So which one is accurate?

Gaygirl2120
Gaygirl2120 Posts: 541 Member
edited June 2020 in Fitness and Exercise
25 mins of stairs and the difference in calorie burn between my Apple Watch and the actual machine is crazy 😝 otyas1sgmt87.jpeg

Replies

  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,846 Member
    edited June 2020
    I'm going to guess the machine knows nothing about you and your Apple watch knows your age, weight etc.
    Also, many cardio machines show gross calories burned (including BMR) which would also explain a higher number.

    So I'd go with the watch :smile:
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,753 Member
    edited June 2020
    ^^^ yes, the watch. Did you input your stats into the machine?
  • Gaygirl2120
    Gaygirl2120 Posts: 541 Member
    L1zardQueen wrote: »
    ^^^ yes, the watch. Did you input your stats into the machine?

    No I just usually hit Quick Start. But I’ll put my stats in next time and see what I end up with.
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,745 Member
    I get that with my TM. It says I burn 1000 calories an hour running 6 mph. That's not even close. I use MFP's numbers instead, which is still a bit high, but less than my watch gives.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    If one of them was accurate, the other one would use the accurate formula too. They're both guesses. Take the one you prefer, and be consistent about it. After a month, compare the amount of weight you've lost against what your diary predicts you should have lost, and adjust accordingly.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in either TBH without trying to get some corroboration or trying to put the numbers in a personal context.
    Stairclimber - You really should be telling the machine your weight for a weight bearing exercise (unless you happen by luck to be close to the machine's default weight) to at least give it a chance of doing the maths it's programmed with correctly.
    Watch - Heart rate as a basis for estimating calorie burns is very variable - if an average works out reasonable that's no real use on a personal basis if you happen to be an outlier.

    If I intended to use that machine regularly I'd probably try to compare the burn rate per minute against exercises with better accuracy (power meter equipped bike or Concept2 or a running formula) to see if that burn rate was personally likely for you to be able to achieve for the same duration.

    Can you sustain 11.6 cals/min for 25 minutes at a similar intensity? (291 / 25)
    Or does 6.8 cals/min seem more likely? (170 / 25)

    PS - there's also the issue of net cals v. gross cals to consider. Your watch seems to be trying to give you both options but I would assume the machine's estimate is gross cals.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Curious if your BMR is close to 1980 per stats?
    That's the Apple Total - Active calories, taken out to daily level.

    Or is it closer to 1584 BMR?
    That's 1980 / 1.25 sedentary Apple seems close to on base calories.

    Just curious.

    Ditto's to inputting weight in machine and see what it has to say for itself.
    It's probably got a motor and could know watts and accurate calorie burn - if the maker chose to do that.

Categories