Wildly inaccurate calorie counts?

SomeoneSomeplace
SomeoneSomeplace Posts: 1,094 Member
edited November 8 in Fitness and Exercise
I just joined a new gym recently, which has introduced me to a new cardio work out. It is the Precor AMT100i Experience Series Adaptive Motion Trainer,

See this link to know exactly what machine I am talking about. http://www.amazon.com/Precor-AMT100i-Experience-Adaptive-Trainer/dp/B0029KL2MO/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

I entered my weight/age (130 lbs 23 y/o) and had the resistance on 15/20. And it told me I was burning between 12 and 15 calories A MINUTE. In 30 minutes I burned 400 calories according to the machine. The girl next to me had been on for almost an hour and probably weighed around 145 and it said she had burned close to 900 calories before she had even completed the full 60 minutes. It just seems really unbelievable to me that this would burn more calories than running does. I do a speed of about 6.0 on the treadmill I'm coming off a tear of my Achilles Tendon so it's been a while since I've run/ I'm out of shape. I get winded very quickly on the treadmill and it takes A LOT more effort than this Precor machine does. So I don't understand how it could burn more calories then running does,
I certainly feel like I'm working out on the Precor and my heart rate IS within the "Cardio zone" where as when I run lately it has been "Above Zone" to the point where it tells me to slow down because my HR is too high...so is it really possible that a machine that is easier to work out on actually burns MORE calories then running does? Cos if machines like the Precor/Elliptical actually do burn more (or as much as) running does, that's kind of a miracle. I know that they say those calorie counts on machines over-estimate by like 20 percent but I was just wondering if anyone has any specific experience or knowledge with these specific machines. Thanks!
«1

Replies

  • ahealthy4u
    ahealthy4u Posts: 442 Member
    Not really sure how that works all I know is if I am looking to pretty when walking out of gym I haven't worked or trained hard enough to burn anything. Hope someone has an answer for us! I am curious as well
  • k_braddock
    k_braddock Posts: 51 Member
    That's pretty much an elliptical machine isn't it?
  • southern_gurl
    southern_gurl Posts: 77
    I use this machine at my gym as well, so am curious as to wether or not this is accurate, thanks for posting:happy:
  • Chowder_17
    Chowder_17 Posts: 141 Member
    Use a HR monitor to get accurate calorie burns
  • Destinie589
    Destinie589 Posts: 211
    I use this machine almost every day. I wear a heart rate monitor and I weigh 149 and I am 5'6". I usually put the resistance between 7-9 and in an hour my HRM says I burn 700+ calories per hour. Never exceeding 800. It is normally about 750ish. Give or take depending on the day or how hard I really push myself.
  • fitnatic67
    fitnatic67 Posts: 154
    get a personal hrm and do a comparison.
  • tageekly
    tageekly Posts: 3,755 Member
    I have found that ALL machines at the gym are too high for me. That's why I got my HRM and found they would be as much as 35% too high. And I enter my age and weight and I'm working hard - 75%-85% of my max HR - but the machines just don't calculate accurately.

    Do know that it's pretty common for an elliptical-type machine to burn more than a treadmill.
  • CallieM15
    CallieM15 Posts: 910 Member
    I use that machine too and it says I burn 430 calories in about 35 minutes. I had a friend use her HRM while doing it and it was pretty accurate. She is 180 lbs (20# less than I) and she burned about 400 calories in 35 minutes on level 15.
  • ldalbello
    ldalbello Posts: 207 Member
    Not sure about the machine you are talking about, but I know someone who works for a company that makes treadmills and ellipticals and stuff and he told me that they set up the machines to overestimate calories, that way they sell more. I believe it.
  • bluestocking06
    bluestocking06 Posts: 66 Member
    I know that when I talked to a trainer (granted this was years ago, but I think it's still true) she said in general machines grossly overestimate how many calories someone burns. She highly recommended a heart rate monitor as being the only way to get an accurate calorie burn count.
  • continue29
    continue29 Posts: 16
    i use the exact same machine at my gym & like you, programme it all correctly - weight etc etc

    I also got pretty much the same results as you, it shows me as burning about 400 cals for 30 minutes with a max heart rate of about 158, averaging 140 for the whole half hour.

    I got a HRM for xmas & the results are quite different from that to what the machine says.

    The heart rate is correct, ie what my HRM tells me, the machine does... however im buring far less cals than the machine says according to my HRM.

    I burn on average 280 for 30 mins & not the 400 the machine says i have.

    Obviously these results are personal to me & yours might be different.. but i hope that helps you :)
  • Butterfly3730
    Butterfly3730 Posts: 220
    Not sure about the machine you are talking about, but I know someone who works for a company that makes treadmills and ellipticals and stuff and he told me that they set up the machines to overestimate calories, that way they sell more. I believe it.

