Machine calories
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
robertw486 wrote: »But now the question is.... which of the two do you think is more accurate? The machine can measure actual work along with heart rate. The watch can't.
Which is correct, if either?
I'd say the watch is significantly closer. Machines notoriously overestimate.
depends on the machine. Treadmills are quite accurate, but you would have to back out maintenance cals from the number it gives you (same as with an HRM) as you would have burned those cals had you worked out or not.0 -
I think I should probably also point out that the watch separates active calories and those you'd have burnt anyway
101% complete. It makes me wonder if this math took place on one of the old flawed Pentium class computers. Somehow they decided that some numbers just didn't add up.
But thanks for the response. At least it's good to know the elliptical and watch are so close in heart rate averages. I'll have to see if my HRM on the bike computer is real close on the machine we have.0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »Whether you go faster or slower does not effect calories burned for the same Distance.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree on that one. From my understanding the differences are very small, but only for people looking for gross calories to include BMR. For someone like myself looking for net calorie burn on an activity, the margin grows wider. The higher effort and elevated heart rate will burn more calories based on every reliable source I have seen. Once again, not a great deal more, but more.
If there happen to be any "gear head" types on the thread, it would be similar to the relationship between torque and horsepower. One never exists without the other, but in the end only one trumps the other.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »Whether you go faster or slower does not effect calories burned for the same Distance.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree on that one. From my understanding the differences are very small, but only for people looking for gross calories to include BMR. For someone like myself looking for net calorie burn on an activity, the margin grows wider. The higher effort and elevated heart rate will burn more calories based on every reliable source I have seen. Once again, not a great deal more, but more.
Keep in mind that distance and duration aren't the same. If one person walks three miles in 45 minutes and another runs the same distance in 30 minutes, the latter will have a workout that's 33% shorter in duration. Sure, the runner will burn more calories - but that will be offset by the shorter duration of the workout.
If you're going to compare it in terms of time (e.g., one person walking for 30 minutes, one running for 30 minutes), the calorie burn will certainly be higher for the runner - but he'll also cover more distance in that time span.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »Whether you go faster or slower does not effect calories burned for the same Distance.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree on that one. From my understanding the differences are very small, but only for people looking for gross calories to include BMR. For someone like myself looking for net calorie burn on an activity, the margin grows wider. The higher effort and elevated heart rate will burn more calories based on every reliable source I have seen. Once again, not a great deal more, but more.
Keep in mind that distance and duration aren't the same. If one person walks three miles in 45 minutes and another runs the same distance in 30 minutes, the latter will have a workout that's 33% shorter in duration. Sure, the runner will burn more calories - but that will be offset by the shorter duration of the workout.
If you're going to compare it in terms of time (e.g., one person walking for 30 minutes, one running for 30 minutes), the calorie burn will certainly be higher for the runner - but he'll also cover more distance in that time span.
Completely understood on what you are saying, but still don't agree. Net calorie burn is more affected regardless, as would be gross if you factor in.... using your example.... the runner then adds their BMR for the equal period of time. Since BMR takes place 24/7 the higher the energy burned per minute must be added to the resting BMR.
Now in your particular instance, walking 4 mph vs running 6 mph, and for short distances, naturally the difference would be small. And looked at as gross calories only for the active exercise period, nothing or next to it. But for the 15 minutes after the runner is done, his body is still consuming calories. And no matter how you add it, you burn calories no more or less than 24 hours per day.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »Whether you go faster or slower does not effect calories burned for the same Distance.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree on that one. From my understanding the differences are very small, but only for people looking for gross calories to include BMR. For someone like myself looking for net calorie burn on an activity, the margin grows wider. The higher effort and elevated heart rate will burn more calories based on every reliable source I have seen. Once again, not a great deal more, but more.
Keep in mind that distance and duration aren't the same. If one person walks three miles in 45 minutes and another runs the same distance in 30 minutes, the latter will have a workout that's 33% shorter in duration. Sure, the runner will burn more calories - but that will be offset by the shorter duration of the workout.
If you're going to compare it in terms of time (e.g., one person walking for 30 minutes, one running for 30 minutes), the calorie burn will certainly be higher for the runner - but he'll also cover more distance in that time span.
The calorie driver is distance and mass.
There are differences in the MET values for various paces so that someone running at 6mph will burn about twice what someone walking at 4mph will for the same distance.
So for me, at 160lbs, I'll burn about 50 cals per mile for a slow walk, and 100cals per mile for an easy paced run.
One of the reasons I'm sceptical of the Apple Watch self calibratuing to pace length in a meaningful way is that pace length varies by pace, but pace frequency shouldn't vary significantly. That's before taking into accound the difference between pace length and motion that different exercises have.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Interesting responses.
Based on the digging I've done, most Precor machines are hailed to be fairly accurate. And many wrist type devices seem to often be questioned by many here on the forums.
I would think unless the OP is fairly small, and did a workout with very low resistance and/or ramp, the expected calorie burn would be higher than the watch shows.
I'm 5' and 144lbs. The elliptical was on 5 resistance and 10 incline. I also was doing a fairly lax pace
I think your pace is fairly solid considering your height.
