Do you correct the calorie readings on machines?

Springerrr
Springerrr Posts: 44 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So I use and love the Cybex 750 elliptical. I average about 5 four hours on that crazy thing per week. I take the calories that it says I burn (about 1000/hour) and multiply by 0.8 before entering them in MFP. I am not losing any weight. Perhaps I should be correcting the calorie score more (less?) than I am?

What do other people do?
«1

Replies

  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Machines AND MFP over estimate calorie burns for many (most?) people.

    Calorie burns depend upon height, weight, age, gender, exertion level (as well as other things) ..... niether MFP nor your machine can know your exertion level ..... a tough workout for you may be an easy workout for someone else.

    So, yes ...... feel free to dial back the calorie burns a bit. Some people use a % .... say 70% .... and test that number for awhile. You can then dial it back some more, or add to it .... depending upon how your weight loss goes.
  • mtfr810
    mtfr810 Posts: 136 Member
    Honestly, get a heart rate monitor and use it's calories for aerobic activity. They're not that expensive and will be a lot more accurate than the machines. For me the machines are 50-60% off.
  • a1jimmyz
    a1jimmyz Posts: 2
    You could also use apps. I personally use the app endomono on my phone it seems to be right on. And can be used for stationary and non stationary excesses and automatically adds it to your fitness pal diary when you are done
  • ladynocturne
    ladynocturne Posts: 865 Member
    The equipment at the gym never asks for my gender or height, how could it possibly be correct?
  • fitforlife34
    fitforlife34 Posts: 331 Member
    Honestly, get a heart rate monitor and use it's calories for aerobic activity. They're not that expensive and will be a lot more accurate than the machines. For me the machines are 50-60% off.


    Does that mean if it says I burnt 500 calories, i only burned about 250? I am very confused.
  • fitforlife34
    fitforlife34 Posts: 331 Member
    The equipment at the gym never asks for my gender or height, how could it possibly be correct?

    Or bone or muscle weight, or heredity.
  • desantos123
    desantos123 Posts: 2
    get yourself a heart rate monitor!
  • acpgee
    acpgee Posts: 7,962 Member
    Here's my experience.

    My typical workout is 65 minutes on the elliptical, targeting a heart of at least 140 (I do 20 second sprints if my heart rate drops below target). According to the HRM I burn 500-540. According the machine itself (which knows my weight) its 740-780 According to MFP database it is 926.

    So on the days I forget to put on my HRM I adjust to 60% of the machine reading.
  • KhaIeesi
    KhaIeesi Posts: 15
    Glad to read this - every time I added my exercises to MFP I was slightly disappointed I didn't burn as much as MFP suggested I "should" have.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    I used to take about 70% of what my HRM told me to account for estimation error.

    For those using database numbers, they can be way off. There's just too many variables for a database to be accurate. People just don't burn as much as they think they burn.

    Another way I estimate is to take a number 7-10 (my intensity) and multiply that by the number of minutes...a 7 being basically a moderately paced walk or equivalent and a 10 being about 80-90% max HR...unable to hold a conversation, etc. If I'm doing intervals I do something in between.

    To the OP...it doesn't look like you have much fat. Are you in a cut? You'd be better served just cutting X% from your TDEE than trying to introduce a calorie deficit with cardio.
  • forgtmenot
    forgtmenot Posts: 860 Member
    Yes, I always put less than what it says. It isn't a consistent percentage though honestly, I just try to make an educated guess.
  • jwdieter
    jwdieter Posts: 2,582 Member
    I just use the MFP calcs, since they're generally waaaay lower than the machine calcs for me.
  • Springerrr
    Springerrr Posts: 44 Member
    What do gender and height have to do with the amount of work you put into the machine? My machine asks for weight.
  • ladynocturne
    ladynocturne Posts: 865 Member
    What do gender and height have to do with the amount of work you put into the machine? My machine asks for weight.

    If I was 6ft tall I'll burn a lot more calories than if I was 5ft. Males naturally have more muscle because of their differing hormones, making them burn more calories during the same workout as a female.
  • Springerrr
    Springerrr Posts: 44 Member
    Honestly, get a heart rate monitor and use it's calories for aerobic activity. They're not that expensive and will be a lot more accurate than the machines. For me the machines are 50-60% off.

    Do you have a monitor you would suggest?
  • Springerrr
    Springerrr Posts: 44 Member
    What do gender and height have to do with the amount of work you put into the machine? My machine asks for weight.

    If I was 6ft tall I'll burn a lot more calories than if I was 5ft. Males naturally have more muscle because of their differing hormones, making them burn more calories during the same workout as a female.
    OK, I get what you say about gender, but a 6 ft guy who weighs 170 is skinny. A 5 ft guy who weighs 170 has fat and/or muscle to explain his weight. So how does the height thing work metabolically?
  • kjmiller_15
    kjmiller_15 Posts: 22 Member
    thanks for this suggestion
  • scottaworley
    scottaworley Posts: 871 Member
    http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Heart-Monitor-Watch-Black/dp/B0035XR43U
    I like this one.

    1000 calories per hour seems way high. I don't think I've ever burnt more than 10 calories/minute (600/hour) even when doing intense workouts.
  • Springerrr
    Springerrr Posts: 44 Member
    http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Heart-Monitor-Watch-Black/dp/B0035XR43U
    I like this one.

    1000 calories per hour seems way high. I don't think I've ever burnt more than 10 calories/minute (600/hour) even when doing intense workouts.

    That's why I multiply by 0.8. But in reading these posts, I have decided to go to 0.6.
    I think I'll take a pass on the $100 wrist-watch.
  • Jaceface27
    Jaceface27 Posts: 43 Member
    I eventually want to get a Jawbone UP to help monitor my heart rate and what not. But that's an incentive if I can lose 10 lbs by September. What I've been doing is taking my exercise and dividing it in half. So-- Zumba says I burned 900 calories in 1 hour. I'm going to log only 30 minutes of activity on MFP = 450 calories. I then comment on my update(more for myself than anyone else) that I actually did it for a longer amount of time. I think 60% of the calories you burned will be sufficient too.
  • scottaworley
    scottaworley Posts: 871 Member
    http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Heart-Monitor-Watch-Black/dp/B0035XR43U
    I like this one.

    1000 calories per hour seems way high. I don't think I've ever burnt more than 10 calories/minute (600/hour) even when doing intense workouts.

    That's why I multiply by 0.8. But in reading these posts, I have decided to go to 0.6.
    I think I'll take a pass on the $100 wrist-watch.

    It might sound steep, but it comes with a chest strap which is much more accurate than simple wrist watch type HRMs.
  • ayalowich
    ayalowich Posts: 242 Member
    I'm sure others will tell you this, but get a good HRM. They are much more accurate and specific, plus provide all sorts of useful functionality that help gauge your progress. The bikes and ellipticals are telling me I burn some insane # of calories in a 50 minute bike ride compared to what the polar tells me. I go with the Polar.

    FWIW, the MFP estimates are also 10-15% too high as well. If I thought the calorie estimates were overstated, it might be a wash, but I have no evidence of that. But I do know that if you overstate the calorie burn, it could lead to disappointment when you weigh in.
  • viglet
    viglet Posts: 299 Member
    The "$100 wrist watch" will greatly change the way you work out.

    I used to log what my elliptical or mfp said for my calories burnt and it was a WAAAAAAY over estimate (almost double). I have found a couple accurate burns on MFP but most of them are way over or way under.
  • BigDnSW
    BigDnSW Posts: 641 Member
    No...they are all just estimated numbers to include MFP's food database. I just do it and log it. It's a waste of my time to be AR over details that don't matter. I do appreciate this site very much, however.
  • harlanJEN
    harlanJEN Posts: 1,089 Member
    I eventually want to get a Jawbone UP to help monitor my heart rate and what not. But that's an incentive if I can lose 10 lbs by September. What I've been doing is taking my exercise and dividing it in half. So-- Zumba says I burned 900 calories in 1 hour. I'm going to log only 30 minutes of activity on MFP = 450 calories. I then comment on my update(more for myself than anyone else) that I actually did it for a longer amount of time. I think 60% of the calories you burned will be sufficient too.

    Just popped in to say: a Jawbone UP will NOT monitor your heart rate. It has no capacity to do that. It's a pedometer based gadget. A nifty one, but totally not reliable to calculate TDEE. It is designed to help make you aware of how much you move .... Great gadget to work on increasing your NEAT( every day activity vs. formal workouts).

    An HRM monitors heart rate and uses that data to extrapolate ESTIMATED cal burn. Too many variables to ever get an EXACT #. HRMs come closest and they are best for aerobic vs. anaerobic activity.
  • ames105
    ames105 Posts: 288 Member
    I used Endomondo but found it way overestimates the calories burned. For example, Endomondo says I burn over 800 on a 40 minute bike ride. MFP says I burn about 280 on the same 40 minute bike ride. As far as adding back in calories, I take a third off the MFP estimate and that seems to work for me. I'll use 190 for that 40 minute bike ride.

    I was reading an article that said that everyone burns calories differently. It depends on how hard you work and how much oxygen you are using. You can use these machines as estimates, but really have to find out what makes a difference for you.
  • CinthyN
    CinthyN Posts: 64 Member
    Hmm ... my stationary bike (the only machine I own) asks me to insert gender, height and weight every time. It measures my pulse too. I've not factor it up or down after each session, and record the calories burnt as it is ... I am sticking to it, and it seems ok for me. I have previously used the thread mill and bikes at the gym and those machines never prompt me to log in any details. So yea, right now, I trust my machine :)
  • melmckay99
    melmckay99 Posts: 358
    1000 calories an hour seems awfully high, but I guess it all depends on how much you weigh too.... What you need to do is find out how much you would burn in an hour if you WEREN'T exercising. I used this:
    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn-conversion-calculator.aspx

    Machines (and HRM's!) give you your GROSS calories burned and hence they are OVERESTIMATING your calories burned! They don't take into account the fact that if you weren't exercsing during that time, your body would have burnt some of those calories anyways. With the website I just provided you can find out approximately how much you burn in an hour by putting in fake gross calorie amount (for example, put in 300), then input your info (weight, heaight, sex etc ...) and then it will calculate the nNET amount of calories that you burnt. The difference between the 2 (GROSS - NET) will tell you approximately how much you burn by just being alive and human.

    For me it was a nice number...i burn about 60 calories / hour , which is 1 calorie / minute (also 60 X 24 hours = 1440 = appox my BMR) = . So when I use my HRM all I need to do is take the reading it gives me at the end of my workout and subtract the number of minutes I spent doing it!

    anwyays, i know it all seems a bit complicated, but it isnt really. For more literature on the matter that might explain the GROSS vs NET thing better than me see this:
    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
  • MinnieInMaine
    MinnieInMaine Posts: 6,400 Member
    I've found another good way to guesstimate elliptical calories is if you go by the distance instead. Say you go 6.2 miles, that's 620 calories. It's the same sort of prinicple many folks use to guesstimate calories for running/walking as that also typically gives you about 100 calories per mile.
  • Jaceface27
    Jaceface27 Posts: 43 Member
    I eventually want to get a Jawbone UP to help monitor my heart rate and what not. But that's an incentive if I can lose 10 lbs by September. What I've been doing is taking my exercise and dividing it in half. So-- Zumba says I burned 900 calories in 1 hour. I'm going to log only 30 minutes of activity on MFP = 450 calories. I then comment on my update(more for myself than anyone else) that I actually did it for a longer amount of time. I think 60% of the calories you burned will be sufficient too.

    Just popped in to say: a Jawbone UP will NOT monitor your heart rate. It has no capacity to do that. It's a pedometer based gadget. A nifty one, but totally not reliable to calculate TDEE. It is designed to help make you aware of how much you move .... Great gadget to work on increasing your NEAT( every day activity vs. formal workouts).

    An HRM monitors heart rate and uses that data to extrapolate ESTIMATED cal burn. Too many variables to ever get an EXACT #. HRMs come closest and they are best for aerobic vs. anaerobic activity.

    Thanks for the information! :-)

Categories