Calorie burns indicated on Gym equipment

SuperSnoopy

I am interested to know what you guys think about the figures for calorie burnt that these machines, (tred mill, cross trainer, tread walker etc etc) give. Do you think they are reasonablr accurate or not?

butterflyliz32

Personally, I have never found them to be very accurate. I prefer to trust my HRM, instead.

seekingstrengthX2

I don't know. I always thought they were high, but my husband has a HRM and wears it sometimes when he runs on the treadmill. His #'s are always somewhat close (give or take 50 calories). I always just assume the #'s are high so I don't eay way too much.

billgiersberg

I think they are good estimates. I have compared them to fitness gym models as well as to MFP's estimates and they all say somewhat the same thing. However, I do not eat those calories back because if I do, I will gain weight. That implies to me that the numbers in inaccurate on the high side. Perhaps when I reach my goal weight and am trying to maintain, I will know better what those estimates are really saying to me. For now I add them to my caloric deficit as a bonus to my weight loss. At the same time I am very careful to increase the nutritional value of what I do eat in terms of protein and vegtables to rebuild what I burn in exercise.

stormieweather

They were very, very high for me, as are MFP figures. Watching myself in the mirror in Zumba &kickboxing class, I noticed that I tend to be conservative in my movements. Meaning, I make them all, but with the least extra motion possible. Maybe all those years of undereating trained me to conserve energy? I dunno, but using the gym equipment burns caused an 8 month plateau for me. Not until I got a Fitbit and learned that no, I don't really burn 600 calories in Zumba, more like 300, did I begin to steadily lose weight.

Blacklance36

I go to Goodlife and think the treadmills and elepticals there are fairly accurate.
Rergarding MFP, when I plug in weight training / weight lifting and then record all of the exercises separately the calories go up quite a bit so I always take the lesser burn. Im also a person that seldom eats my calories back from exercise as when I do my weight stays the same.

mhotch

It depends on the brand. Some equipment is closer than others. I have noticed that most equipment, on average, are about 35% higher than my HRM.

frugalmomsrock

I wear my HRM, and the elliptical and arc trainers at my gym are almost always nearly DOUBLE what my HRM says!

At home on my stationary bike, I see about a 12 calorie difference per 10 minutes (the bike is higher than my HRM).

iKristine

lies, all lies.

The only time I would believe them is if they worked with your HRM. But exercise machine manufacturers are in the biz to sell equipment. It's adventagous for them to have good numbers.

I can't tell you how many times Ive seen girls who swear they burned over 1000 calories on this miracle machine in an hour. It would take me walking an hour, an hour of spin, an hour of martial arts, to get 600. There is no way that one treadmill or whatever is that magical.


But that's my two cents.

DannyMussels

I'd say they're better than nothing.

Keep in mind, they would be be an average (i would assume)...of someone who is an average age, average weight, and average level of fitness.

If you're older, heavier, in below-average fitness, those numbers should be a little higher..cause your body (heart) is working harder.

If you're in better shape, it's safe to assume the calories burned would be lower then shown.

For most people who don't know how to actually calculate it, or figure out heart rate, I would say it's close enough.

jbella99

I think the machines that ask for your age and weight are more accurate than the ones that don't.

Mom_4_More_Muscles

Personally, I have never found them to be very accurate. I prefer to trust my HRM, instead.

My heart monitor is programmed to my own stats (age, weight, resting BPM, gender) If you have a heart monitor, you might compare, and find the machines that are closest to what your monitor tracks. Then, if you choose not to wear your monitor on cardio machines, you can choose the machine that closest records what your HRM is/was recording. Sound like a lot of work, though. I'd just stick with my HRM. They're reasonably priced and really help when it comes to fitness.

Good luck to you!! I'm sure you'll find what's best for your own program!! :happy:

bm_stclair

Agreed with all above with my own comments
.
A person's best bet IMHO is to get a heart rate monitor. They are pretty accurate in my experience. It will be close enough for most people anyway. In my experience, as someone else mentioned, I see about a 30 to 50 calorie difference between what MFP says and what my HRM reads. Similarly with calorie burn on gym equipment although it tends to be a bigger difference depending on the machine I use that day.
Bottom line is that I usually go with my HRM numbers. This way I know that I am getting my numbers from one consistent source plus I can wear my HRM doing any activity I want and still get relatively accurate numbers. I will note that at the end of the day I always try to leave myself at least a 50ish calories buffer between what I ate and my goal intake. This is more of a mental thing for me so that I know that I am making progress for sure.

SuperSnoopy

Thanks for all your input I appreciate it all. It would appear that generally they are reading high. I rely on them a lot so probably need to get a HRM for a better and more accurate reading. I tend to do my cardio gym work based on the calorie burn it gives me, I'm so calorie focused its taking over my life. Thanks again for all your input.
Trev Nottingham UK