How accurate are the calorie displays on equipment?!

sugarsugar16
sugarsugar16 Posts: 29 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I want to know how accurate the displays are... considering that I'm going to burn more calories sweating like a pig compared to the 120 pound woman next to me who hasn't broken a sweat in the last 30 minutes.
These displays don't take in consideration the weight/effort of the person on them.... should I log those calories or the ones listed in MFP?!?! HELP!!!! :) I want to be more accurate!

Replies

  • rileyscoutko
    rileyscoutko Posts: 38 Member
    I wouldn't trust the machines. I've read that they over calculate by 20% at times, however I don't necessarily trust mfp either. A heart rate monitor is your best bet but there are some great calculators online. I use the one on healthstatus.com
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    If you haven't entered any personal data (age, weight etc) consider the information the machine gives you as useless - it has no basis to calculate your caloric expenditure. I wish sweat = calories burned.....I'd already be skinny.

    For steady state aerobic exercise a (properly set up) HRM with a chest strap will be more useful.
  • marieautumn
    marieautumn Posts: 928 Member
    Get a HRM, because the machines vary depending on who they are calculated for. Some times the machine is way over, some times way under and some times it matches my HRM pretty closely. You can't really rely on that information. HRM's are about $60 and worth every penny.
    In my highest burning zone (80% intensity) I burn 10 calories per minute.
  • DElleBurd
    DElleBurd Posts: 8
    I don't trust them. I can log the same workout on MapMyRun and MFP and they are always 25-90 calories lower than what my treadmill tells me (which does take into account of my weight). I personally use this (http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx) calculator and log the number of calories it tells me.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Depends on the machine... some are as accurate as you can get, others... well, not so much.
  • sugarsugar16
    sugarsugar16 Posts: 29 Member
    Awesome! Thank-you all for your input!! :) It is very much appreciated!!! Where would I get a HRM?! Online?! Certain store?!
  • sugarsugar16
    sugarsugar16 Posts: 29 Member
    I wouldn't trust the machines. I've read that they over calculate by 20% at times, however I don't necessarily trust mfp either. A heart rate monitor is your best bet but there are some great calculators online. I use the one on healthstatus.com

    I just tried healthstatus.com - AWESOME site! Thanks!! :)
  • cynthiaj777
    cynthiaj777 Posts: 787 Member
    Not at all. Get a HRM.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Not at all. Get a HRM.

    there is no guarantee that an HRM will be any more accurate. Ultimately it comes down to the formula they use to ESTIMATE calories burned.
  • worldsbestauntie
    worldsbestauntie Posts: 280 Member
    I wouldn't trust the machines. I've read that they over calculate by 20% at times, however I don't necessarily trust mfp either. A heart rate monitor is your best bet but there are some great calculators online. I use the one on healthstatus.com

    I like that website! Thanks!
  • Tony_Brewski
    Tony_Brewski Posts: 1,376 Member
    Find the average. Compare the machines with various other means. HRM + Calorie burn Calculator for example. see where they all compare and you'll figure out an average you can then use the machine wisely and adjust by the difference you know it is roughly off by then play it smart and under cut an extra 5% to 15% from the burn and use that total. Sure you cut yourself short on how many you truly burned but it's better to under cut your total then over cut.
  • supremelady
    supremelady Posts: 211 Member
    I wouldn't trust the machines. I've read that they over calculate by 20% at times, however I don't necessarily trust mfp either. A heart rate monitor is your best bet but there are some great calculators online. I use the one on healthstatus.com

    I just went to healthstatus.com and put in the same information that i have on MFP and the burned calories are more than 100 of what MFP gives.

    so i guess my question is, does MFP really overestimate the amount of calories burned?
  • cynthiaj777
    cynthiaj777 Posts: 787 Member
    Get a HRM, because the machines vary depending on who they are calculated for. Some times the machine is way over, some times way under and some times it matches my HRM pretty closely. You can't really rely on that information. HRM's are about $60 and worth every penny.
    In my highest burning zone (80% intensity) I burn 10 calories per minute.

    We are pretty similar. I burn around 100 calories a mile and my "just going for a run" time is 10 minute miles (6mph), so that's roughly 600 calories an hour just like you. If I get into intense working out, I can get 700+ an hr.
  • cynthiaj777
    cynthiaj777 Posts: 787 Member
    Not at all. Get a HRM.

    there is no guarantee that an HRM will be any more accurate. Ultimately it comes down to the formula they use to ESTIMATE calories burned.

    HRMs use user input data, so it is FAR more accurate than machines.
  • JohnMatrix
    JohnMatrix Posts: 59
    Get a HRM, because the machines vary depending on who they are calculated for. Some times the machine is way over, some times way under and some times it matches my HRM pretty closely. You can't really rely on that information. HRM's are about $60 and worth every penny.
    In my highest burning zone (80% intensity) I burn 10 calories per minute.

    Have to agree with this. I wore mine for several sessions of all the cardio I do over the course of several weeks: spinning, hiking, circuit, running and walking uphill. ALL (minus the hiking since that's outside) were lower than what the machine says. Afterwards I use those numbers/times as part of my mfp cardio. If your paranoid, take another 5% off each number and base your entry on that.
  • tmccarter11
    tmccarter11 Posts: 39
    Awesome! Thank-you all for your input!! :) It is very much appreciated!!! Where would I get a HRM?! Online?! Certain store?!

    I bought my Polar FT4 on Amazon.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    I want to know how accurate the displays are... considering that I'm going to burn more calories sweating like a pig compared to the 120 pound woman next to me who hasn't broken a sweat in the last 30 minutes.
    These displays don't take in consideration the weight/effort of the person on them.... should I log those calories or the ones listed in MFP?!?! HELP!!!! :) I want to be more accurate!

    Some people sweat at the drop of a hat .... not a good indicator.

    Calorie burns depend upon: height, weight, age, gender, and exertion level (among other things) ...... how much information do you plug into the machine?

    If the machine does not know your gender (it "assumes") ..... men burn more calories than women because they have more muscle mass. So if the machine assumed male & you're not .... it's wrong.

    Exertion level - this is not just jogging at X MPH on XX% incline ...... for some that would be a killer workout .... and an easy on for others.

    MFP may not be any better. Yes - they have some of the information ..... but are all exercises based upon all available data?

    A heart rate monitor "should" be more accurate (not everyone agrees). A HRM with a chest strap attempts to measure your exertion level by comparing your resting heart rate to a continuous reading while you are workoing out.

    I have a Polar F4 (Amazon) ..... I really like it.
  • cynthiaj777
    cynthiaj777 Posts: 787 Member
    Awesome! Thank-you all for your input!! :) It is very much appreciated!!! Where would I get a HRM?! Online?! Certain store?!

    I bought my Polar FT4 on Amazon.

    Ditto. I love mine, but I'm going to get the new Polar GPS HRM. http://www.amazon.com/Polar-RC3-GPS/dp/B0089OZ77U
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Not at all. Get a HRM.

    there is no guarantee that an HRM will be any more accurate. Ultimately it comes down to the formula they use to ESTIMATE calories burned.

    HRMs use user input data, so it is FAR more accurate than machines.

    Not necessarily. Doesn't matter what info you give it... a crappy formula is still going to do a crappy job estimating.
  • vickiessecret
    vickiessecret Posts: 119 Member
    Definitely get a heart rate monitor. Before I had one, I was going by the machines at the gym & MFP calories burned & both of those were WAY overestimating my calories burned. I have the polar ft4 with a chest strap. Definitely suggest one with a chest strap :)
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Definitely get a heart rate monitor. Before I had one, I was going by the machines at the gym & MFP calories burned & both of those were WAY overestimating my calories burned. I have the polar ft4 with a chest strap. Definitely suggest one with a chest strap :)

    How do you know they were way over estimating? If you've got 3 methods of measuring, 2 give similar numbers and 1 gives you something very different, why would you believe the different one?
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    They overestimate about 30% for me.
  • Jul685
    Jul685 Posts: 81
    Thank you to whoever posted about healthstatus.com, awesome site!
  • cynthiaj777
    cynthiaj777 Posts: 787 Member
    Definitely get a heart rate monitor. Before I had one, I was going by the machines at the gym & MFP calories burned & both of those were WAY overestimating my calories burned. I have the polar ft4 with a chest strap. Definitely suggest one with a chest strap :)

    How do you know they were way over estimating? If you've got 3 methods of measuring, 2 give similar numbers and 1 gives you something very different, why would you believe the different one?

    Let explore why, shall we? HRMs use the user's height, weight, age and gender. It then in relation to the information tracks your HR and calculates an amount of calories burned. Machines just use a generic formula for someone who is 20, 5'6", 150 lbs and male....which obviously only those who are 20, 5'6", 150 lbs and male would this be accurate. That would be why multiple machines say the SAME thing (i.e. same formula), but when a HRM is used, it is different.

    Don't get it? Let me provide a real world example:

    Machine User 1:
    -23 years old
    -240 lbs
    -47% body fat
    -5'3"
    -runs 5 MPH for 10 minutes

    Machine calculates she burned 125 calories.

    Machine User 2:
    -26 years old
    -125 lbs
    -18% body fat
    -5'3"
    -runs 5 MPH for 10 minutes

    Machine calculates she burned 125 calories.

    Logic tells you that Machine User 1 burned far more than calories than Machine User 2 because of her body composition. The machine says the same thing no matter what, though.

    Now, put a HRM on each of them: Machine User 1 would say something like 175-200 calories. Machine User 2 would say something like 75-100 calories. Why is it different? Because it takes into account the actual person and tracks HR.
  • Showcase_Brodown
    Showcase_Brodown Posts: 919 Member
    I would trust the calorie display on the machine about as far as I could throw the machine. As I am not a prime example of beastly might, I don't trust them.

    Even an HRM is going to give you a fairly wide margin of error.

    My solution, while not actually a solution, is to just not try to log exercise calories. Your weight over a month or two will tell you the story of how many calories you've been burning, given that you're tracking your eating.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Definitely get a heart rate monitor. Before I had one, I was going by the machines at the gym & MFP calories burned & both of those were WAY overestimating my calories burned. I have the polar ft4 with a chest strap. Definitely suggest one with a chest strap :)

    How do you know they were way over estimating? If you've got 3 methods of measuring, 2 give similar numbers and 1 gives you something very different, why would you believe the different one?

    Let explore why, shall we? HRMs use the user's height, weight, age and gender. It then in relation to the information tracks your HR and calculates an amount of calories burned. Machines just use a generic formula for someone who is 20, 5'6", 150 lbs and male....which obviously only those who are 20, 5'6", 150 lbs and male would this be accurate. That would be why multiple machines say the SAME thing (i.e. same formula), but when a HRM is used, it is different.

    Don't get it? Let me provide a real world example:

    Machine User 1:
    -23 years old
    -240 lbs
    -47% body fat
    -5'3"
    -runs 5 MPH for 10 minutes

    Machine calculates she burned 125 calories.

    Machine User 2:
    -26 years old
    -125 lbs
    -18% body fat
    -5'3"
    -runs 5 MPH for 10 minutes

    Machine calculates she burned 125 calories.

    Logic tells you that Machine User 1 burned far more than calories than Machine User 2 because of her body composition. The machine says the same thing no matter what, though.

    Now, put a HRM on each of them: Machine User 1 would say something like 175-200 calories. Machine User 2 would say something like 75-100 calories. Why is it different? Because it takes into account the actual person and tracks HR.

    In that case, yes... but you've picked the most extreme example possible to illustrate your point.

    What if you changed that scenario to include machines that allow you to enter age and weight? Then what?

    And you do realize that HR is only loosely tied to calorie burns, right? If I get startled, my HR increases. Am I burning more cals?

    Calories are a unit of energy. Energy is used to measure work. Work is calculated by multiplying force by distance. Force is determined by the amount of weight being moved and how it's being moved (activity, for our purpose).

    So if a 240lb man is running 3 miles, it doesn't matter how long it takes him, what his age is, or how fit/healthy he is. It still comes down to force X distance.

    So with all that said, who cares about things like HR, age, etc? If you're trying to be exact, no one does because those things don't matter (or matter very little). If you're trying to estimate, which is all any of these things do, then it can matter, but it really only matters if the device also knows your max HR. If it doesn't know that, then it's just another assumption that can lead to a wider margin of error.

Categories