Smartwatches that don't do well at tracking calories

arts/

Whether it’s because the habits of staying up late and sedentary have become the norm, or because more and more modern people’s health is turning red, portable smart watches are taking on people’s needs for health monitoring. In addition, for people who exercise regularly or need to control their diet, smart watches also have a very useful function - calorie consumption monitoring.

In fact, a calorie is a unit of heat, just as length is in meters and weight is in grams. The calories measured by calories are the energy needed to maintain the normal operation of the human body - all the operations of the human body, relatively static heart beat, blood flow, brain rotation; relatively dynamic standing up, walking, running, playing, etc. require energy .

The measurement of calories in smart watches is mainly based on the following types of data: each person's height, weight, and gender are used as basic values; inertial sensors (accelerometers, directional gyroscopes) in smart watches and motion data calculated by GPS ( speed, altitude, distance, etc.); real-time heart rate. Then put the data into the algorithm for real-time calculation, and roughly calculate the user's current calorie consumption.

Of course, it can also be seen that compared with biological indicators such as heart rate, blood lipids, and blood oxygen, calorie is a relatively abstract concept, which leads to the fact that the measurement of calories may be different from the real data. In a paper published in January, researchers tried to answer this question, and unsurprisingly, wearables, including the Apple Watch, did poorly at tracking calories.

Specifically, the researchers assessed the role of wrist-worn smart devices in tracking energy expenditure and heart rate. Using Apple Watch Series 6, Polar Vantage V and Fitbit Sense, 30 healthy male and female participants engaged in weight training, cycling, running, walking and even sitting. As reference equipment, the team used a Polar H10 chest strap and MetaMax 3B. The researchers then summarized the collected data into a simple table that assessed the accuracy, variability and reliability of each device.

It turns out that all devices are pretty bad at tracking calories in almost all activities. Not only that, but the average deviation from actual daily spending is unpredictable and highly variable, rendering the watch useless for tracking calories. This is because progress cannot be reliably tracked even if the absolute value is biased.

Wearables are even more inconsistent for those with below-average and above-average energy expenditures. The study also appears to be consistent with previous studies that have attempted to assess the same abilities but using different wrist-worn devices.

However, this study still has its limitations, such as the small sample size of devices and individuals, but this study is also consistent with previous research showing that smartwatches and wrist-worn fitness trackers on the market are not good for your Daily energy consumption provides reliable measurements. Furthermore, their results are inherently very unpredictable.

That is to say, although smartwatches provide people with multiple health monitoring functions, people still need to treat these data and functions with reservations. Undoubtedly, more medical monitoring smart wearable products will enter the consumer market in the future, but as for when smart watches can enter the medical grade, further exploration is required.