Steps wildly innacurate

Egika

@Leonardc12 If you record activities, Suunto shows the revolutions same foot to same foot. Other devices counts left and right foot separately.

https://www.suunto.com/sports/News-Articles-container-page/tracking-cadence-heart-rate-and-pace-while-running/

Stefano M64

@Egika said in Steps wildly innacurate:

@Leonardc12 If you record activities, Suunto shows the cycle same foot to same foot. Other devices counts left and right foot separately.

that is, Suunto watches count the arm swings, while other devices count the periodic peaks in the accelerometer data …
wonder what is the correct definition for “step”, I’ve always thought about left and right foot separately, but searching on the web it seems the “same foot to same foot” is the right one.

Leonardc12

@Egika Thank you for your response. I am not recording an activity, just walking and I want to know my daily steps so I can try to achieve certain totals. Are you suggesting that activity and just daily walking are recorded differently? The article you quoted talks about running not walking. I’m not sure I understand.

Thank you,

Leonardo

Leonardc12

@Stefano-M64 Thank you for your response. I am totally confused. The watch only counts arm swings? What if I have my hand in my pocket or if I am on the phone holding the phone to my head? The watch is so wildly off that it can’t not arm swinging since that would mean that half of the day my hand would have to be in my pocket. The $15 pedometer can be accurate but a high end watch can’t be accurate? Someone help me, figure this out.

Thank you,

Leonardo

2b2bff

Actually, Suunto counts the same steps as my Garmin does. If you record an activity Garmin presents you the steps per minute and Suunto the revolutions per minute. But the step count is about the same.

Egika

@Leonardc12 said in Steps wildly innacurate:

@Egika Thank you for your response. I am not recording an activity, just walking and I want to know my daily steps so I can try to achieve certain totals. Are you suggesting that activity and just daily walking are recorded differently? The article you quoted talks about running not walking. I’m not sure I understand.

From your initial post it was not clear to me if you recorded an activity, so I assumed you did. As running and walking are pretty similar both involving steps, the general concepts apply to both.

@Leonardc12 said in Steps wildly innacurate:

@Stefano-M64 Thank you for your response. I am totally confused. The watch only counts arm swings? What if I have my hand in my pocket or if I am on the phone holding the phone to my head? The watch is so wildly off that it can’t not arm swinging since that would mean that half of the day my hand would have to be in my pocket. The $15 pedometer can be accurate but a high end watch can’t be accurate? Someone help me, figure this out.

If you are wearing the watch on your wrist, the only thing it can measure is the movement of your wrist. This is physics. your phone can only measure the movement of the place you are holding or putting it. Those movement can lead to detecting many things, but steps. So there must always be a model to translate the movement of the device into steps. This can be a pretty difficult task, as your wrist is probably moving less when holding an umbrella than when stirring your cookie dough. You will always end up with under- or over-estimating real steps.
Phones have special algorithms to be worn in a pocket etc.

This knowledge leads to two findings:
trying to count steps with wrist worn devices is quite difficult. So difficult that I would really question the step count as a metric of activity. Up to date watches calculate energy consumption. This is a far better and more accurate metric. I recommend you have a look into this modern metric.
Nevertheless Suunto seems to be following the step-counting crown and is still refining their algorithms. The next firmware update most likely will have a refined step counting that accounts for walking with hands in pocket etc.

maszop

@Egika It’s basically a waste of time and resources, but unfortunately the market demands it.
It’s the stigma of dozens of Garmin useless statistics (e.g. Garmin steps challenge). Now every manufacturer has to follow it.

Stefano M64

@Egika said in Steps wildly innacurate:

Up to date watches calculate energy consumption.

the energy consumption isn’t derived form the step counts?
If it’s computed directly from the accelerometer data it is surely a better metric(!)

Egika

@Stefano-M64 said in Steps wildly innacurate:

@Egika said in Steps wildly innacurate:

Up to date watches calculate energy consumption.

the energy consumption isn’t derived form the step counts?
If it’s computed directly from the accelerometer data it is surely a better metric(!)

yes, there is a better metric: 24/7 heart rate

2b2bff

@Egika said in Steps wildly innacurate:

yes, there is a better metric: 24/7 heart rate

That is not the stongest point of Suunto, IMHO

maszop

@2b2bff Outside of intense training, Suunto OHR works very well.

2b2bff

@maszop for some - not for others…
I only have experience with the Race S sensor and I think it is not too bad, but far from accurate.

Small example: Tracking a walk in the park. I think the about 80bpm after 00:40 are correct, the 100bpm are too high.

maszop

@2b2bff I’m not sure if the 100 after 40 minutes of walking is an incorrect measurement.
You would have to check with the belt.

2b2bff

@maszop That’s not what I meant. If you look at the HR before the 40 minute mark you see an average of 100-something. After the 40 minute mark 80-something. One of them is incorrect. Especially the sudden drop shortly before the 40 minute mark is not possible.

I have done an experiment a while ago with an Epix Pro, using an Coros HRM and the Race S, waking a walk. Neither of the watches was spot on. Have to look it up. But I guess I should start a new topic for this…