Question about Cardio Machines

greyjoie
greyjoie Posts: 16 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hey guys!!
I have a question about the truth in the calorie counters on the treadmills and ellipticals that I use. For instance, running on the elliptical for an hour tells me that I burned 600 calories. Should I listen to that? Is it too high? Too low?

Replies

  • islebutterfly09
    islebutterfly09 Posts: 33 Member
    I had the same question when I started out. What I found works well for me is to wear a heart rate monitor with chest strap, because it will sync with any cardio machine I am on. Then program my info into the machine (which it asks you to do), and then I use the number the machine gives me. Machines can be tricky if you are not wearing a HRM, because it can be inaccurate if it isn't getting a consistent heart rate signal. Think of it this way. If two people ran for 30 minutes at 5 mph, the first one had a HR of 140 the whole time, and the other had a HR of 170 the whole time. Who would burn more calories? This is why your heart rate matters.
  • bobbiebearden
    bobbiebearden Posts: 32
    My heart rate monitor usually is pretty close to the same figure. Do you enter your age and weight? That can help make it more accurate.
  • greyjoie
    greyjoie Posts: 16 Member
    Yep! Age and weight are asked for when you turn it on!
  • Rogus1
    Rogus1 Posts: 60 Member
    Hard to answer without knowing how hard you were working. That's why a heartrate monitor is much better for an accurate figure. It's easy enouh to burn 600 calories in an hour during just about any cardio exercise if the intensity is high enough. I use a heartrate monitor and have found that almost all exercise machines over estimate by what I consider a significant factor of 10-20%. MFP's set calorie count for excercise is often as much as 40% too high compared to my heartrate monitor calculations.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Yep! Age and weight are asked for when you turn it on!

    Treadmills have standard equations that as long as weight is asked for, and you walk flat, is more accurate than HRM.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

    Here is double-check.
    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    The machine and HRM would tell you Gross calories burned. You would only eat back NET of course.

    Slight inclines still better than HRM, steep inclines the differences between walking styles makes equations start losing it.
    Running slow same effect, slower more accurate, faster personal efficiency comes into play.

    So while it is easy to calculate how much energy it takes to move so much mass so fast, and your HR being high or low only tells the difference between either high carb or high fat burn for your fitness level, elliptical is much harder.

    Speed, resistance, incline, personal method of movement.

    Now, if you input weight, and the elliptical machine tells you how many watts it took to move everything on avg for the whole workout, then you got it. Watts is energy.

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CycleMETs.html

    Use leg of course.
  • jessicae1aine
    jessicae1aine Posts: 885
    I find this to be really, really hit and miss. The treadmill at the gym here, even with my weight put in, says I burn about 1/10th of what my HRM says.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I had the same question when I started out. What I found works well for me is to wear a heart rate monitor with chest strap, because it will sync with any cardio machine I am on. Then program my info into the machine (which it asks you to do), and then I use the number the machine gives me. Machines can be tricky if you are not wearing a HRM, because it can be inaccurate if it isn't getting a consistent heart rate signal. Think of it this way. If two people ran for 30 minutes at 5 mph, the first one had a HR of 140 the whole time, and the other had a HR of 170 the whole time. Who would burn more calories? This is why your heart rate matters.

    Actually, not as much as you might think, if any. If their strides were exactly the same, and other efficiencies, then no difference.

    It takes so much energy to move so much mass so fast.

    The difference in HR would mean one is burning more carbs to supply the energy, one is burning more fat.

    Or, the lower HR guy is more aerobically fit, and can supply more oxygen than the other guy with every breath and every heart beat, so his HR doesn't have to beat as fast to supply the exact same amount of oxygen, but burning the same amount of energy.

    Also, the machine displaying the HR doesn't mean it's using the HR in any calculations, they don't, because the HR usually isn't there. Just a HR display unit.
  • Rogus1
    Rogus1 Posts: 60 Member
    Treadmills have standard equations that as long as weight is asked for, and you walk flat, is more accurate than HRM.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

    Here is double-check.
    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    But neither of the websites cited say that.
  • Flixie00
    Flixie00 Posts: 1,195 Member
    I am one of those unlucky people on beta blockers so cannot use a HRM. As a rule of thumb, I always estimate a 200 cal burn for every 30 mins worked at high intensity for gym cardio equipment. Cross trainers are probably the worst offenders when it comes to over estimating calorie burn.
  • sbernste
    sbernste Posts: 3
    Those calorie displays provide a good estimate but are not exact. Even at the same settings, every machine's resistance is different. In my gym, identical stationary bikes at the same resistance level display the same calorie burn, but some are really harder to pedal than others.

    For me (a 170 pound male), exercising at a pace where you can say "hello" to people as they walk in but can't have a conversation burns around 10 calories per minute, or one pound every six hours. If you want a more accurate measurement, consider investing in a heart rate monitor.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Treadmills have standard equations that as long as weight is asked for, and you walk flat, is more accurate than HRM.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

    Here is double-check.
    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    But neither of the websites cited say that.

    Oh, here is Polar's own funded study as to a formula that seems to beat all others and just how accurate it was able to be. Compare that to the study where the calculated calories for walking level was off a whole 10-20 calories.

    Link for study on this page.
    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

Categories