How accurate do you think the calories burned readout is on gym equipment?

Run_Away_Turtle

Basically just what the title says. I don't want to be over adding calories if, in fact, the machine has lost its mind.

tiffanyfoundit

Honestly probably pretty terrible. I'm sure mine over estimates like a lot. Cause my burn is pretty high on it. However, I don't eat my exercise calories back at all (or I do very rarely) so it's not something that I stress about.

TeaBea

What's the equipment & how much data do you provide?

A heart rate monitor uses your height, weight, age, and gender - do you plug in some of these things? A heart rate monitor is still a guess also.

Your best bet is to get a few estimates and use the lowest number. If you see weight loss slowing down....eat less exercise calories. If weight loss is faster than expected....eat more exercise calories.

Eating back exercise calories is how MFP is designed. You were given a calorie deficit with ZERO exercise factored in. The purpose of eating back calories is to keep the deficit from becoming too large. A large deficit makes it harder for your body to support existing lean muscle mass.

I eat back exercise calories because my goal is fat loss...not just weight loss.

zdyb23456

I have an older model treadmill- I input my weight and age and it's surprisingly accurate. It tells me I burn just under 100 cal per mile whether I walk or run.

sijomial

Vague question is vague!

The range is from outright humorous to extremely accurate, more accurate than a HRM (especially one that hasn't been calibrated to the individual).

By the way it's slightly amusing that some people are quick to assume an expensive piece of equipment is less accurate than a cheap gadget on their wrist.

Is the mystery "gym equipment" you are using pretty industry standard (like a Concept2) and/or give you a power reading?

Psychgrrl

When I wear my HRM, it tells me I burn 25-40% fewer calories the what the machines read. An hour on the Pre-Cor and the machine says 720 calories while the HRM says 450.

ForecasterJason

There was an instance in which I walked on my treadmill for 40 minutes. At the end, I believe it had me around 150 calories burned while my Fitbit said about 275. While I don't know if it's the treadmill, clearly one of them was way off.

lizzocat

I don't go by the machines, but I would say, if you log 30% lower, you should be okay. I used to log 50% of what the machine said just to be careful

Meganthedogmom

I log 75% of what the machine says, but I don't always necessarily eat all 75% of it back. This seems to work for me.

TheopolisAmbroiseIII

Unless you're working out intensely, you can probably skip eating back your calories, in all honesty. If you're working out intensely with the intention of being able to eat more, then you should get a Heart Rate Monitor and have a more accurate assessment.

Hendrix7

Not very

tulips_and_tea

Personally I don't trust the machines at all as far as calorie burns. I get vastly different readings from the treadmill, the elliptical and the step mill even though I input the exact same stats and the duration is the same. Yes, I realize intensity varies, but there's no way I burn the amount of calories it says I do.

I do however keep track of that number and then keep trying to exceed it every time so that I keep working out harder and don't become stagnant.

RoxieDawn

In my home, I have both a Sole Treadmill and Sole Elliptical and they are both absolutely not accurate. I have had a Fitbit and now have a Garmin with HR..

I can tell you that my Sole Treadmill is off about 40 percent. It is configured with my height, weight, etc.. and my Garmin hr is calibrated as well.. What the treadmill gives me is way way off. The elliptical (its off about 35 to 40 percent as well), when I used it regularly, I used it with the heart monitor it came with, but the calories burned on the machine is not affected by the HR, the HR is only for your information such as exercise zones.. I do not use the HR that came with my Sole Treadmill . I use the Garmin HR exclusively.

For me, I can burn 9 to 12 calories a minute give or take the effort, etc.. At first I used apps and calculators online to help me figure it out and take a range and thank goodness I only ate back a small portion of my exercise calories.

cheesychiplet

Hm I just did 40 on the treadmill. Didn't input my weight or height or anything as it is old and doesn't have that option. I fast walked the first and last ten minutes and jogged 20 of them. I was sweating so I know things were all good. I burned (apparently)140 fat calories and 445 calories at 2.6 miles. I ate back none of those calories to be safe and I just like seeing how many calories I could potentially have burned! Even if it is a dream haha x

morihay

I always thought they were overexagerated untill I got a HR monitor it is actually higher than the tread mill was saying treadmill says 400 HRM said 598

robertw486

I think it would vary quite a bit from machine to machine, as well as by brand of machine and the formulas they use, as well as the number of inputs it has.

My personal opinion is that a decent machine should have a much more accurate number than a stand alone HRM or any other calculator. Why? The machine has more inputs to calculate with. It knows all variations in pace over total time regardless. They also have a lot of inputs unique to that machine type, like an elliptical having ramp/resistance inputs.

On a bike or elliptical, stide or stroke length of the pedals is a known to the machine. As such there is little room for error if the machine tracks pace. On a treadmill, the user can alter those things, so differences in efficiency at different strides and paces are more possible.

Run_Away_Turtle

Thank you all.

TravisBremner

Honestly, I think it's best to eat based on your caloric intake without an exercise-adjusted number.

Azdak

robertw486 wrote: »

I think it would vary quite a bit from machine to machine, as well as by brand of machine and the formulas they use, as well as the number of inputs it has.

My personal opinion is that a decent machine should have a much more accurate number than a stand alone HRM or any other calculator. Why? The machine has more inputs to calculate with. It knows all variations in pace over total time regardless. They also have a lot of inputs unique to that machine type, like an elliptical having ramp/resistance inputs.

On a bike or elliptical, stide or stroke length of the pedals is a known to the machine. As such there is little room for error if the machine tracks pace. On a treadmill, the user can alter those things, so differences in efficiency at different strides and paces are more possible.

While it is true that machines can measure actual workload with good accuracy, that workload then has to be translated into an estimated oxygen cost/calorie burn, and THAT'S where the inaccuracy occurs. Most machines use algorithms that are either only rough estimates, or are borrowed from another related activity. In order to accurately estimate calories, a company would have to develop their own machine-specific algorithms and then do validation studies for each type of equipment. Realistically, that rarely happens.

tomatoey

gia07 wrote: »

. At first I used apps and calculators online to help me figure it out and take a range and thank goodness I only ate back a small portion of my exercise calories.

I did exactly this, using the TDEE method -just kept steady intake at 1900-2100 (using measuring cups [!!]). It got me from 178 lbs to 124 lbs. If you are able to do 30-45 minutes of vigorous cardio every other day, or 45-60 minutes of moderate cardio most days, the heart rate monitor and machine numbers don't matter all that much.

bclarke1990

Just play it safe. If you have a good workout and you feel hungry have some extra food. Too many variables to even bother basing your tdee on an exercise machine

robertw486

Azdak wrote: »

robertw486 wrote: »

I think it would vary quite a bit from machine to machine, as well as by brand of machine and the formulas they use, as well as the number of inputs it has.

My personal opinion is that a decent machine should have a much more accurate number than a stand alone HRM or any other calculator. Why? The machine has more inputs to calculate with. It knows all variations in pace over total time regardless. They also have a lot of inputs unique to that machine type, like an elliptical having ramp/resistance inputs.

On a bike or elliptical, stide or stroke length of the pedals is a known to the machine. As such there is little room for error if the machine tracks pace. On a treadmill, the user can alter those things, so differences in efficiency at different strides and paces are more possible.

While it is true that machines can measure actual workload with good accuracy, that workload then has to be translated into an estimated oxygen cost/calorie burn, and THAT'S where the inaccuracy occurs. Most machines use algorithms that are either only rough estimates, or are borrowed from another related activity. In order to accurately estimate calories, a company would have to develop their own machine-specific algorithms and then do validation studies for each type of equipment. Realistically, that rarely happens.

Precor does just that due to the movement specifics of the machines. They use models from the American College of Sports medicine for some machines, then on others use unique formulas due to the details of the machine design.

And while I completely agree that any model is less accurate without oxygen related testing, no standard formula that I know of accounts for that. So I'd still tend to think the more inputs the better. Naturally there will be variance depending on user variables not punched in and/or accounted for, but that happens with any other formula or HRM as well.

Really without VO2 max testing and such, nothing is more than a decent estimate based on whatever formula they think works, and they all have error.

tomatoey wrote: »

gia07 wrote: »

. At first I used apps and calculators online to help me figure it out and take a range and thank goodness I only ate back a small portion of my exercise calories.

I did exactly this, using the TDEE method -just kept steady intake at 1900-2100 (using measuring cups [!!]). It got me from 178 lbs to 124 lbs. If you are able to do 30-45 minutes of vigorous cardio every other day, or 45-60 minutes of moderate cardio most days, the heart rate monitor and machine numbers don't matter all that much.

I lost quite a few pounds biking and not even logging calories. Though I did use an app to track miles and estimated calories, I just used the common sense method of move more and eat less. I joined MFP mostly to keep a better grip on the nutrition side of things as my workouts got longer over time. I still don't weigh any food, and have had no problem keeping the pounds going down.

So there are loads of ways to do it that work.