Smart watch calories VS. machine

Yup, I pick the lower, unless I have a good reason to believe another estimate is more accurate. I'd also see with the MFP exercise database says, for comparison, and use that if it were lower still.

Sorry.

(In spin class Thursday, my bike said 515 calories. My HRM/fitness tracker said 290. MFP database said 292. I used the 290.)

firef1y72 wrote: »

The lower reading. I did 20mins on the stationary bike, highest setting, 100+rpm, bike reckoned I burnt 450Calories, but what the bike didn't know is that I'm seriously active and my hr didn't go above 130 so in reality I only burnt about 170 Calories. My fitness tracker, that knows my hr, however knew I wasn't working "that" hard

But a same-sized fit person and a nonfit person each doing the same activity at the same objective intensity will each burn roughly the same number of calories.

For example, if same-size very-fit and less-fit women each run one mile in the same amount of time (less-fit one sets the slow pace for both), they'll burn about the same number of calories.

It will be subjectively easier for the more-fit woman, her heart rate will be lower throughout, and her HRM will likely estimate fewer calories because of that (assuming the calorie estimate is from HR and personal characteristics only, not GPS or other distance factors).

That's one reason heart rate monitors aren't terribly accurate estimators of calories burned . . . It's just that they're slightly better estimators, for some kinds of exercise, than the realistic alternatives.

marissamacko wrote: »

I just did the elliptical for 20 minutes. My Apple Watch claims I burned around 150ish calories, while the machine is saying I burned 230+. Which do you follow?

It depends quite a bit on the machine accuracy and any inputs you gave it. Some machines are fairly accurate, some are known for high readings. Many machines also estimate gross calories as well. The same applies to the wearable device.

IIRC some of the Apple devices will actually give you an estimate on the low side.

If your primary concern is weight loss, use the lower number and watch your weight loss trends over time. Use that feedback to help you determine which device is giving you the more accurate number.

annaskiski wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

firef1y72 wrote: »

The lower reading. I did 20mins on the stationary bike, highest setting, 100+rpm, bike reckoned I burnt 450Calories, but what the bike didn't know is that I'm seriously active and my hr didn't go above 130 so in reality I only burnt about 170 Calories. My fitness tracker, that knows my hr, however knew I wasn't working "that" hard

But a same-sized fit person and a nonfit person each doing the same activity at the same objective intensity will each burn roughly the same number of calories.

For example, if same-size very-fit and less-fit women each run one mile in the same amount of time (less-fit one sets the slow pace for both), they'll burn about the same number of calories.

It will be subjectively easier for the more-fit woman, her heart rate will be lower throughout, and her HRM will likely estimate fewer calories because of that (assuming the calorie estimate is from HR and personal characteristics only, not GPS or other distance factors).

That's one reason heart rate monitors aren't terribly accurate estimators of calories burned . . . It's just that they're slightly better estimators, for some kinds of exercise, than the realistic alternatives.

Do you have a reference for that? I’ve always believed that the more fit person‘ s body is more efficient and therefore burns fewer calories.

And btw, did the machine ask if you were a man or woman? Cause I believe the default is for men. All machines I’ve used only ask for your weight..

Think about it: It's pretty much the "work" in the physics sense of the term that determines the energy (calorie) requirement to do the work. It's the reason you can fairly-accurately estimate flat-terrain walking or running calories with just body weight and distance. If elite cyclists (or whatever) burned substantially fewer calories per mile than us regular people, they wouldn't have to eat truly enormous amounts of food to fuel their activity.

As we get fitter, we think it's less work, because it feels easier. There may be some minor differences due to less wasted motion as we get technically better, but it's a small percentage.

This is a better explanation:

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/calories-burned-during-exercise-it-s-the-intensity-not-the-heart-rate-that-counts-26524

If a less-fit same-sized person did your same "stationary bike, highest setting, 100+rpm" workout on the same bike at the same output (watts) in the same time period, but their heart rate went up to 150 (or higher) instead of 130, what physics explanation would suggest they burned more calories than you did?

And why would men and women who are size matched burn a different number of calories for the same activity, beyond possibly the numerically small impact of the average man having a little lower body fat percentage? While TDEE/NEAT calculators take sex into account (presumably largely because of the impact of body fat percent on all-day activity), it's not usual for exercise-specific calorie estimation methods to include sex as a variable.

No one's posted a reference. The only study I could find essentially said that calories from exercise eventually plateaued. i.e. at some point the more fit people burned less the rest of the day, resulting in no greater increase in calorie burn.

It sounds like its more related to NEAT though, so I didn't post it earlier, but at least implies that fit people do not burn all that many more calories....

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2075721-our-body-adapts-to-intense-exercise-to-burn-fewer-calories/

annaskiski wrote: »

No one's posted a reference. The only study I could find essentially said that calories from exercise eventually plateaued. i.e. at some point the more fit people burned less the rest of the day, resulting in no greater increase in calorie burn.

It sounds like its more related to NEAT though, so I didn't post it earlier, but at least implies that fit people do not burn all that many more calories....

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2075721-our-body-adapts-to-intense-exercise-to-burn-fewer-calories/

You've gone off at a tangent from your original statement.
No you don't burn less calories because your body has "become more efficient".

You might burn fewer calories over a day if you become fatigued from exercise and become less active the rest of the day - that's nothing to do with efficiency but might have something to do with pushing your personal fitness limits and possibly an unwise choice of exercise intensity.

On the other hand you might burn more calories over a day when you are fitter as you become more energetic and move more and become more active not less as your capabilities are higher. Use the stairs instead of lift/elevator. Walk instead of using the car garden instead of watching TV etc etc.

"implies that fit people do not burn all that many more calories" - well that depends on their exercise of choice. As a cyclist the ceiling for me is ridiculously high (over 300 hours last year and likely more this year), if I had a different exercise hobby it would likely be far less.

This "fit person" exercises more, is more active and eats more than ever before.

I go by my Apple Watch, but admittedly, it’s usually within 10 cals of my 10 year old treamill’s number 🤷‍♀️