Smart watch calories VS. machine

marissamacko

I just did the elliptical for 20 minutes. My Apple Watch claims I burned around 150ish calories, while the machine is saying I burned 230+. Which do you follow?

gaelicstorm

I always follow the lower reading to ensure that I don't eat too many calories back.

AnnPT77

Yup, I pick the lower, unless I have a good reason to believe another estimate is more accurate. I'd also see with the MFP exercise database says, for comparison, and use that if it were lower still.

Sorry.

(In spin class Thursday, my bike said 515 calories. My HRM/fitness tracker said 290. MFP database said 292. I used the 290.)

firef1y72

The lower reading. I did 20mins on the stationary bike, highest setting, 100+rpm, bike reckoned I burnt 450Calories, but what the bike didn't know is that I'm seriously active and my hr didn't go above 130 so in reality I only burnt about 170 Calories. My fitness tracker, that knows my hr, however knew I wasn't working "that" hard

AnnPT77

firef1y72 wrote: »

The lower reading. I did 20mins on the stationary bike, highest setting, 100+rpm, bike reckoned I burnt 450Calories, but what the bike didn't know is that I'm seriously active and my hr didn't go above 130 so in reality I only burnt about 170 Calories. My fitness tracker, that knows my hr, however knew I wasn't working "that" hard

But a same-sized fit person and a nonfit person each doing the same activity at the same objective intensity will each burn roughly the same number of calories.

For example, if same-size very-fit and less-fit women each run one mile in the same amount of time (less-fit one sets the slow pace for both), they'll burn about the same number of calories.

It will be subjectively easier for the more-fit woman, her heart rate will be lower throughout, and her HRM will likely estimate fewer calories because of that (assuming the calorie estimate is from HR and personal characteristics only, not GPS or other distance factors).

That's one reason heart rate monitors aren't terribly accurate estimators of calories burned . . . It's just that they're slightly better estimators, for some kinds of exercise, than the realistic alternatives.

annaskiski

AnnPT77 wrote: »

firef1y72 wrote: »

The lower reading. I did 20mins on the stationary bike, highest setting, 100+rpm, bike reckoned I burnt 450Calories, but what the bike didn't know is that I'm seriously active and my hr didn't go above 130 so in reality I only burnt about 170 Calories. My fitness tracker, that knows my hr, however knew I wasn't working "that" hard

But a same-sized fit person and a nonfit person each doing the same activity at the same objective intensity will each burn roughly the same number of calories.

For example, if same-size very-fit and less-fit women each run one mile in the same amount of time (less-fit one sets the slow pace for both), they'll burn about the same number of calories.

It will be subjectively easier for the more-fit woman, her heart rate will be lower throughout, and her HRM will likely estimate fewer calories because of that (assuming the calorie estimate is from HR and personal characteristics only, not GPS or other distance factors).

That's one reason heart rate monitors aren't terribly accurate estimators of calories burned . . . It's just that they're slightly better estimators, for some kinds of exercise, than the realistic alternatives.

Do you have a reference for that? I’ve always believed that the more fit person‘ s body is more efficient and therefore burns fewer calories.

And btw, did the machine ask if you were a man or woman? Cause I believe the default is for men. All machines I’ve used only ask for your weight..

robertw486

marissamacko wrote: »

I just did the elliptical for 20 minutes. My Apple Watch claims I burned around 150ish calories, while the machine is saying I burned 230+. Which do you follow?

It depends quite a bit on the machine accuracy and any inputs you gave it. Some machines are fairly accurate, some are known for high readings. Many machines also estimate gross calories as well. The same applies to the wearable device.

IIRC some of the Apple devices will actually give you an estimate on the low side.

If your primary concern is weight loss, use the lower number and watch your weight loss trends over time. Use that feedback to help you determine which device is giving you the more accurate number.

2baninja

I go by what MFP tells me, most of the machines at my gym are old... The Elliptical I use tells me my heart rate is always 166, no matter how hard or easy I'm going, and that I'm only burning 65 cal, MFP tells me I'm burning over 300, I'm sure both are wrong, but I think the 300 is closer, (and I've double checked it on other websites). I have no other means to know.

AnnPT77

annaskiski wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

firef1y72 wrote: »

The lower reading. I did 20mins on the stationary bike, highest setting, 100+rpm, bike reckoned I burnt 450Calories, but what the bike didn't know is that I'm seriously active and my hr didn't go above 130 so in reality I only burnt about 170 Calories. My fitness tracker, that knows my hr, however knew I wasn't working "that" hard

But a same-sized fit person and a nonfit person each doing the same activity at the same objective intensity will each burn roughly the same number of calories.

For example, if same-size very-fit and less-fit women each run one mile in the same amount of time (less-fit one sets the slow pace for both), they'll burn about the same number of calories.

It will be subjectively easier for the more-fit woman, her heart rate will be lower throughout, and her HRM will likely estimate fewer calories because of that (assuming the calorie estimate is from HR and personal characteristics only, not GPS or other distance factors).

That's one reason heart rate monitors aren't terribly accurate estimators of calories burned . . . It's just that they're slightly better estimators, for some kinds of exercise, than the realistic alternatives.

Do you have a reference for that? I’ve always believed that the more fit person‘ s body is more efficient and therefore burns fewer calories.

And btw, did the machine ask if you were a man or woman? Cause I believe the default is for men. All machines I’ve used only ask for your weight..

Think about it: It's pretty much the "work" in the physics sense of the term that determines the energy (calorie) requirement to do the work. It's the reason you can fairly-accurately estimate flat-terrain walking or running calories with just body weight and distance. If elite cyclists (or whatever) burned substantially fewer calories per mile than us regular people, they wouldn't have to eat truly enormous amounts of food to fuel their activity.

As we get fitter, we think it's less work, because it feels easier. There may be some minor differences due to less wasted motion as we get technically better, but it's a small percentage.

This is a better explanation:

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/calories-burned-during-exercise-it-s-the-intensity-not-the-heart-rate-that-counts-26524

If a less-fit same-sized person did your same "stationary bike, highest setting, 100+rpm" workout on the same bike at the same output (watts) in the same time period, but their heart rate went up to 150 (or higher) instead of 130, what physics explanation would suggest they burned more calories than you did?

And why would men and women who are size matched burn a different number of calories for the same activity, beyond possibly the numerically small impact of the average man having a little lower body fat percentage? While TDEE/NEAT calculators take sex into account (presumably largely because of the impact of body fat percent on all-day activity), it's not usual for exercise-specific calorie estimation methods to include sex as a variable.

sijomial

@annaskiski
Do you have a reference for that? I’ve always believed that the more fit person‘ s body is more efficient and therefore burns fewer calories.
That's actually back to front - a fit person has a higher capability to burn more calories. They can go further, faster and at a higher intensity, They can create more power which takes of course takes energy,
You could compare a recreational cyclist like me who can burn at a rate of over 700/hr, a semi pro rider at over 1000/hr and an elite rider at a rate of 1400 cals/hr.

Exercise HR is enormously variable between different people - even people of similar fitness levels (age and genetics).
It also varies for a person as they get fitter, their heart gets more efficient so beats less to pump more - think this might be where the belief that fitter people burn less during exercise comes from. I'm producing 20% power (so burning 20% more calories) at same heart rate as I used to do due to improved CV fitness.
There is no direct relationship between HR and energy.


"And btw, did the machine ask if you were a man or woman? Cause I believe the default is for men. All machines I’ve used only ask for your weight.."
Male or female is an irrelevance for working out net calories from exercise, it has some relevance for gross calories.

annaskiski

No one's posted a reference. The only study I could find essentially said that calories from exercise eventually plateaued. i.e. at some point the more fit people burned less the rest of the day, resulting in no greater increase in calorie burn.

It sounds like its more related to NEAT though, so I didn't post it earlier, but at least implies that fit people do not burn all that many more calories....

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2075721-our-body-adapts-to-intense-exercise-to-burn-fewer-calories/

annaskiski

I have to shout out to Lyle McDonald, as he posted a similar phenomena in his book about the dangers of HIIT...

(i.e. people become more sedentary the rest of the day, causing no greater increase in calorie burn)

sijomial

annaskiski wrote: »

No one's posted a reference. The only study I could find essentially said that calories from exercise eventually plateaued. i.e. at some point the more fit people burned less the rest of the day, resulting in no greater increase in calorie burn.

It sounds like its more related to NEAT though, so I didn't post it earlier, but at least implies that fit people do not burn all that many more calories....

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2075721-our-body-adapts-to-intense-exercise-to-burn-fewer-calories/

You've gone off at a tangent from your original statement.
No you don't burn less calories because your body has "become more efficient".

You might burn fewer calories over a day if you become fatigued from exercise and become less active the rest of the day - that's nothing to do with efficiency but might have something to do with pushing your personal fitness limits and possibly an unwise choice of exercise intensity.

On the other hand you might burn more calories over a day when you are fitter as you become more energetic and move more and become more active not less as your capabilities are higher. Use the stairs instead of lift/elevator. Walk instead of using the car garden instead of watching TV etc etc.

"implies that fit people do not burn all that many more calories" - well that depends on their exercise of choice. As a cyclist the ceiling for me is ridiculously high (over 300 hours last year and likely more this year), if I had a different exercise hobby it would likely be far less.

This "fit person" exercises more, is more active and eats more than ever before.

annaskiski

Well I believe I stated that the study didn't exactly fit the question at hand, which is why I didn't immediately post it.

But while your n=1 experience is nice, the study DOES say that highly active populations do not burn more calories than more sedentary populations, and that at some point, calorie burn plateaus.

BelleRequin

I go by my Apple Watch, but admittedly, it’s usually within 10 cals of my 10 year old treamill’s number 🤷‍♀️

VUA21

I generally split the difference and monitor my results. If after a month or two I'm losing faster than expected, I start using the higher number, if slower than expected I'll use the lower number.

AnvilHead

VUA21 wrote: »

I generally split the difference and monitor my results. If after a month or two I'm losing faster than expected, I start using the higher number, if slower than expected I'll use the lower number.

Smart approach. Accurately tracked, real life personal experience > any machine/gadget readout.

RadishEater

For me, I subtract off 100 calories off the elliptical reading, unless it's below 100 then I just halve the number. I've been using this correction for logging for about a year with success.

Best bet is to log for a couple weeks and monitor your weight and huger signals and adjust as needed.