Do you correct the calorie readings on machines?
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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
0 -
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=single0 -
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.0
-
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! :-)0 -
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?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.
It doesn't. The machine is calculating calories based on the amount of force you're putting on it. Height has nothing to do with it. As for the HRM those can be inaccurate as well. Depending on the machine I am on the readout could be more or less. When I do the arc trainer my calories on my HRM are 20-30 less than the machine. On the stationary bike it's 50-100 more. On the treadmill HRM could be 100-200 more. I usually take an estimate and run with that.0 -
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
This is interesting, but not helpful. I don't see a significant difference between 1000 and 920 (80 resting calories per hour for me). I had already been correcting to 800 (80%) before I made this post which no weight-loss. Now I am going to try 60% to see what happens.0 -
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?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.
It doesn't. The machine is calculating calories based on the amount of force you're putting on it. Height has nothing to do with it. As for the HRM those can be inaccurate as well. Depending on the machine I am on the readout could be more or less. When I do the arc trainer my calories on my HRM are 20-30 less than the machine. On the stationary bike it's 50-100 more. On the treadmill HRM could be 100-200 more. I usually take an estimate and run with that.
I do notice that when I change the weight, the force required changes quite noticeably. But that probably means the cal/hr changes as well.
It is interesting because, purely speaking, the machine SHOULD simply measure force over time, which, in mechanical physics, should convert nicely to calories. I got a long letter from a PhD in the elliptical company talking about this principle. It is about a dozen posts down in this thread http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/725013-elliptical-trainer-and-calories-burned.0 -
I use an HRM, it's the easiest solution0
-
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?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.
It doesn't. The machine is calculating calories based on the amount of force you're putting on it. Height has nothing to do with it. As for the HRM those can be inaccurate as well. Depending on the machine I am on the readout could be more or less. When I do the arc trainer my calories on my HRM are 20-30 less than the machine. On the stationary bike it's 50-100 more. On the treadmill HRM could be 100-200 more. I usually take an estimate and run with that.
I do notice that when I change the weight, the force required changes quite noticeably. But that probably means the cal/hr changes as well.
It is interesting because, purely speaking, the machine SHOULD simply measure force over time, which, in mechanical physics, should convert nicely to calories. I got a long letter from a PhD in the elliptical company talking about this principle. It is about a dozen posts down in this thread http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/725013-elliptical-trainer-and-calories-burned.
Sorry here is the link corrected: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/725013-elliptical-trainer-and-calories-burned0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions