Fitness Bands Fail on Calorie Counts

Activity trackers accurately reckon heart rate—but they're way off in estimates of energy expenditure. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Fitness bands like the Apple Watch and the Fitbit aim to track your vitals, like heart rate. But early models weren't all thataccurate. "We thought of them a little bit like random number generators. They really didn't seem to be providing anything that bore any relationship to heart rate." Euan Ashley, a cardiologist who studies wearables at Stanford University. 

He and his colleagues have now tested seven newer fitness bands—from brands like Apple, Fitbit and others—and he says those heart rate stats have gotten way better. "Yeah we were pleasantly surprised actually by how good the accuracy of the heart rate monitoring was." 

For most of the devices, the error rate was less than five percent—good enough for your doctor. But where all the devices failed to measure up was estimating calories burned. Even the most accurate devices were off by 27 percent, compared to lab measurements of energy expenditure. One device was off by more than 90 percent. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"If you think about going to the gym and working out for an hour and maybe that's around 400 calories, in reality that could be anything from 200 to 800. And that's a big difference if you're thinking about somebody who's incorporating those estimates into their lifestyle and thinking about what to eat that evening based on the workout they did that afternoon." The results are in the Journal of Personalized Medicine. [Anna Shcherbina et al., Accuracy in wrist-worn, sensor-based measurements of heart rate and energy expenditure in a diverse cohort]

The reason for the discrepancy, Ashley says, could be that we all burn energy at different rates—and that's hard to reckon from simple input stats like weight and height. "Some people are incredibly efficient and look incredibly elegant when they run. And others really clearly look like they're burning a lot more calories to cover the same amount of ground." So if you own a wearable, it's probably safe to trust the heart data. What it can't tell you is whether your time on the treadmill really justifies that chocolate shake.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe