Machine calories

Options
lil_lizt
lil_lizt Posts: 275 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I just wanted to post a quick message to show the extent of the discrepancies of calories burnt on the machines to actual ones from a HRM courtesy of my Apple Watch. I knew there would be a difference but not quite so huge considering I entered my data in to the machine (weight and age).

jrwonpvgav3c.jpeg
gdkx3ayov0gd.jpeg

«13

Replies

  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    But now the question is.... which of the two do you think is more accurate? The machine can measure actual work along with heart rate. The watch can't.

    Which is correct, if either?
  • kk_inprogress
    kk_inprogress Posts: 3,077 Member
    Options
    robertw486 wrote: »
    But now the question is.... which of the two do you think is more accurate? The machine can measure actual work along with heart rate. The watch can't.

    Which is correct, if either?

    I'd say the watch is significantly closer. Machines notoriously overestimate.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    Options
    Definitely the watch, which you have probably taken the time to sync to your personal information and is reading your heart rate. The machine is roughly guesstimating based on some stats you gave it, and also who knows how often it is calibrated and by whom, with what training.
  • marthalevy
    marthalevy Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    I have always heard 1 mile = 100 calories. 3.38 miles at a average heart rate of 150 would have to be more than 200 right??
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    Options
    marthalevy wrote: »
    I have always heard 1 mile = 100 calories. 3.38 miles at a average heart rate of 150 would have to be more than 200 right??

    It depends on each individual's stats. A heavier person will burn more calories walking a mile than a lighter person.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    Interesting responses.

    Based on the digging I've done, most Precor machines are hailed to be fairly accurate. And many wrist type devices seem to often be questioned by many here on the forums.

    I would think unless the OP is fairly small, and did a workout with very low resistance and/or ramp, the expected calorie burn would be higher than the watch shows.
  • Blackdawn_70631
    Blackdawn_70631 Posts: 283 Member
    Options
    In this situation, I normally go with the smaller number to be on the safe side. If I want to see it go up, I got to work harder.
    Seen a difference between my treadmill, watch and phone. All had different numbers.
  • armylife
    armylife Posts: 196 Member
    Options
    marthalevy wrote: »
    I have always heard 1 mile = 100 calories. 3.38 miles at a average heart rate of 150 would have to be more than 200 right??

    What would not make very much sense. One mile at a 6 min/mile pace would burn more than at a 10 min/mile pace. Then you have to factor in weight and running efficiency. That is the reason both the watch and the machine are estimations of the total number of calories burned.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    Key word above. Estimations.

    I wish I could find more accurate exercise logging methods for working out. It seems that they all have flaws.
  • oilphins
    oilphins Posts: 240 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    marthalevy wrote: »
    I have always heard 1 mile = 100 calories. 3.38 miles at a average heart rate of 150 would have to be more than 200 right??

    It depends on each individual's stats. A heavier person will burn more calories walking a mile than a lighter person.

    Very true and yes I find my treadmill is always telling me I've burned more than I actually have. When I do a 10k run at about a 7.5 mile pace, my treadmill says I've burned about 1000 calories, but when I run outside my nike app and mfp says it's closer to about 830 which I think is more accurate.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    lil_lizt wrote: »
    I just wanted to post a quick message to show the extent of the discrepancies of calories burnt on the machines to actual ones from a HRM courtesy of my Apple Watch. I knew there would be a difference but not quite so huge considering I entered my data in to the machine (weight and age).

    And you're none the wiser as to which is more accurate...

    A lot depends on what type of session you were doing, 40 minutes for just over three miles is slow run/ fast walk, although your HR is very high for walking so I'd assume running.

    Your profile says you're about half way through your loss, so I'm assuming you're about 150-160lbs, so the 100 cals per minute running is about right for running.

    With that in mind I'd say that your watch is a bit low, the machine looks closer to correct.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    Options
    robertw486 wrote: »
    Key word above. Estimations.

    I wish I could find more accurate exercise logging methods for working out. It seems that they all have flaws.

    There are very accurate methods; unfortunately they involve scientific laboratories and expensive equipment. We do the best with what we have, which is why the best practice is to eat back about 50-75% of exercise calories, wait 6 weeks or so, and see what the rate of weight loss is. If it is on track with your goals, continue on. If it isn't, make adjustments. That's all we can do. Nothing is perfect.
  • hamlet1222
    hamlet1222 Posts: 459 Member
    Options
    in theory the machines should be much more accurate, they will know exactly how much energy you've expended on them, my exercise bike tells me how many watts of power I'm generating.
  • asternpirlot
    asternpirlot Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    If you track your weight, calories in, and calories out consistently, assuming your are accurate in calculating food calories, you can figure out if your exercise calories are over- or underestimated by comparing your theoretical weight trend (calorie deficit/surplus divided by 3500) and your actual weight trend. With a couple months or more worth of data with daily logging of CICO and body weight, and applying a trendline to both theoretical weight and actual weight, you can compare the slopes of the trend to determine the degree to which your exercise calories are off in either direction. My main source of exercise is bicycling, and the calories estimated from the cycling app I use (strava) are automatically transferred to MFP. I used to routinely assume these were overestimated so I manually adjusted them downward. But then the trends between actual weight and theoretical weight were diverging, meaning I was underestimating calorie burn from cycling. Then a couple of months ago I stopped manually adjusting the strava calories, and now the two trends are very similar. So, assuming my food logging has been consistent and accurate through this time, I discovered that strava is actually pretty accurately estimating my calorie burn. It takes a few seconds a day to populate the spreadsheet necessary to check this, but that's better than some expensive test I guess! I'm happy to share my spreadsheet with anyone interested in trying this out, but it's pretty simple to set up.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    Key word above. Estimations.

    I wish I could find more accurate exercise logging methods for working out. It seems that they all have flaws.

    There are very accurate methods; unfortunately they involve scientific laboratories and expensive equipment. We do the best with what we have, which is why the best practice is to eat back about 50-75% of exercise calories, wait 6 weeks or so, and see what the rate of weight loss is. If it is on track with your goals, continue on. If it isn't, make adjustments. That's all we can do. Nothing is perfect.

    Well we can never expect perfection, and most people aren't going to go for and VO2max testing and such unless they are real data hounds. But if using apps and programs results in people having to use percentages and such after the fact, doesn't that kind of kill the entire idea of the app/program doing the math for us?

    Let's say I find that the app/monitor/whatever method I use overcompensates when I go biking, on an average of 15%. Wouldn't it be nice to have an app that allows you to enter that number so it compensates closer to correct for your specific variables?

    And though it works great for weight loss, personally I'm one to try to usually keep my loss goals more conservative and look at nutrition and recovery food more. Someone that burns 500 calories in a day and eats back only 250 isn't adding a much larger deficit to their weight loss goal. But I have days I bike 2000+ calories away, and I really don't want and extra 1000 calorie deficit. For me that's one of the reasons I'd like more accurate logging methods. With GPS capabilities in phones running and biking in particular should be way more accurate IMO. I know if I had the skill set to write apps I could certainly do better.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    asternpirlot wrote: »
    If you track your weight, calories in, and calories out consistently, assuming your are accurate in calculating food calories, you can figure out if your exercise calories are over- or underestimated by comparing your theoretical weight trend (calorie deficit/surplus divided by 3500) and your actual weight trend. With a couple months or more worth of data with daily logging of CICO and body weight, and applying a trendline to both theoretical weight and actual weight, you can compare the slopes of the trend to determine the degree to which your exercise calories are off in either direction. My main source of exercise is bicycling, and the calories estimated from the cycling app I use (strava) are automatically transferred to MFP. I used to routinely assume these were overestimated so I manually adjusted them downward. But then the trends between actual weight and theoretical weight were diverging, meaning I was underestimating calorie burn from cycling. Then a couple of months ago I stopped manually adjusting the strava calories, and now the two trends are very similar. So, assuming my food logging has been consistent and accurate through this time, I discovered that strava is actually pretty accurately estimating my calorie burn. It takes a few seconds a day to populate the spreadsheet necessary to check this, but that's better than some expensive test I guess! I'm happy to share my spreadsheet with anyone interested in trying this out, but it's pretty simple to set up.

    I did a couple rides to compare Strava to Endomondo, and found that Strava seemed more in line with the accepted formulas for biking. Both did a fairly good job, but it just seemed that Endomondo tended to overestimate calorie burn.

    I'm going to do a couple more tests, and test a couple of theories I have. It would be fun to nail down where the differences in calorie burn are created.

    As for the spreadsheet, I'd love to check it out. You might want to post it on Data Trackers Unite thread here at MFP The group has been slow to start up, but maybe over time more will join. I'm planning on doing a spreadsheet and log several things I think might affect my weight variations, as well as nail down any logging deficiencies in either exercise or food.
  • lil_lizt
    lil_lizt Posts: 275 Member
    Options
    robertw486 wrote: »
    Interesting responses.

    Based on the digging I've done, most Precor machines are hailed to be fairly accurate. And many wrist type devices seem to often be questioned by many here on the forums.

    I would think unless the OP is fairly small, and did a workout with very low resistance and/or ramp, the expected calorie burn would be higher than the watch shows.

    I'm 5' and 144lbs. The elliptical was on 5 resistance and 10 incline. I also was doing a fairly lax pace
  • lil_lizt
    lil_lizt Posts: 275 Member
    Options
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    lil_lizt wrote: »
    I just wanted to post a quick message to show the extent of the discrepancies of calories burnt on the machines to actual ones from a HRM courtesy of my Apple Watch. I knew there would be a difference but not quite so huge considering I entered my data in to the machine (weight and age).

    And you're none the wiser as to which is more accurate...

    A lot depends on what type of session you were doing, 40 minutes for just over three miles is slow run/ fast walk, although your HR is very high for walking so I'd assume running.

    Your profile says you're about half way through your loss, so I'm assuming you're about 150-160lbs, so the 100 cals per minute running is about right for running.

    With that in mind I'd say that your watch is a bit low, the machine looks closer to correct.

    I'd say my watch considering I was doing a relaxed pace, still had my breath perfectly and was barely sweating. I'm 144lbs and 5' tall
  • Michael190lbs
    Michael190lbs Posts: 1,510 Member
    Options
    This is exactly why I use TDEE and never have to think about eating my calories back. I check my weight once a week and the past 4 months I fluctuate 184-187 which is exactly where I feel comfortable. To answer your question take both and divide by 2 its an average..lol..
  • jeremywm1977
    jeremywm1977 Posts: 657 Member
    Options
    Michael190lbs wrote: »
    This is exactly why I use TDEE and never have to think about eating my calories back. I check my weight once a week and the past 4 months I fluctuate 184-187 which is exactly where I feel comfortable. To answer your question take both and divide by 2 its an average..lol..

    This was going to be my suggestion too. They both estimate based upon some algorithm, based upon the information you provide it.......so take both into consideration and average them.

Categories