This is so confusing......

DeaJay_
DeaJay_ Posts: 21 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
01wa5kibx1cv.jpeg
How is there that big of a difference between my watch and the machine? Which one do I go by? Yes I have my weight entered accurately on both. 🤷🏽‍♀️

Replies

  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,753 Member
    I’d go with your watch. My watch has been accurate for me.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,941 Member
    Michael Phelps would burn 700 calories in an hour. Unless you're doing Olympic style effort, I'd go with the watch.
    Not to mention, machines HARDLY ever get calibrated once a month like they are supposed to.

    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
    9285851.png
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,363 Member
    edited February 2021
    I'd go with the watch.The 223, not the 262 - but then I wouldn't be synced to MFP, I'd just enter it manually.
  • DeaJay_
    DeaJay_ Posts: 21 Member
    Lietchi wrote: »
    704 kcal for 28 minutes is HIGHLY unlikely. Your watch estimate looks a lot more realistic to me.

    I agree. Maybe the machine is broken.
  • MaltedTea
    MaltedTea Posts: 6,286 Member
    All of the above and show your snap to the gym's manager
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,735 Member
    My TM assumes I weigh 200 lbs. I think. Walking at 4 mph, it says I burn 600-700 calories per hour, depending on the incline (usually between 1-5%). Running at 6 mph it will say I burn 1000 calories an hour. I think it overcompensates for the incline. OTOH, your watch may be undercompensating for the incline if it isn't enough to cause your HR to go up. In any case, I'd go by the watch, not the machine.
  • Ironwoman1111
    Ironwoman1111 Posts: 3,913 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I'd go with the watch.The 223, not the 262 - but then I wouldn't be synced to MFP, I'd just enter it manually.

    Why wouldn’t you be synced to MFP? I’m asking because mine is. Sometimes I wonder if some of the calories I’m earning count?
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Nobody is burning 700+ calories in under 30 minutes...you'd be hard pressed to do it in 60. Machines in the gym get used by tons of people...they break...calibration can go off, etc.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 33,971 Member
    edited February 2021
    IronwomanUno wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I'd go with the watch.The 223, not the 262 - but then I wouldn't be synced to MFP, I'd just enter it manually.

    Why wouldn’t you be synced to MFP? I’m asking because mine is. Sometimes I wonder if some of the calories I’m earning count?

    I'll take this one, as a theoretical question, since I'm not OP. I'm not synched because my good brand/model fitness tracker - one that's accurate for others - is wildly far off for me**. If I synched it to MFP, it would cause more problems than it would solve. This is a rare thing, but statistical outliers exist, and I seem to be one, for some reason. 🤷‍♀️

    If it were close, I'd synch it. I do use it for exercise calorie estimates when I don't have a more accurate source, because I don't have a good alternative . . . and those are a small enough fraction of my daily calories that any discrepancy gets lost in the noise of overall estimating.

    ** Both MFP and my tracker think I need around 25-30% fewer calories than 5 years of logging experience tells me I actually need, to maintain my weight. I'm going to maintain my weight, not lose at a silly-fast rate just because some estimates are wrong, y'know?

    Everyone seems to worry that their tracker will OVERestimate their calorie burn. I'm here to tell you that it can UNDERestimate it, too, potentially. For most people, their trackers are close. Your results over many weeks will give you a hint whether it's accurate for you. It's likely to be the best starting estimate you could come up with.
  • springlering62
    springlering62 Posts: 8,303 Member
    Machine readings are notoriously high and generally inaccurate.

    I’m pretty pleased with the readings I get on my Apple Watch, and feel they are pretty accurate.

    Even the brand new what-do-ya-call-em (brain fart) sitting down bike I have does the same thing, and I’m the only person who’s ever used it. It came straight out of the box, is a fairly high end piece of equipment, and I’ve carefully entered age, weight, height.

    I think it’s to manufacturers and gyms benefit to make us feel like we’re getting our money’s worth. That’s my thought, for what it’s worth.
  • 142jmh
    142jmh Posts: 83 Member
    In addition to what everyone else is saying, is it possible that the machine is tracking kilojoule and not kilocalories / calories? 704 kilojoules would be 168.26 calories. While still off, it's a bit more realistic. The elliptical machine that my parents have tracks energy in kilojoules, but I haven't seen many others that do.
  • Ironwoman1111
    Ironwoman1111 Posts: 3,913 Member
    Thank you so much! @AnnPT77 I never thought of it that way.

Categories