Estimated calories burned from exercise equipment

Azurite27

I just started using the app. I hadn't recorded my exercise up to that point. I have lost of lot of weight but according to my trainer at the gym, 1/3 of that was muscle so I want to try to stop that by trying to eat back my exercise calories.

So my question is how accurate are the calories burned readouts on most exercise equipment? If it's estimated for an average user at 150 lbs, would my calories burned be more or less since I'm still overweight?

astange83

The equipment is more accurate when it asks for your weight and height, or at least weight. Many treadmills do and some exercise bikes. Using a treadmill that asks your weight will be more accurate than MFP as it knows the speed changes you did or inclines where as its flat 3 4 5 mph no variation on MFP. Many people say MFP over estimates values as well, which is why many people won't eat back all their workout calories just to play it safe. You could always buy a heart rate monitor to get the most accurate answer

sunshyncatra

I don't think they are accurate unless they take weight into account. I use the MFP estimate or http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc I also have an app on my phone.

SueInAz

I'd highly recommend a heart rate monitor if you can afford one. You'd want one with a chest strap, not the kind that's just on your wrist.

I say this because I own a stationary bike that asks your weight, has heart rate grips and it's *still* off by nearly 30% from what my two heart rate monitors give me as a burn. (I have two because one is a regular HRM I got years and years ago and the other is a GPS one I bought later when I started running) Thankfully, it's off on the low side, so at least I wasn't thinking I was burning more than I was but it's still off by a lot. I don't really trust what exercise machines give me.

MrKevboto

If you want to minimize muscle loss from workouts, then buy a heart rate monitor and stick to a lower heart rate zone during your workouts. Protein and carbs are actually easier for the body to breakdown for energy than fat. At higher heart rates, your body is stressed and will look for the easier energy (i.e. muscle). But if you keep your heart rate at a lower zone, the body stays calm and focuses on the designated reserves (fat).



Check out this article for some good info on heart rates:
http://walking.about.com/cs/fitnesswalking/a/hearttraining_2.htm

Azurite27

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll look into getting a heart rate monitor. I mostly want to make sure that I'm logging my exercise correctly so I can make sure I'm eating enough and I've already made efforts to up my protein since that may have been part of the problem. I think my exercises are already on the low end heart rate wise since I can't jog or run.

Azdak

I'd be curious to know how it was determined that 1/3 of your weight loss was "muscle". Very few trainers have access to equipment that can actually measure "muscle". They can estimate "fat free mass", but that is more than muscle--as the name says, it is everything except fat.

The only people I have ever seen lose 33% of their weight loss as fat-free mass are those that lose weight with a very low calorie diet ---i.e. less than 800 kcal per day.

I would not get too caught up in -- or invest a lot of money -- in a heart rate monitor just for tracking calories. HRMs have their own accuracy issues. Many people find it easier to just calculate total daily energy expenditure, subtract 20% and stick with that number and not really bother with trying to precisely eat back exercise calories.

And continue to include variety in your workouts--include a mix of higher and lower-intensity workouts. You cannot permanently "burn muscle" during a workout. Restricting yourself to low-level cardio will just lower the overall quality and effectiveness of your program.

Azurite27

I'd be curious to know how it was determined that 1/3 of your weight loss was "muscle". Very few trainers have access to equipment that can actually measure "muscle". They can estimate "fat free mass", but that is more than muscle--as the name says, it is everything except fat.

The only people I have ever seen lose 33% of their weight loss as fat-free mass are those that lose weight with a very low calorie diet ---i.e. less than 800 kcal per day.

I would not get too caught up in -- or invest a lot of money -- in a heart rate monitor just for tracking calories. HRMs have their own accuracy issues. Many people find it easier to just calculate total daily energy expenditure, subtract 20% and stick with that number and not really bother with trying to precisely eat back exercise calories.

And continue to include variety in your workouts--include a mix of higher and lower-intensity workouts. You cannot permanently "burn muscle" during a workout. Restricting yourself to low-level cardio will just lower the overall quality and effectiveness of your program.

I thought her estimate was a bit extreme too but I don't know enough about fitness to figure these things out myself. The measurement was based on my body fat % measurements over the last year (I go in for fitness assessments at the gym every 2-3 months) vs how much weight I've lost. It could be that the body fat % numbers are off as well. I don't know a lot of how that's measured. She uses a hand-held device to measure that. I've been eating about 1200 calories daily and not eating back any calories I might have burned.

Also, unfortunately, I'm limited in a lot the exercises I can do due to back, hip, and leg problems (functional scoliosis). So I've just been trying to increase resistance as I get used to exercise levels

SueInAz

. It could be that the body fat % numbers are off as well. I don't know a lot of how that's measured. She uses a hand-held device to measure that. I've been eating about 1200 calories daily and not eating back any calories I might have burned.

Those body fat measuring machines can be all over the place. I have a scale at home that says my body fat is around 23-24%. Last week I used one of the hand-held ones at a company health fair where the vendor was LA Fitness. Theirs said it was between 32 and 33%. I don't know which one is right, or if the true answer lies somewhere in between, but that's a big difference! I'd take your results with a grain of salt, for sure.

In any event, 1200 calories and not eating back your exercise calories is really not eating enough unless you're a little, little person. I get why you want to figure out exercise calories. I wouldn't worry too much about being exact, you can just tack on a couple hundred extra calories per hour of light exercise and it would probably serve you just as well. The only problem is if you're consistently overestimating your burn and eating back all of those calories. Good luck!

Azurite27

In any event, 1200 calories and not eating back your exercise calories is really not eating enough unless you're a little, little person. I get why you want to figure out exercise calories. I wouldn't worry too much about being exact, you can just tack on a couple hundred extra calories per hour of light exercise and it would probably serve you just as well. The only problem is if you're consistently overestimating your burn and eating back all of those calories. Good luck!

Thanks. That was exactly the info I needed.