Real calories burned...

Options
artsysk8erchic
artsysk8erchic Posts: 11
in Fitness and Exercise
I have read many articles that have said that you should never rely on the calories burned screen on the cardio machine you are doing. I never fully believed it until today. I use the Polar F7 to track my heart rate, but mostly to keep track of the "real" calories I burn while I am working out. Today I did a light cardio workout of 30 minutes on the treadmill walking at a pace of 4.1 with an incline of 3. According to the machine I burned 302 calories. I watched the screen and noticed I supposedly burned 1 calorie everytime I took a step. In reality this is impossible for what I was doing. I then looked at my Polar watch and it said I burned 175 calories in that time. Many of us would rather count the higher number of calories burned, but then you are only cheating yourself. Believe me I have done my research on this topic and the only believable method of keeping track of your real calories burned is through a monitor that is designed to do that.
I didn't write this to discourage anyone, I wrote this to help you to be truthful with yourself. I see many people log that they burned 500 calories walking for an hour when in reality this probably isn't the case, but they believe it because it's what the machine says. Then they think they can eat all of these extra calories and don't understand why they aren't losing weight.
The moral of all of this is that you have to be honest with yourself and know the facts first or else you will not succeed. I'm not saying that you need to go out and spend a lot of money, but you need a trustworthy device that will track your real calories burned. Otherwise you might not get to the end result you want to be at!
«1

Replies

  • robin52077
    robin52077 Posts: 4,383 Member
    Options
    you are absolutely right.

    One note about the Polar HRMs though (and all HRMs probably), they count TOTAL calories burned during that hour you exercised. So if you had NOT exercised, you would have burned 60 or so just lying on your couch, and the HRM says 300 in an hour, let's say, then you should only log 240 of it because the rest you would have burned on your couch.

    *(I use 1 cal per minute because that is what I burn at rest, some people are higher...just an example number)

    read this thread: similar topic

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/194528-disappointed-hrm-vs-machine-calories
  • missy1970eb
    missy1970eb Posts: 1,209 Member
    Options
    i go by what my pedometer says, as i think its fairly accurate and a they r a lot lower than they r calculated on here, so im manually changing mine:smile:
  • Denimgirl
    Denimgirl Posts: 87 Member
    Options
    I think it also depends on how much weight needs to be lost. The more overweight a person is, the more calories they will burn.
  • armingone
    armingone Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    Well, I also find that weight has a lot to do with it too. My friend and I can enter the same activity on here for the same amount of time and one of us shows to burn many more calories but we are very different weights. That may account for the people who burn so much walking.
  • Blondie1984
    Blondie1984 Posts: 75 Member
    Options
    I am going to buy a heart rate monitor because I feel like the machine sometimes is gyping me haha. When I see that I jog at a fast pace and run on intervals on the treadmill it says I have burned 266 calories for 30 minutes. Then I see others saying they have done a light 30 minute workout and burned 500 calories. I just want to be able to track what I am burning in an accurate manner.
  • pinkprincessness
    pinkprincessness Posts: 36 Member
    Options
    I just got a bodybugg and it registers far lower than my heart rate monitor did when I exercise. But it is awesome that it tracks all my activity all day with 90% accuracy. Said I burned 2,400 cals yesterday (24 hour period)
  • robin52077
    robin52077 Posts: 4,383 Member
    Options
    ^ and yes, the replies that talked about weight being a factor are spot on as well...

    A 300 lb male can EASILY burn 1000 calories in an hour of hard working out.
    I have to bust @ss to hit 300 cals in an hour because I am little.
  • tluttrell
    tluttrell Posts: 33 Member
    Options
    I've always wondered about this. I killed myself on a spin bike the other day (sweating like crazy, heart rate through the roof) and the machine said that I had burned half the calories that I did on the eliptical (not even breaking a sweat). I knew that wasn't right, but wasn't sure what to do about it, or how to figure it.
  • robin52077
    robin52077 Posts: 4,383 Member
    Options
    I just got a bodybugg and it registers far lower than my heart rate monitor did when I exercise. But it is awesome that it tracks all my activity all day with 90% accuracy. Said I burned 2,400 cals yesterday (24 hour period)

    I have the BodyMediaFit and love it (same thing as the Bodybugg, different brand)
    A lazy couch-day is about 1600 for me and a day where I go to work and exercise is like 2400.
    It is making me realize I was eating far too little and can eat so much more now that I am maintaining. I used to think "maintenance" was going to be 1500 for the rest of my life and I have been eating 1800-2000 for a month now and not gaining.

    Anyone who can afford to should get one!
  • WillPillageYourVillageForFood
    WillPillageYourVillageForFood Posts: 777 Member
    Options
    Finally some people who aren't afraid to say that the machine count is inaccurate. I personally get very tired of people posting about how they burned 1000+ calories in less than an hour on an elliptical when they say they weigh 130 pounds. It would be great if that were true, but in the long run they are only deluding themselves.
  • 1113cw
    1113cw Posts: 830 Member
    Options
    I do go by both the numbers on the treadmill along with the numbers from my FitBit. I do always adjust my weight & age on the treadmill before working out though. I hear they are calculating based on a 150lb person as a default so not changing it could be part of the problem.
  • amcmillan730
    amcmillan730 Posts: 591 Member
    Options
    How would I figure out what I wouldve burned without exercise? For example, for an hour... could I just divide my BMR by 24?
  • tashjs21
    tashjs21 Posts: 4,584 Member
    Options
    Great post!!

    I see this A LOT on here. I personally (since I don't have a HRM) always subtract about 200 from what the machine says depending on the level. They are definitely not accurate and posting those ridiculous numbers confuses other people.
  • tashjs21
    tashjs21 Posts: 4,584 Member
    Options
    I do go by both the numbers on the treadmill along with the numbers from my FitBit. I do always adjust my weight & age on the treadmill before working out though. I hear they are calculating based on a 150lb person as a default so not changing it could be part of the problem.

    Even changing it is not accurate. I always adjust my weight and age. I have a trainer friend at a local gym and she said most times the equipment is outdated so that is part of the problem but to be the most accurate we should use HRM. That is very specific to your body.

    I am just curious, does your FitBit (is that a HRM) read close to what the machine says?
  • artsysk8erchic
    artsysk8erchic Posts: 11
    Options
    I completely understand that weight has a lot to do with calories burned of specific people. BUT I still know that many people aren't accurately tracking their calories burned so then they think they can eat more all the while wondering why they are gaining weight. Especially on this system because you have to eat the amount of calories youburn working out. So, if you log that you burned 500 calories walking leisurely for 30 minutes, the program tells you to eat an extra 500 calories. So, that person does. When in reality they only burned about 200 calories. So they just ate an extra 300 calories because the count wasn't accurate. That's what I was meaning by my post.
  • Lizzgeorge77
    Lizzgeorge77 Posts: 52 Member
    Options
    I'm sure that heart rate monitors and BodyBuggs are much more accurate, but I don't think many modern machines are that far off. The machines at my gym are very recent models and ask for age, gender and weight in order to calculate calories burned. I'm right at 150 pounds, and if I'm jogging or doing the elliptical and a fast pace and harde level it usually says I burn 250-310 calories in 30 minutes. Does this seem way off base to anybody??? It seems in line with what I've read in magazines and on calorie counting websites...
  • robin52077
    robin52077 Posts: 4,383 Member
    Options
    I'm sure that heart rate monitors and BodyBuggs are much more accurate, but I don't think many modern machines are that far off. The machines at my gym are very recent models and ask for age, gender and weight in order to calculate calories burned. I'm right at 150 pounds, and if I'm jogging or doing the elliptical and a fast pace and harde level it usually says I burn 250-310 calories in 30 minutes. Does this seem way off base to anybody??? It seems in line with what I've read in magazines and on calorie counting websites...

    It sounds about right to me, because once you back out your maintenance calories, you would be entering about 200-260 to eat back and that is reasonable for your size at 30 minutes of intense activity.
  • tashjs21
    tashjs21 Posts: 4,584 Member
    Options
    I'm sure that heart rate monitors and BodyBuggs are much more accurate, but I don't think many modern machines are that far off. The machines at my gym are very recent models and ask for age, gender and weight in order to calculate calories burned. I'm right at 150 pounds, and if I'm jogging or doing the elliptical and a fast pace and harde level it usually says I burn 250-310 calories in 30 minutes. Does this seem way off base to anybody??? It seems in line with what I've read in magazines and on calorie counting websites...

    If you are at a fast pace, that sounds about right for 30 minutes.

    I think the OP is mainly meaning to beware the higher numbers burned when you are going by the machines. I have seen some ridiculous numbers on the machines and you can look at the people and tell they have not exerted that much energy. :huh:
  • Lanfear
    Lanfear Posts: 524
    Options
    I just got my Polar FT4 today - I had bought a HRM from Tesco a week ago, but it kept telling me my heart rate was 239 BPM. However when it DID work it told me my cycle ride home (2 miles uphill) burned 139 calories - gave me a maximum heart rate of 168 during the ride. I was pretty disappointed as I thought I would use more calories as I'm always knackered by the time I get up the hill.. For the same trip MFP gave me something like 210 cals.

    Imagine my horror-struck face tonight when the Polar told me the exact same journey was only 99 cals - with a max HR of 157.

    Amazing how inaccurate a cheapy HRM can be, I am much happier with the Polar even after just one use. Can't wait to see what it says when I do Shred tomorrow LOL.

    However the moral of all my waffling (sorry) is to note that since I joined this site, I have effectly been OVER ESTIMATING all my exercise calories by at least a third if not more, so I would say it definitely pays to invest in a mid-range HRM. :smile:
  • 1113cw
    1113cw Posts: 830 Member
    Options
    I'm sure that heart rate monitors and BodyBuggs are much more accurate, but I don't think many modern machines are that far off. The machines at my gym are very recent models and ask for age, gender and weight in order to calculate calories burned. I'm right at 150 pounds, and if I'm jogging or doing the elliptical and a fast pace and harde level it usually says I burn 250-310 calories in 30 minutes. Does this seem way off base to anybody??? It seems in line with what I've read in magazines and on calorie counting websites...

    It sounds about right to me, because once you back out your maintenance calories, you would be entering about 200-260 to eat back and that is reasonable for your size at 30 minutes of intense activity.


    I agree.. my gym has updated models as well and when I do, let's say, 40 min at 4mph, it usually calculates the calories at about 230 which is right in line with my Fitbit.

Categories