It's an interesting question though... the watch should track your heart rate better, but the machine should track speed variations much better. Steady state stuff is tracked well with heart rate, when you vary speeds the heart rate isn't always the best thing to go by. And most calculators put a lot of weight on speed variations in the range you were walking at... so it's tricky.
Does the watch show you heart rates during that time? I'm just curious as I haven't looked much into the watches myself. And did the elliptical pair with your watch for heart rate, or was the machine reading from the hand grip type reading?
I own an older Precor machine, and it's hard to compare vs actual walking. For me, the ramp almost flat, and resistance at maybe 4-6 seems about equal to actual walking. From there the effort seems to go up with ramp or resistance. I've always been curious just how the machine calculates heart rate when you take your hands off the heart rate hold position, as I often do that. I doubt they are "smart" enough to look at your previous readings, even from the same workout session. I'm also planning on comparing what the machine reads vs a chest strap type heart rate monitor that pairs with my bike computer, just out of curiosity.
And forgive all the questions. I'm not claiming to be an expert on any of this, just trying to nail down more accurate methods for my own logging. Since I own an elliptical this particular subject is one of the exercises I'd like to get down as close to accurate as possible.
Yes, the heart rate is monitored on the watch, I'm not sure if it's constant, but during my run yesterday I checked it every 5 minutes approx and got a different number each time and it provides an average at the end.
The elliptical didn't pair with the watch so was reading from the hand grips, and I kept at a steady pace and placed my hands on the grips 3 times during my workout. The average heart rate was 149bpm by the watch, and 150bpm on the machine.
The watch also uses gps in order to track your speed when it's outside (needs to be used alongside the phone to begin with until the watch 'learns' your strides. I'm not sure how this works inside though.
I did some testing today, just to kill curiosity. My intention was to take my chest strap HRM and bike computer in and compare heart rates to the elliptical heart rate which reads based on the hand grip pulse monitor.
Well, the chest strap HRM transmitted to the machine which surprised me since both are older. But even when I tested the hand grips, they were reading the same. But since you had the same measurements, it makes me wonder if the watch was in fact transmitting to the machine. My Precor is an older model and the screen display is completely different. But it shows various flashes, or no reading if you take you hand off the grips. Once it's reading it just stays steady. If I had not noticed it was reading before grabbing the hand grips, I might have never noticed that my chest strap was connecting.
But at any rate, even on my older Precor machine, it does apply weight to the heart rate. Based on your speed and heart rate, I'd still say the machine is much closer to correct calories in terms of net.0 -
Machines are used constantly and RARELY are ever calibrated once they hit the floor. So if it's used consistently, then calibration should be made, but it usually takes about 30 minutes to do it. With a few dozen cardio machines on the floor, you can see this would be time staking.
So go with the watch.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »I did some testing today, just to kill curiosity. My intention was to take my chest strap HRM and bike computer in and compare heart rates to the elliptical heart rate which reads based on the hand grip pulse monitor.
Well, the chest strap HRM transmitted to the machine which surprised me since both are older. But even when I tested the hand grips, they were reading the same. But since you had the same measurements, it makes me wonder if the watch was in fact transmitting to the machine. My Precor is an older model and the screen display is completely different. But it shows various flashes, or no reading if you take you hand off the grips. Once it's reading it just stays steady. If I had not noticed it was reading before grabbing the hand grips, I might have never noticed that my chest strap was connecting.
But at any rate, even on my older Precor machine, it does apply weight to the heart rate. Based on your speed and heart rate, I'd still say the machine is much closer to correct calories in terms of net.
Just as a data point for the conversation, I also use an Apple Watch for cardio workouts. It's definitely not paired with the machine(s) and the HR readings are always either identical or within 1 beat of the machines' hand grip monitors. I've compared it against treadmills, stair climbers and stationary bikes (both upright and recumbent), with the same results every time. I've also compared the readings to manual palpation of the pulse for 60 seconds and it's always exact or within one beat.
As far as calories go, I haven't dug into how the Apple Watch calculates it, but since it's paired with the phone and has read/write access to the Health app on the phone, I'd imagine it uses your height, weight, etc. from the phone's Health app in its algorithm. The watch also shows both net and gross calories in the workout summary (I think that may have already been shown in a photo upstream in the thread), and the net on the watch is consistently lower than what the machines show.
I also have a Polar FT7 with a chest strap, but haven't compared the watch against it yet. I'll get around to it eventually, just for the pure heck of it - but I'll probably do it somewhere other than the gym so I'm not the dweeb on the treadmill wearing two watches and a chest strap. 0 -
Machines are used constantly and RARELY are ever calibrated once they hit the floor. So if it's used consistently, then calibration should be made, but it usually takes about 30 minutes to do it. With a few dozen cardio machines on the floor, you can see this would be time staking.
So go with the watch.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I see these statements about machine calibration frequently, and have to question if anyone making them has ever looked at a modern elliptical machine.
Since most clubs seem to use Precor machines, I'll use them as an example. I've seen other machines that use the same systems as well.
But essentially, there is nothing to calibrate. The ramp angle must be calibrated on initial assembly. This is simply making a measurement on the ramp angle screw drive and matching it to a set ramp angle multiple within the software system. From there, it's a mechanical thing that can't change without a physical break or bend.
The resistance is made though an eddy current system, and the only checks are for the magnet resistance. A couple minutes tops, and again short of a physical damage situation, it works. Eddy current brakes are used for loaded chassis dynos, train and heavy equipment brakes, etc and are used because they are simple and have no parts that have to be replaced.
The speed sensor is a simple hall effect sensor. It's the same thing that drives most car speedometers. It works or fails. When it fails, software prohibits the eddy current system from applying braking load.
The drive belt can be checked in a minute or so, and it's simply a matter of deflection.
So in short, other than checking for mechanical drag, there IS nothing to calibrate.
The machine has inputs for variables from several sensors and user inputs, and known constants based on mechanic design for:
Speed
Ramp angle
Stride distance
Reistance (measured in watts, converted to calories per minute or METS by software)
Heart rate
User age
User weight
The watch has inputs for:
User weight
User age
Heart rate
Why would people trust a device that has less data available to it, to a greater degree? Both devices are controlled by software, and any software uses a model that can only at best be approximate.
But the real question in my mind, and one that should bear weight to a fitness professional giving advice, is what readily accepted models for calculating walking calories burned would show a 5 mph walk of a person that size to burn calories at the rate shown by the watch? Or are those accepted formulas more inclined to agree with the machine estimations? With an average heart rate of 150, I think we all know what the answer points to.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »I did some testing today, just to kill curiosity. My intention was to take my chest strap HRM and bike computer in and compare heart rates to the elliptical heart rate which reads based on the hand grip pulse monitor.
Well, the chest strap HRM transmitted to the machine which surprised me since both are older. But even when I tested the hand grips, they were reading the same. But since you had the same measurements, it makes me wonder if the watch was in fact transmitting to the machine. My Precor is an older model and the screen display is completely different. But it shows various flashes, or no reading if you take you hand off the grips. Once it's reading it just stays steady. If I had not noticed it was reading before grabbing the hand grips, I might have never noticed that my chest strap was connecting.
But at any rate, even on my older Precor machine, it does apply weight to the heart rate. Based on your speed and heart rate, I'd still say the machine is much closer to correct calories in terms of net.
Just as a data point for the conversation, I also use an Apple Watch for cardio workouts. It's definitely not paired with the machine(s) and the HR readings are always either identical or within 1 beat of the machines' hand grip monitors. I've compared it against treadmills, stair climbers and stationary bikes (both upright and recumbent), with the same results every time. I've also compared the readings to manual palpation of the pulse for 60 seconds and it's always exact or within one beat.
As far as calories go, I haven't dug into how the Apple Watch calculates it, but since it's paired with the phone and has read/write access to the Health app on the phone, I'd imagine it uses your height, weight, etc. from the phone's Health app in its algorithm. The watch also shows both net and gross calories in the workout summary (I think that may have already been shown in a photo upstream in the thread), and the net on the watch is consistently lower than what the machines show.
I also have a Polar FT7 with a chest strap, but haven't compared the watch against it yet. I'll get around to it eventually, just for the pure heck of it - but I'll probably do it somewhere other than the gym so I'm not the dweeb on the treadmill wearing two watches and a chest strap.
Good input. I only asked on the pairing thing since in my case the readout would look the same regardless to it reading the hand grip sensor or the chest strap. Since it could have fooled me, I assumed it could have fooled someone else. I know for my chest strap, it just started reading. No buttons to push, no procedure, etc. I actually watched the machine HR and the bike computer HR for a couple minutes being surprised how close they were before I realized they were reading from the same chest strap! For some reason the bike computer refreshed faster, so it did allow a variance of maybe 1 bpm, 2 tops.
This leads me to believe that many if not most HRM devices are very accurate, and that the software is the major controlling factor. I recently by chance spoke for several minutes with a former Olympic team biker, and he said until very recently there were really only two companies that produced 95% of the chest straps, and that they were essentially the same device in different "shells". I think the strap I have is an older Polar model with Trek branding, but can't be 100% sure.
And completely understood on the watch already having access to user variables. But the part that still boggles me is that it has so little input on the activity, level of work required, or anything other than the heart rate. The individual readouts for net and BMR make sense to me, both data points should stop any confusion as to net vs gross. As for the calibration via GPS thing, it makes sense if a person is a consistent walker or runner of a certain stride and pace. Beyond that it would seem to possibly skew things, but it's certainly better than having no inputs when GPS isn't available. I don't know how the elliptical machine could adapt at all though, as the stride is a set thing.
But being kind of a data hound type, along with a car performance nut, I have to give a great deal of weight to the machine having superior inputs. All equations for horsepower require multiple inputs. Torque over time. And the watch has one, while the machine has both. Don't get me wrong, as I fully accept that all the inputs in the world could be screwed up with inferior software. But I've seen no evidence of that either.
I'm far from an expert, but that's why I'm seeking proven data. All that I've seen so far leads me to think the machine reading is the closer of the two using commonly accepted formulas for walking calories burned.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 433 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions