galaxy Watch

Tizen watches did not take HR and some other metrics into account and calories burned were on the low side (which is great if you want to lose weight!)

View solution in context

0 Likes
Reply