is the number of calorie burned on workout machines accurate?
Options
Replies
-
I don’t know why you guys are trying to say machines may be more accurate. I’m not saying it’s an exact science and my results are for sure proof. I’m just saying my experience because I was always curious about which was more accurate. It’s well known machines tend to overestimate.4
-
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I don’t know why you guys are trying to say machines may be more accurate. I’m not saying it’s an exact science and my results are for sure proof. I’m just saying my experience because I was always curious about which was more accurate. It’s well known machines tend to overestimate.
That's the problem - it's not well known by those that actually know how they work and get their estimates.
For instance - the walking & running formula using mass and pace is more accurate than HRM.
Only thing needed is correct weight, and calibrated belt for distance.
Problem is neither of those may be right. And some really cheap machines don't use those formulas that have been publicly available for years, but indeed try to inflate the burn, or don't allow input of weight for some stupid reason.
Cycle ergometers that use a monitored motor to provide resistance know exactly how many watts is being expended - and there again the formula known for years being used leads to best accuracy you'll get. Weight doesn't matter in that case. Or they'll use an actual power meter inline somewhere, like newer spin bikes. Older ones used a distance/mass formula and pretty awful.
But some machines don't use their motors in that way, or use a different way to provide resistance, and therefore may use distance and weight in some formula.
Elliptical as I mentioned is just no good formula or rate of efficiency to convert even an accurate watts to calories.
So that one yes, iffy - but to assume overestimate may be wrong too unless compared to a known accurate measurement.
I'm going to start seeing of labs doing VO2 tests are including an elliptical as an option. Or have tested using one.
For people that want to train really well for the World Elliptical Championships for either speed or distance.3 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I don’t know why you guys are trying to say machines may be more accurate. I’m not saying it’s an exact science and my results are for sure proof. I’m just saying my experience because I was always curious about which was more accurate. It’s well known machines tend to overestimate.
I don't see a lot of people saying that.
I see several people saying very specific machines that measure applied power, and involve movements with a very narrow range of efficiency among users, are going to be more accurate than a fitness tracker or heart rate monitor.
(Specifically, bikes measuring watts. Some rowing machines also measure watts, but - though I have no research proof - I'm inclined to believe that the movements have a wider range of efficiencies among users, so may be less accurate than power-metered bikes (I'm speculating, and know it, on this point). For Concept 2 machines specifically, given how they're engineered and by/for whom, I'd expect the watts-based calorie estimates to be reasonably accurate, after weight adjustment (there's an online calculator) for people who are reasonably good at rowing; but I'd guess that they might underestimate calories by a bit for many of the people who I see rowing at the gym, who are spending ridiculous amounts of energy that isn't going into the flywheel. JMO, and SMH.)
Beyond that, there have been some insightful comments from knowledgeable people about how good or bad particular types of machines are likely to be, and a number of general comments from people endorsing their fitness trackers' estimates, or using half the machines' estimates.
So, yeah, some people are saying some machines may be more accurate than fitness trackers or heart rate monitors, but that's hardly the thrust of the replies. And yeah, some machines overestimate (perhaps many/most, if you're really looking for net calories vs. gross, but that's an easy adjustment).
I sympathize that some seem to be questioning your confidence in your Apple watch's estimates. Those estimates have been very workable for you, which is really all that any of us need.
Personally, I use my Garmin's exercise calorie estimates regularly, including for some things I know it isn't ideal for estimating (but it's the closest source I have). I agree with those who are skeptical of tracker/HRM estimates as a generality, but that doesn't mean they're useless or unusable. But I think it's a good thing to shoot for a more nuanced understanding of what they're likely to get reasonably accurate, and cases where there might be a better alternative. Power-metered bike = better alternative, for example.0 -
I've used a HRM and the machines that take your weight and have the HR sensors, and generally find them relatively close-ish. Biggest issues with the machines is that if you're not using them, you're still going to be using general database entries.
That being said, over time I've found that my workouts are intense enough that most database entries are, if anything, a bit on the light side as far as burn. If I'm working out consistently, and tracking my food intake pretty closely - and I've never included cooking oil or things like ketchup - even staying in my TDEE deficit range is a bit on the low side for me.
The wiggle room is nice though when I do decide to have a little extra or am just especially hungry one day!0 -
HoneyBadger155 wrote: »I've used a HRM and the machines that take your weight and have the HR sensors, and generally find them relatively close-ish. Biggest issues with the machines is that if you're not using them, you're still going to be using general database entries.
That being said, over time I've found that my workouts are intense enough that most database entries are, if anything, a bit on the light side as far as burn. If I'm working out consistently, and tracking my food intake pretty closely - and I've never included cooking oil or things like ketchup - even staying in my TDEE deficit range is a bit on the low side for me.
The wiggle room is nice though when I do decide to have a little extra or am just especially hungry one day!
Not questioning your accuracy, but out of curiousity (since I have some challenges in this area myself): What has convinced you that the exercise calorie estimates are too low, vs. your actual TDEE is higher than estimated?
My effective TDEE is higher than a lot of so-called calculators say, but I have a hard time believing that exercise calories are so underestimated that they make up the whole difference (maybe part). If it were a closer thing numerically, I'm not sure how I'd know which accounted for it.
Not that it really matters . . . as long as we know what calorie adjustments to make in intake, it all works out fine.
1 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I don’t know why you guys are trying to say machines may be more accurate. I’m not saying it’s an exact science and my results are for sure proof. I’m just saying my experience because I was always curious about which was more accurate. It’s well known machines tend to overestimate.
Suggest you go back and read the posts without applying your filter of your own experience.
What most knowledgable people are saying is that "machines" (and other devices) have wildly varying degrees of accuracy and that includes all possibilities of under estimating, being very accurate and over estimating.
Making assumptions based on your personal experience does not equate to all people and all machines. I could say that as Garmin Edge estimates my annual burn as 170,000 from my sports cycling it must be completely accurate as I'm maintaining successfully. It would be a dumb thing to say though and even dumber to then say all cycling computers or apps tend to be accurate for all people.
Strava app for example is pretty close for me but only because its gross calorie estimate by a happy accident is very close to my actual net calorie expenditure.
No your results are not "sure proof". They are an assumption and an assumption that personally helped you. That is the limit of the usefulness.
You might have used a different elliptical where the manufacturer bothered to study a cross section of people in a sports science lab and come up with usable calorie chart that would be reasonable for many average users and come up with a completely different conclusion from your assumptions.
Even if you take your statement "it's well known machines tend to overestimate" at face value how does that help someone using a machine that is accurate or under estimates?
I've just done a workout on a machine (high end dual power meter exercise bike) that gives extremely accurate data to work out net cals. Using the oft parroted "eat 50%" would be utterly stupid.
And after all this we still don't know what the OP was using!
5 -
How do ellipticals, exercise bikes, riding machines, etc, made by different companies, all overestimate calories by the same factor of 2x? That's an amazing coincidence. Like if they make a ski machine and it overestimates by 3x, does somebody let them know so they can fix it to only do 2x? Who coordinates?3
-
NorthCascades wrote: »How do ellipticals, exercise bikes, riding machines, etc, made by different companies, all overestimate calories by the same factor of 2x? That's an amazing coincidence. Like if they make a ski machine and it overestimates by 3x, does somebody let them know so they can fix it to only do 2x? Who coordinates?
I don’t think anyone said every single workout machine out there always overestimate by 2x.... lol3 -
They are estimates based on statistics even with details added. The only way to know your true calorie utilization as tin is metabolic assessments done by professionals with equipment. I worked as a personal trainer for many years. One facility did metabolic testing. I had mine done and it was way off from any machine, watch and assesment otherwise given
However they are good for monitoring activity levels, increased capacity.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »How do ellipticals, exercise bikes, riding machines, etc, made by different companies, all overestimate calories by the same factor of 2x? That's an amazing coincidence. Like if they make a ski machine and it overestimates by 3x, does somebody let them know so they can fix it to only do 2x? Who coordinates?
@NorthCascades
It's co-ordinated by the murky organisation called "Big Gym" - don't mess with Big Gym!
The conspiracy to convince people that HRMs measure calories is co-ordinated by "Big Heart" - that's sounds far more cute and cuddly.4 -
Machines vary. Some machines are more accurate than others, and Google is your friend. If you search you can sometimes find studies on various types of machines, including how accurate or inaccurate they might be.
You can also compare other measures, such as the feedback loop you have on your weight loss trend. Though it gets a bit murky at times, if you are estimating too high or too low it should show up in your long term trends.
The same applies to fitness trackers. Some people find they are very accurate for them, others do not.
2 -
Not questioning your accuracy, but out of curiousity (since I have some challenges in this area myself): What has convinced you that the exercise calorie estimates are too low, vs. your actual TDEE is higher than estimated?
My effective TDEE is higher than a lot of so-called calculators say, but I have a hard time believing that exercise calories are so underestimated that they make up the whole difference (maybe part). If it were a closer thing numerically, I'm not sure how I'd know which accounted for it.
Not that it really matters . . . as long as we know what calorie adjustments to make in intake, it all works out fine.
The main one is that I've worked on losing weight (no planned exercise) in the past a couple times, and numbers were pretty on point.
If I'm tracking my calories really closely, per my TDEE, my deficit should be about 1/2 pound a week loss. If I'm being really good about weighing and measuring my food, I will very quickly start losing much faster. I've used a steps tracker (both phone and wrist) and outside of my workouts, I'm not an active person per any standard (maybe 3-5K steps a day at most unless I have some other activity going on).
Granted, I am a fidgeter, but my overall activity outside of workouts doesn't align with my intake vs loss - leaving exercise the variable.0 -
HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Not questioning your accuracy, but out of curiousity (since I have some challenges in this area myself): What has convinced you that the exercise calorie estimates are too low, vs. your actual TDEE is higher than estimated?
My effective TDEE is higher than a lot of so-called calculators say, but I have a hard time believing that exercise calories are so underestimated that they make up the whole difference (maybe part). If it were a closer thing numerically, I'm not sure how I'd know which accounted for it.
Not that it really matters . . . as long as we know what calorie adjustments to make in intake, it all works out fine.
The main one is that I've worked on losing weight (no planned exercise) in the past a couple times, and numbers were pretty on point.
If I'm tracking my calories really closely, per my TDEE, my deficit should be about 1/2 pound a week loss. If I'm being really good about weighing and measuring my food, I will very quickly start losing much faster. I've used a steps tracker (both phone and wrist) and outside of my workouts, I'm not an active person per any standard (maybe 3-5K steps a day at most unless I have some other activity going on).
Granted, I am a fidgeter, but my overall activity outside of workouts doesn't align with my intake vs loss - leaving exercise the variable.
FWIW, even though it's tangent at best, probably off topic, to the thread:
My activity level doesn't align with my intake and loss, either . . . but I'd have to double my routine exercise calories - or more - to account for the difference. MFP thinks I should maintain on something like 1500 (before exercise). TDEE calculators set at sedentary (i.e., best guess at before exercise) usually say around the same. The actual answer (based on 4 years of logging and scale results) is somewhere around, probably a bit above, 2000. There's no possible way my 45 minute spin class or hour of on-water rowing is giving me 500+ extra net calories every day on top of my usually 275-350 estimates. (I'm a freakin' li'l ol' lady, age 63, not a titan of sport
.)
In the last 7 days, I've averaged right around 5,000 steps, which is on the high side if I were looking at an annual average. I asked two friends who are usually honest (and bad/transparent liars) if I'm fidgety; they say not. My Garmin, which I wear all day every day except for charging (usually when I'm in the shower for a few minutes), and which knows my actual (not just age-estimated) max heart rate, says I've burned an average of 1635 calories daily for the last 7 days, including exercise (I grant it's been a week of bad rowing weather, so normal average for 7 days in season would be more like 1800-some).
Looking back over the last few weeks, in weeks I fully logged, my average gross intake was 2200-2300 calories. (I skip more days in maintenance, usually on hard-to-log days that tend to be high days, so the actual daily average over time is almost certainly higher). I use a food scale for everything I eat at home, which is most of the time, and chain estimates (which people seem mostly to regard as low) when I eat at chains. I maybe eat at non-chains once a week-ish, and try to guess high (or nowadays, sometimes just skip logging ).
Per Libra, my weight trend has been in the mid-130s, mostly around 136ish, (not climbing consistently, noodling up and down by a pound or two (daily weights swing more because of high days)). My oncologists did a full-torso scan to make sure I had nothing strange going on (since I'm a cancer survivor) because I lost unusually fast for my calorie level (1.5-2 pounds weekly on what should've been a 0.5lb or so deficit). I've had multiple rounds of blood tests (I have them every 6 months for my hypothyroidism, and the doc adds various other tests each time for general health monitoring). Everything looks fine.
In total, this makes me conclude that TDEE/NEAT "calcultors" can be wrong. I'm not saying that's true for you, just that it can be true IMO. I suspect their estimates can be wrong to either the high or low side. I don't believe it's common, in cases where logging is reasonably accurate, and profile settings likewise.
Just to pull it back to the vicinity of the thread: I think exercise estimates - from nearly any source - can be wrong, too. They're probably more like to be wrong to the high side, for marketing reasons already discussed, and because of gross/net confusion. If you think your difference is exercise estimates, I have no reason to doubt you.2 -
........
(just not quoting to save the screen space LOL)
So, historically (before the waist-line killing desk job) I tended to eat WAY more than any calculator would have ever given me. I was active, and fairly fit, but not a marathon runner or extreme athlete by any stretch of the imagination, but I maintained (at 5' 7", 19-~34 years old, 128-131 pounds) eating 2500-upwards of 5,000 calories a day. When I was regularly working out (police academy for example) I was eating 3500-5,000 a day. As much or more than a lot of the males in our group. And I didn't gain weight.
When I got the desk job, however, the weight crept up and not all that slowly. By the time I was 38 I hit my highest weight ever (~166 - ish - I didn't get on a scale until I started to lose a teensy bit, so it's kinda a guess). In order to lose (no extra exercise and a pretty sedentary life outside of work) at that time it took being right on the mark to get expected losses.
Now that my fitness is improving again, my lifting is finally advancing again, and I'm getting closer to goal (still have 10-15 to go), I'm finding (again), my intake needs aren't quite in line with the calculators.
Could be that I just tend to put on more muscle than the average woman (always have been pretty strong for my size/build) and maybe my underlying mass just burns more than average, but when that deteriorates, not so much? Kind of a wild guess, I know what the scale and numbers show/reveal, but not positive "why." Not sure how much intensity affects the burn either - I know it affects it, but that can be really hard to calculate sometimes!1 -
FWIW (I have no idea): Short Concept 2 rowing machine workout tonight (2 x 10' + 2'-ish CD).
Garmin Vivoactive 3 with chest belt, knows I'm indoor rowing, knows actual HRmax, estimate includes CD: 177 calories.
Concept 2 calorie estimate (not including CD), weight adjusted: 199 calories.
Plenty close enough for government work?2 -
I find the machines quite accurate for me. I do find when entering the exercise in MFP that it tends to underestimate my calorie burn from jogging, walking, or running but overestimates for other machines like rowing or elliptical, for example.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions