is the number of calorie burned on workout machines accurate?
trulyhealy
Posts: 242 Member
i’m at pure gym and i’m just wondering if you think the number of calories that is says on the machine that i burned is accurate?? just so i know what to log into my fitness pal
0
Replies
-
trulyhealy wrote: »i’m at pure gym and i’m just wondering if you think the number of calories that is says on the machine that i burned is accurate?? just so i know what to log into my fitness pal
Whether you're getting it from a machine or a database or a HRM or whatever, it's all an estimate based on various algorithms and population statistics, etc.7 -
It's more accurate than the number you'll get from MFP if you just select the type of activity and enter the number of minutes you exercised.
I mentally note the number of calories that the machine says I burned (as I enter my weight at the start and it knows the intensity of my workout) and then enter the required number of minutes in to MFP that give me that number of calories.
I've only got about 2kg (5lb) left to lose so whilst it's not necessarily 100% accurate, that has worked for me.2 -
You can't assume that all machines will have the same degree or accuracy/inaccuracy.
Some machines are very accurate, some under-estimate (for some people), some give fanciful numbers for everyone, some estimate net calories, many estimate gross calories instead of net calories.
Your question needs far more detail than "the machine". Without knowing what you are actually going all you are going to get is hearsay, myths and the parroting of group think.1 -
If it's an exercise bike that reports your power in watts, it's accurate to within +/- 2.5%, otherwise no.3
-
I usually just half whatever the machine says. I usually aim to burn 400-500 cals per run each day and only log 250.
5st 5lb lighter it's never done me wrong.5 -
Not at all for me. Set to my height and weight, the elliptical machine tells me I burn 600 per hour whereas according to my apple watch I only burn about 300.3
-
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Not at all for me. Set to my height and weight, the elliptical machine tells me I burn 600 per hour whereas according to my apple watch I only burn about 300.
Have you tested the accuracy of your Apple Watch in a metabolic chamber or sports science lab?4 -
There are really two different problems with the calorie estimates reported by exercise machines.
1. It's always just an estimate (except as noted above, a bike reporting watts). Estimates can be high or low. From a marketing point of view, most manufacturers estimate high, because word gets around that Machine X is a fat-slaying monster and so on. There is no incentive whatsoever to estimate calories conservatively. So, I have a machine in my house which reports 11 cals/min for my workouts, which is absurdly high no matter what the real number is.
2. A slightly more subtle problem: exercise machine manufacturers always have a choice whether to base the reported calories on gross or net, and gross cals, which most machines use, isn't honest. If you have a BMR of 2,400, you're already burning 100 an hour just watching TV or napping, so if you work out for an hour, a hundred cals has to come off the top. If you don't subtract the BMR calories, you end up double counting them, because your BMR calories for the whole 24 hour period, including the time when you were exercising, are already baked into your NEAT (total calorie burn for the day excluding intentional exercise) assumptions from which MFP came up with your calorie quota. Net calories are what you truly "earn" on a piece of cardio equipment, and companies are squirmy about telling you whether their #'s are based on gross or net. Because ... marketing. In fact reporting of gross, not net, is typical for exercise equipment, because that number is substantially higher. But as noted, gross cals cause double-counting of the BMR cals you burned during the time you were working out.
Like @alung2k3 I just divide the number in half on any piece of cardio equipment. The result usually seems pretty reasonable.3 -
Most are high and/or give you gross instead of net calories.1
-
At last week's spin class, the bike said 600 calories (this is a bike that doesn't measure watts). It was picking up my heart rate from my chest belt this time, but it knows nothing else about me. My Garmin Vivoactive 3, which knows lots about me including my actual (not age-estimated) max heart rate, said 300 calories. (Yes, both of these were in round numbers, which seemed kind of remarkable, even though meaningless; it's never been round numbers for both before
).
Usually, if the bike picks up my heart rate, it estimates something in the range of twice what my Garmin estimates, but not always exactly twice. If the bike doesn't pick up my heart rate, (1) it's annoying to have to keep looking at my wrist in addition to the bike monitor (<= important), and (2) it usually gives a calorie estimate that's higher than Garmin's, but lower than what it gives when it does know my heart rate (<= not important, to me). (From memory, I'd guess 400-ish or so would be in the ballpark for what it would estimate for what I did in last week's class, if it didn't pick up heart rate).
If this doesn't tell you that machines can be a crapshoot, I don't know what will.
If a machine asks your age, weight, and other demographics, it could do a little better estimate (but it may not). If your max heart rate isn't close to the normal age-based estimates (which is common), then anything going off age will be less accurate. Watts measurements are good, and can be converted more directly, as described above.
Tracker/HRM estimates can be pretty good (for steady state cardio, when a device knows lots about you, including the activity you're doing) or pretty bad (for HIIT, other types of intervals, or when you're strength training but it thinks you're doing cardio - including things like high-rep/lower-resistance weight circuits). Further, HR-based estimates can think someone more highly trained or fit is burning fewer calories doing the exact same thing (same exercise, same intensity, etc.) as a same-sized quite untrained/unfit person, because the fit person's heart rate will be lower. For most types of exercise, the two are burning quite close to the same number of calories doing the same activity at the same objective intensity for the same amount of time.
I agree that machines and other trackers will tend to give gross calorie estimates, but disagree with the strategy of simply halving an estimate (though that can be an OK experimental starting strategy if you have reason to believe the estimate is too high). (I disagree even more strongly with assuming zero calories, because that's always wrong.)
What I'd suggest is trying to identify the most accurate way of estimating calories for the particular machine and pacing you're doing, then going with that estimate (possibly backing out your BMR calories for the time period if you think it's a gross-calories estimate, but that isn't a big deal for exercise of say an hour or less, in the context of other error sources, arithmetically speaking.) Eat those calories back for 4-6 weeks, log eating, and monitor results. If you get the results you expect, or close enough, you're golden.4 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Not at all for me. Set to my height and weight, the elliptical machine tells me I burn 600 per hour whereas according to my apple watch I only burn about 300.
Have you tested the accuracy of your Apple Watch in a metabolic chamber or sports science lab?
My point wasn't to say the apple watch is the epitome of accuracy, just to say that the machines have been VERY off. But actually out of all the fitness devices I've used, the apple watch has been the most accurate.
A few years ago I spent time using spreadsheets with strict logging to try and figure out my burn via exercise and I've found it has been the closest count that matches with the data trend in my weight.
Pretty much all fitness devices give me closer to average 300 calories per hour vs 600 per hour the machine does. When I took the machines calorie estimate, I saw it was clearly off when it came down to numbers and weight trends. They all have WAY overestimated my burn.3 -
As others say, those machines are very inaccurate and usually give you generous numbers. What you log in MFP should depend on your goals. If you want to lose weight then you can reduce by half or one third. Even if you're looking to gain or maintain, I would just use the numbers as is or shave a little. It's always good to be skeptical at first and see how it actually affects the scale/mirror and adjust your logging accordingly.1
-
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Not at all for me. Set to my height and weight, the elliptical machine tells me I burn 600 per hour whereas according to my apple watch I only burn about 300.
No studies of elliptical power usage have found any good formula's because the variety of ways you can use them, some efficient some very not form.
So they have nothing built in to use mass or distance or cadence in a good formula.
And because of the motion the normal method like an exercise bike may use to get watts isn't as good, and even if it was good, that efficiency aspect is very needed getting calories from watts.
To the point about knowing your Apple Watch must be accurate - great logging for food and weight loss expected merely points out your CI and CO sides of the formula.
You have no clue on the CO aspects to know if the exercise part was accurate, because you can't confirm your NEAT, TEF, and EAT, or BMR.
A number being different than another doesn't make it more accurate.4 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Not at all for me. Set to my height and weight, the elliptical machine tells me I burn 600 per hour whereas according to my apple watch I only burn about 300.
Have you tested the accuracy of your Apple Watch in a metabolic chamber or sports science lab?
My point wasn't to say the apple watch is the epitome of accuracy, just to say that the machines have been VERY off. But actually out of all the fitness devices I've used, the apple watch has been the most accurate.
A few years ago I spent time using spreadsheets with strict logging to try and figure out my burn via exercise and I've found it has been the closest count that matches with the data trend in my weight.
Pretty much all fitness devices give me closer to average 300 calories per hour vs 600 per hour the machine does. When I took the machines calorie estimate, I saw it was clearly off when it came down to numbers and weight trends. They all have WAY overestimated my burn.
So all you know is.....- The Machine and your watch give different numbers.
- Over a period of time your overall calorie balance was correct.
You can't claim the elliptical is "VERY off" as you don't know what your burn was - you are just comparing it to another device with unknown accuracy. You also don't know your Apple Watch "has been the most accurate" as you simply aren't showing any evidence you know what your burns were. Stating it worked best for you for weight loss is as far as it goes
A lower estimate actually doesn't mean your watch is more accurate than the elliptical which was the original question about machine accuracy. There's just as much chance both watch and elliptical are inaccurate.
It's a common fallacy that lower estimates must be more accurate. If your true burn was 500 then the elliptical would be more accurate wouldn't it?
Getting the correct weight results over time is another fallacy that all the component parts of BMR, activity multiplier, food logging and exercise logging are accurate. The sum of four accurate numbers can be the same sum of four inaccurate numbers too!
For example for first couple of months of my weight loss I lost slower than expected so manually adjusted down my daily goal - that didn't make my food or exercise logging any more accurate did it?3 -
In terms of consistency with my Garmin's measurements, I found that the treadmill was not very accurate and the elliptical was not very accurate when i had it on a lower setting. As I increased the resistance though, I found it gave me a calorie burn result that was pretty consistent with my Garmin. I don't think they are particularly accurate but in the early days, what I did was look at what the equipment told me and what MFP told me and used that to come up with a figure that was somewhere in the middle. These days I just go with whatever my Garmin tells me as I've found that it's pretty accurate ... and no, I don't know for sure it's accurate, but the way i see it, relying on my Garmin to estimate calories out and MFP to measure calories in has worked for me thusfar...1
-
Over the last 20 months I have realized that exercise calories burned due to the limited exercise I can do are not as important as my balanced meal plan and CICO. That's where MFP comes in - I just have to make sure to record all my food / beverages properly - together with the great support of so many MFP members, thank you!0
-
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Not at all for me. Set to my height and weight, the elliptical machine tells me I burn 600 per hour whereas according to my apple watch I only burn about 300.
Similar for me. My HR FitBit consistently gives me a little more than half the burn that the machines and MFP estimated. I tested this over time and found that my FitBit was the most accurate for me.0 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Not at all for me. Set to my height and weight, the elliptical machine tells me I burn 600 per hour whereas according to my apple watch I only burn about 300.
No studies of elliptical power usage have found any good formula's because the variety of ways you can use them, some efficient some very not form.
So they have nothing built in to use mass or distance or cadence in a good formula.
And because of the motion the normal method like an exercise bike may use to get watts isn't as good, and even if it was good, that efficiency aspect is very needed getting calories from watts.
To the point about knowing your Apple Watch must be accurate - great logging for food and weight loss expected merely points out your CI and CO sides of the formula.
You have no clue on the CO aspects to know if the exercise part was accurate, because you can't confirm your NEAT, TEF, and EAT, or BMR.
A number being different than another doesn't make it more accurate.
I do know it is relatively accurate because I ate at maintenance for months. Then I did not change my CI and exercised. I used an excel sheet with CI/CO/weight/etc to monitor my weight gain and loss to calculate the deficit per day and it matched up to what I burned on the apple watch.2 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Not at all for me. Set to my height and weight, the elliptical machine tells me I burn 600 per hour whereas according to my apple watch I only burn about 300.
Have you tested the accuracy of your Apple Watch in a metabolic chamber or sports science lab?
My point wasn't to say the apple watch is the epitome of accuracy, just to say that the machines have been VERY off. But actually out of all the fitness devices I've used, the apple watch has been the most accurate.
A few years ago I spent time using spreadsheets with strict logging to try and figure out my burn via exercise and I've found it has been the closest count that matches with the data trend in my weight.
Pretty much all fitness devices give me closer to average 300 calories per hour vs 600 per hour the machine does. When I took the machines calorie estimate, I saw it was clearly off when it came down to numbers and weight trends. They all have WAY overestimated my burn.
So all you know is.....- The Machine and your watch give different numbers.
- Over a period of time your overall calorie balance was correct.
You can't claim the elliptical is "VERY off" as you don't know what your burn was - you are just comparing it to another device with unknown accuracy. You also don't know your Apple Watch "has been the most accurate" as you simply aren't showing any evidence you know what your burns were. Stating it worked best for you for weight loss is as far as it goes
A lower estimate actually doesn't mean your watch is more accurate than the elliptical which was the original question about machine accuracy. There's just as much chance both watch and elliptical are inaccurate.
It's a common fallacy that lower estimates must be more accurate. If your true burn was 500 then the elliptical would be more accurate wouldn't it?
Getting the correct weight results over time is another fallacy that all the component parts of BMR, activity multiplier, food logging and exercise logging are accurate. The sum of four accurate numbers can be the same sum of four inaccurate numbers too!
For example for first couple of months of my weight loss I lost slower than expected so manually adjusted down my daily goal - that didn't make my food or exercise logging any more accurate did it?
I went through a period of maintaining my weight without exercise, then kept my calories the same but added exercise while monitoring my weight and used the numbers to calculate my deficit per week using an excel sheet. (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/4mhvpn/adaptive_tdee_tracking_spreadsheet_v3_rescue/) It calculated the net deficit per week based on intake, BMR, and weight logged each day. The deficit per week worked out to be ~300 per day which is the only change my activity I made (the elliptical) and which was similar to what the watch said (not the 600 the elliptical said I was burning).
1 -
There's research showing that when people start exercising, or increase it suddenly, they tend to compensate by doing less movement otherwise.2
-
I don’t know why you guys are trying to say machines may be more accurate. I’m not saying it’s an exact science and my results are for sure proof. I’m just saying my experience because I was always curious about which was more accurate. It’s well known machines tend to overestimate.4
-
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I don’t know why you guys are trying to say machines may be more accurate. I’m not saying it’s an exact science and my results are for sure proof. I’m just saying my experience because I was always curious about which was more accurate. It’s well known machines tend to overestimate.
That's the problem - it's not well known by those that actually know how they work and get their estimates.
For instance - the walking & running formula using mass and pace is more accurate than HRM.
Only thing needed is correct weight, and calibrated belt for distance.
Problem is neither of those may be right. And some really cheap machines don't use those formulas that have been publicly available for years, but indeed try to inflate the burn, or don't allow input of weight for some stupid reason.
Cycle ergometers that use a monitored motor to provide resistance know exactly how many watts is being expended - and there again the formula known for years being used leads to best accuracy you'll get. Weight doesn't matter in that case. Or they'll use an actual power meter inline somewhere, like newer spin bikes. Older ones used a distance/mass formula and pretty awful.
But some machines don't use their motors in that way, or use a different way to provide resistance, and therefore may use distance and weight in some formula.
Elliptical as I mentioned is just no good formula or rate of efficiency to convert even an accurate watts to calories.
So that one yes, iffy - but to assume overestimate may be wrong too unless compared to a known accurate measurement.
I'm going to start seeing of labs doing VO2 tests are including an elliptical as an option. Or have tested using one.
For people that want to train really well for the World Elliptical Championships for either speed or distance.3 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I don’t know why you guys are trying to say machines may be more accurate. I’m not saying it’s an exact science and my results are for sure proof. I’m just saying my experience because I was always curious about which was more accurate. It’s well known machines tend to overestimate.
I don't see a lot of people saying that.
I see several people saying very specific machines that measure applied power, and involve movements with a very narrow range of efficiency among users, are going to be more accurate than a fitness tracker or heart rate monitor.
(Specifically, bikes measuring watts. Some rowing machines also measure watts, but - though I have no research proof - I'm inclined to believe that the movements have a wider range of efficiencies among users, so may be less accurate than power-metered bikes (I'm speculating, and know it, on this point). For Concept 2 machines specifically, given how they're engineered and by/for whom, I'd expect the watts-based calorie estimates to be reasonably accurate, after weight adjustment (there's an online calculator) for people who are reasonably good at rowing; but I'd guess that they might underestimate calories by a bit for many of the people who I see rowing at the gym, who are spending ridiculous amounts of energy that isn't going into the flywheel. JMO, and SMH.)
Beyond that, there have been some insightful comments from knowledgeable people about how good or bad particular types of machines are likely to be, and a number of general comments from people endorsing their fitness trackers' estimates, or using half the machines' estimates.
So, yeah, some people are saying some machines may be more accurate than fitness trackers or heart rate monitors, but that's hardly the thrust of the replies. And yeah, some machines overestimate (perhaps many/most, if you're really looking for net calories vs. gross, but that's an easy adjustment).
I sympathize that some seem to be questioning your confidence in your Apple watch's estimates. Those estimates have been very workable for you, which is really all that any of us need.
Personally, I use my Garmin's exercise calorie estimates regularly, including for some things I know it isn't ideal for estimating (but it's the closest source I have). I agree with those who are skeptical of tracker/HRM estimates as a generality, but that doesn't mean they're useless or unusable. But I think it's a good thing to shoot for a more nuanced understanding of what they're likely to get reasonably accurate, and cases where there might be a better alternative. Power-metered bike = better alternative, for example.0 -
I've used a HRM and the machines that take your weight and have the HR sensors, and generally find them relatively close-ish. Biggest issues with the machines is that if you're not using them, you're still going to be using general database entries.
That being said, over time I've found that my workouts are intense enough that most database entries are, if anything, a bit on the light side as far as burn. If I'm working out consistently, and tracking my food intake pretty closely - and I've never included cooking oil or things like ketchup - even staying in my TDEE deficit range is a bit on the low side for me.
The wiggle room is nice though when I do decide to have a little extra or am just especially hungry one day!0 -
HoneyBadger155 wrote: »I've used a HRM and the machines that take your weight and have the HR sensors, and generally find them relatively close-ish. Biggest issues with the machines is that if you're not using them, you're still going to be using general database entries.
That being said, over time I've found that my workouts are intense enough that most database entries are, if anything, a bit on the light side as far as burn. If I'm working out consistently, and tracking my food intake pretty closely - and I've never included cooking oil or things like ketchup - even staying in my TDEE deficit range is a bit on the low side for me.
The wiggle room is nice though when I do decide to have a little extra or am just especially hungry one day!
Not questioning your accuracy, but out of curiousity (since I have some challenges in this area myself): What has convinced you that the exercise calorie estimates are too low, vs. your actual TDEE is higher than estimated?
My effective TDEE is higher than a lot of so-called calculators say, but I have a hard time believing that exercise calories are so underestimated that they make up the whole difference (maybe part). If it were a closer thing numerically, I'm not sure how I'd know which accounted for it.
Not that it really matters . . . as long as we know what calorie adjustments to make in intake, it all works out fine. 1 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I don’t know why you guys are trying to say machines may be more accurate. I’m not saying it’s an exact science and my results are for sure proof. I’m just saying my experience because I was always curious about which was more accurate. It’s well known machines tend to overestimate.
Suggest you go back and read the posts without applying your filter of your own experience.
What most knowledgable people are saying is that "machines" (and other devices) have wildly varying degrees of accuracy and that includes all possibilities of under estimating, being very accurate and over estimating.
Making assumptions based on your personal experience does not equate to all people and all machines. I could say that as Garmin Edge estimates my annual burn as 170,000 from my sports cycling it must be completely accurate as I'm maintaining successfully. It would be a dumb thing to say though and even dumber to then say all cycling computers or apps tend to be accurate for all people.
Strava app for example is pretty close for me but only because its gross calorie estimate by a happy accident is very close to my actual net calorie expenditure.
No your results are not "sure proof". They are an assumption and an assumption that personally helped you. That is the limit of the usefulness.
You might have used a different elliptical where the manufacturer bothered to study a cross section of people in a sports science lab and come up with usable calorie chart that would be reasonable for many average users and come up with a completely different conclusion from your assumptions.
Even if you take your statement "it's well known machines tend to overestimate" at face value how does that help someone using a machine that is accurate or under estimates?
I've just done a workout on a machine (high end dual power meter exercise bike) that gives extremely accurate data to work out net cals. Using the oft parroted "eat 50%" would be utterly stupid.
And after all this we still don't know what the OP was using!
5 -
How do ellipticals, exercise bikes, riding machines, etc, made by different companies, all overestimate calories by the same factor of 2x? That's an amazing coincidence. Like if they make a ski machine and it overestimates by 3x, does somebody let them know so they can fix it to only do 2x? Who coordinates?3
-
NorthCascades wrote: »How do ellipticals, exercise bikes, riding machines, etc, made by different companies, all overestimate calories by the same factor of 2x? That's an amazing coincidence. Like if they make a ski machine and it overestimates by 3x, does somebody let them know so they can fix it to only do 2x? Who coordinates?
I don’t think anyone said every single workout machine out there always overestimate by 2x.... lol3 -
They are estimates based on statistics even with details added. The only way to know your true calorie utilization as tin is metabolic assessments done by professionals with equipment. I worked as a personal trainer for many years. One facility did metabolic testing. I had mine done and it was way off from any machine, watch and assesment otherwise given
However they are good for monitoring activity levels, increased capacity.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »How do ellipticals, exercise bikes, riding machines, etc, made by different companies, all overestimate calories by the same factor of 2x? That's an amazing coincidence. Like if they make a ski machine and it overestimates by 3x, does somebody let them know so they can fix it to only do 2x? Who coordinates?
@NorthCascades
It's co-ordinated by the murky organisation called "Big Gym" - don't mess with Big Gym!
The conspiracy to convince people that HRMs measure calories is co-ordinated by "Big Heart" - that's sounds far more cute and cuddly.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions