Monitoring Weight Lifting - An Accurate Measure?

There are a lot of things that can't be measured by wrist based accelerometer and HR device, and weight lifting is one of them. It doesn't involve "steps", and it's not aerobic, so the energy expended is not well correlated to heart rate. Your heart rate at least will go up when you're lifting, so maybe that will be enough for them.

Personally, if my insurance company tried something like this, I'd consider cheating. Surely by now there are little devices that vibrate at the proper frequency to add steps to a step counter. If not, paint can shakers exist. I'm a cyclist and a cross country skier, and neither of those involve "steps". Steps aren't a measure of activity, and it's idiotic to try to use them as such.

I think I'd consider cheating too. If they are going to do something like this they really should use a tracker that supports more activity modes, like the Garmin multisport watches. That way you could record non-step based activities (the Fenix 3 I use for example has options for cycling, indoor cardio, swimming, and strength training among others) and while it wouldn't do anything for your step total as long as they had access to your activities they could see you were still being active.

yeah i see what you both mean. i probably will given that i know i am fit and healthy for my age and this device will not accurately monitor all my activity.

i must say it is hard to take seriously when today i drove for 3 hours and on my way back the watch alerted me that i had achieved my step goal! ha, from sitting on my ass! yet it doesn't record when i am actually doing something that is worth monitoring.

thanks for the advice and making me feel better about 'cheating' a little :)

i really like the garmin range and the look of their products - much nicer than the bland apple watches - i prefer a sportier, tougher look; so might spend a little more on something decent, especially if they offer more accuracy.

cheers.

I can say something about that, since I own both an Apple Watch (original) and an Epix (and earlier an original Fenix). The Apple Watch is a much better smart watch than any Garmin device. It can do things that no Garmin device can do. The Epix is a much better sports watch than the Apple Watch, and from what I've read, series 2 doesn't really change that. During the day I wear my Apple Watch continually and use it often, but when I get ready to go out cycling or skiing, it's the first thing I take off and I leave it at home.

As for accuracy, you've discovered why no "step" counter is accurate. They count things that aren't steps (I get lots of steps on long descents on the mountain bike, when I'm not working at all). For GPS accuracy, wrist based devices struggle because they're small and can't have large antennas, but in my experience no GPS device stands up to close scrutiny. The faster you go, the better the errors are masked, but they're always there. They're usually not very large, though, but there are places (heavy forests, mountains, big cities) where the errors will be large. The calorie estimates that these things give aren't terribly reliable, either.

hi Schinder,

well that is actually good to know. i love the look of the fenix - but i do not think i will get enough out of the features as i would an apple watch. i also do a lot of diving and have a separate computer watch which i just spent $1200 on. i think one day there will be a smart watch that offers diving features (including transmitter connectivity), and by then more accurate activity monitoring. by then i will be happy to spend over 1k on a smart / sports watch.

thanks so much for the feedback. i will wait a little bit longer for things to improve.

cheers.