1. bobsentell's Avatar
    Just a tad...
    jmshub and gadgetrants like this.
    12-03-2014 12:59 AM
  2. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    Could it be measuring cal instead of kcal? Calorie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    12-03-2014 01:43 AM
  3. DroidUser42's Avatar
    Just a tad...
    What does your heart rate graph look like? My theory is that calories are calculated from heart rate.
    12-03-2014 03:24 AM
  4. zkorn's Avatar
    I did comparison of estimated calories burned for the same runs when measured by both my Band and by RunKeeper on my iPhone. The two different devices provided very different results. The Band's estimated calories burned results were much higher (i.e.: 40-50% higher) than those estimated by RunKeeper. Not sure which is closer to being correct but obviously one (or both) cannot be. Anyone else done comparisons and have any insight ?
    12-03-2014 07:13 AM
  5. bobsentell's Avatar
    Did you look at the pic? I don't think it is scientifically possible to burn 1,000 pounds worth of calories. in a single day.
    12-03-2014 07:42 AM
  6. MatsuDano's Avatar
    How in the world do you find the time to sleep 8.5 hours?
    12-03-2014 08:30 AM
  7. realwarder's Avatar
    How in the world do you find the time to sleep 8.5 hours?
    That was my first thought too!
    12-03-2014 09:23 AM
  8. WhiteNiteLite's Avatar
    What does your heart rate graph look like? My theory is that calories are calculated from heart rate.
    It is indeed calculated from heart rate. However it also takes into account your basal calorie burn based on your profile info. Even if you don't wear the band at all for a day, it will still show a certain amount of calories burned, since that's the amount that your body consumes while idle to keep you alive. Most trackers tend to only factor in calories "actively" burned, whereas the Band shows you both active and passive burn.

    But on the topic of heart rate... I was sick in bed for a couple days and the medicine I was on raised my heart rate. It says I hit almost 2500 calories burned those days even though I had almost no steps taken. I'm not sure if scientifically the body does burn calories based on an elevated hr alone...
    TechFreak1 likes this.
    12-03-2014 09:29 AM
  9. Cotswolds's Avatar
    It takes calories to make that heart beat, so yes, albeit a small amount. It also takes calories to breathe, metabolize food, maintain body temp, etc.
    12-03-2014 10:15 AM
  10. bobsentell's Avatar
    That was my first thought too!
    I work second shift. Kids and wife are out of the house early so I get the entire morning to myself.
    12-03-2014 12:22 PM
  11. swndg86's Avatar
    I would double-check what you entered as your weight and height.
    12-03-2014 01:52 PM
  12. DroidUser42's Avatar
    It takes calories to make that heart beat, so yes, albeit a small amount. It also takes calories to breathe, metabolize food, maintain body temp, etc.
    But why does a hart rate go up? Isn't (usually) because more is going on (more calories being burned)? I suppose it's possible for the heartrate to race for other reasons (flight or fight), but over the long term, I'd think it would be in response to the body's needs.
    12-03-2014 03:16 PM
  13. bobsentell's Avatar
    It is a simple glitch. All the calories were burned at one time. I assure you there is nothing you could enter that would allow you to burn 10,000 pounds worth of calories in one day.
    12-03-2014 03:56 PM
  14. Glassuser's Avatar
    I did comparison of estimated calories burned for the same runs when measured by both my Band and by RunKeeper on my iPhone. The two different devices provided very different results. The Band's estimated calories burned results were much higher (i.e.: 40-50% higher) than those estimated by RunKeeper. Not sure which is closer to being correct but obviously one (or both) cannot be. Anyone else done comparisons and have any insight ?
    I compare the Band to a Fitbit and for more detail a Garmin watch, and am seeing the same thing. The HRM in my Band is essentially useless and is always 15-100% higher than the Garmin HRM. I suspect that this is driving my inaccurate calorie count.
    12-04-2014 10:28 AM
  15. Cotswolds's Avatar
    Most accounts of an inaccurate HRM say that it reads ~10 bpm low. Several people are reporting comparing it to other HRM's and it being accurate. I think how you wear the device can affect the veracity of this reading.
    gadgetrants likes this.
    12-04-2014 11:18 AM
  16. zkorn's Avatar
    I followed up my comparison of the Band vs RunKeeper on the iPhone by switching the wrist I wore the Band on. Moved it from left to right wrist. As I am right-handed and my right wrist has greater circumference than the left, the Band seems to fit a bit tighter but was always fairly tight on left, too. So .... for essentially the same run I got hugely different calorie counts from the Band. The results with Band on right wrist were about 60% of those on the left wrist. And heart rate was similarly lower on right-side. Whatever Microsoft is doing to try to measure the heart rate -- which this thread says is then used to estimate calories burned -- seems to be very undependable and misleading. So much so that their advertised promise of " Microsoft Band ... helps you achieve your wellness goals by tracking your heart rate, steps, calorie burn, and sleep quality." is really not true nor honest, IMHO. I am pretty disappointed. I did not expect 100% perfection but this level of performance is beyond being what Microsoft should find acceptable.
    12-05-2014 08:35 AM
  17. DroidUser42's Avatar
    HR accuracy has a long thread of it's own. My findings is that movement tends to confuse it. It will pick out your HR accurately if there's no motion in the arm, but can get flaky when there's movement. (I say "can" because I've found some positions do better than others.) Hopefully something can be done in a firmware update to help it distinguish between a real heart beat and "noise" caused by arm movement.
    12-05-2014 01:16 PM
  18. gadgetrants's Avatar
    Most accounts of an inaccurate HRM say that it reads ~10 bpm low. Several people are reporting comparing it to other HRM's and it being accurate. I think how you wear the device can affect the veracity of this reading.
    This has been my experience so far -- I'm one of those "wear it loose except when running" guys. My sense of the stories on the forum is that ~80% find good HRM readings when they find the right fit.

    On the other hand (HAH I made a pun) what I just said doesn't account for @zkorn's comment. Maybe zkorn is one of those in the ~20% that don't get good readings regardless.

    ​-Matt
    12-06-2014 11:45 AM

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-09-2015, 09:11 AM
  2. Is the white and black color matte or glossy?
    By rabit1 in forum Windows Phones
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-05-2015, 02:03 PM
  3. How do you create a medium sized horizontal tile on the start screen?
    By Satish Nair in forum Other Operating Systems
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-20-2014, 12:55 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-02-2014, 11:56 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-02-2014, 09:46 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD