Calories: Cardio Machine or Fitbit watch??

Options
tarun_yadavA
tarun_yadavA Posts: 1,105 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi all. Apologies if this has been posted already.

40+ mins on a CrossTrainer cardio machine... =671 Calories burned.
Whilst wearing a Garmin fitbit watch... =318 Calories burned.

I am going to assume that the fitbit watch is the more accurate reading... While both have for age and weight... and Heart rate (I make it a point to hold the metal bars that record Heart rate); the watch knows my Gender and height/BMI.

Based on it having more Data points, its more likely to provide a more personalised accurate reading!

(Some are saying, why dont you just take midpoint & log it as 494 burned(

Am I wrong??



4biktvo4jmm8.jpg


Replies

  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    I would be inclined to go with the lower number, many machines grossly overestimate caloric expenditure. (I'm a little concerned that the machine also shows you taking 43 min to go 1.48 km, it seems a bit off - even walking at a fairly relaxed pace you'd probably go at least double that)

    Not sure which model of Garmin you're using but many of them use software developed by Firstbeat Technologies. While all of the products out there estimate expenditures Firstbeat has a reputation for being reasonably accurate.
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,128 Member
    edited August 2020
    Options
    I'm also wondering if the machine gives you gross calories burned (including 'rest calories' to use your fitbit's terminology) or only net calories burned (active calories).

    I'm going to guess it gives you gross calories burned, I think most cardio machines do.
  • tarun_yadavA
    tarun_yadavA Posts: 1,105 Member
    Options
    Thanks Brian. Yeah, I'm inclined to go with lower number too.

    PS: it was a Treadmill and not a CrossTrainer (Elliptical if you're in the US)
  • Maesneuadd
    Maesneuadd Posts: 61 Member
    Options
    I'd also be inclined to think the lower number is more useful. If you truly on the higher one it might give you leeway to slacken your resolve
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited August 2020
    Options
    Ah - if really treadmill then, the distance and time can be double-checked by calculation that can be very accurate.
    Distance/pace/weight Calculation has shown to be more accurate than HR-based calculation too.

    https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

    You do want the Gross option - that's what the treadmill and Garmin are both showing - total calories in that chunk of time.
    If you were to update the calories on the Garmin activity - you'd use Gross.
    If you did NOT sync Garmin to MFP or any other tracker - you'd use Net to log on MFP.

    HR on the machine is only being used to display and use HR zones if you used a certain program most likely.
    Age is being used there too for HR zone creation. 220-age = HRmax sadly.

    If the machine had weight, then it's watts may be very realistic - more than HRM.
    But even if not watts - distance and time and mass is very accurate.

    So you didn't go into workout mode it appears since showing a before/after of daily stats I guess.
    So you can't confirm if device had the distance correct?
    When Garmin knows it's doing walking/running as workout - it uses more distance-based calorie burn for weighting the result over HR-based.
    But it appears no workout started?

Categories