    The employee at my gym told me the same thing. I use a HRM and it is way under what those machines say at the gym. I love my HRM and now I have to work harder too. It is worth the investment imo.
  • ShellyKay67
    ShellyKay67 Posts: 489 Member
    i use the exact same machine at my gym & like you, programme it all correctly - weight etc etc

    I also got pretty much the same results as you, it shows me as burning about 400 cals for 30 minutes with a max heart rate of about 158, averaging 140 for the whole half hour.

    I got a HRM for xmas & the results are quite different from that to what the machine says.

    The heart rate is correct, ie what my HRM tells me, the machine does... however im buring far less cals than the machine says according to my HRM.

    I burn on average 280 for 30 mins & not the 400 the machine says i have.

    Obviously these results are personal to me & yours might be different.. but i hope that helps you :)

    this is EXACTLY why I need a HRM! hopefully soon!
  • Jrabes
    Jrabes Posts: 2 Member
    I've read a few places that it really doesn't matter that much what the activity is, it's mostly your heart-rate that determines how many calories you burn. Did the machine tell you what your average heart-rate was at the end of your workout? If so, try inputting your numbers into this calculator
    http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/
    to see how it compares. You will technically need to know your VO2 Max for it to be 100% accurate but if you're in moderately good condition you can just use 35-40 and it should be close.
  • jessicaeden
    jessicaeden Posts: 1
    Most machines over-estimate the number of calories you are burning (treadmills too, although they are a little more accurate). When I use the eliptical, I subtract 20% from the total calories burned and I think it is more of an accurate number.
  • Pebbles536
    Pebbles536 Posts: 199
    A good HRM is not that expensive. I was able to get a Polar FT4 on sale for $69.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I just joined a new gym recently, which has introduced me to a new cardio work out. It is the Precor AMT100i Experience Series Adaptive Motion Trainer,

    See this link to know exactly what machine I am talking about. http://www.amazon.com/Precor-AMT100i-Experience-Adaptive-Trainer/dp/B0029KL2MO/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

    I entered my weight/age (130 lbs 23 y/o) and had the resistance on 15/20. And it told me I was burning between 12 and 15 calories A MINUTE. In 30 minutes I burned 400 calories according to the machine. The girl next to me had been on for almost an hour and probably weighed around 145 and it said she had burned close to 900 calories before she had even completed the full 60 minutes. It just seems really unbelievable to me that this would burn more calories than running does. I do a speed of about 6.0 on the treadmill I'm coming off a tear of my Achilles Tendon so it's been a while since I've run/ I'm out of shape. I get winded very quickly on the treadmill and it takes A LOT more effort than this Precor machine does. So I don't understand how it could burn more calories then running does,
    I certainly feel like I'm working out on the Precor and my heart rate IS within the "Cardio zone" where as when I run lately it has been "Above Zone" to the point where it tells me to slow down because my HR is too high...so is it really possible that a machine that is easier to work out on actually burns MORE calories then running does? Cos if machines like the Precor/Elliptical actually do burn more (or as much as) running does, that's kind of a miracle. I know that they say those calorie counts on machines over-estimate by like 20 percent but I was just wondering if anyone has any specific experience or knowledge with these specific machines. Thanks!

    At your weight, if you ran at a speed of 6 mph, you would burn 600 calories per hour, so that's a good reference.

    It's not easy to find studies on these subjects, because, quite frankly, most serious researchers don't think it's very important. However, sometimes you can find an undergraduate or graduate thesis, and I got lucky.

    I didn't have time to read all the detail, so I don't know the stride length/cadence they used, but a brief look at the results showed that the AMT overestimated VO2/calorie measurements by 35%-50% on levels 3-12 when compared to actual measurements taken with a metabolic cart.

    That should tell you everything you need to know.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Not sure about the machine you are talking about, but I know someone who works for a company that makes treadmills and ellipticals and stuff and he told me that they set up the machines to overestimate calories, that way they sell more. I believe it.

    They used to, but once they got a lot of negative publicity, they scaled it back.

    Many machines still overestimate, but it is usually because they use an equation for a different movement (e.g. running) and apply it to the machine (e.g. a cross trainer). It's more laziness than purposeful deceit.

    Life Fitness has a full biomechanical testing lab at their headquarters. For the past 5-6 years, they have tested and developed unique calorie-estimating algorithms for every new machine they have developed. Unfortunately, I don't think they have gone back and redid their older cross trainers (the ones most used in clubs), so there are still a lot of inaccurate ones out there. But, if you are fortunately enough to have access to a new Elevation style cross trainer, the calorie counts should be very accurate--even more accurate than an HRM.
  • EricMurano
    EricMurano Posts: 825 Member
    If I use a machine for aerobic exercise I'll take the calories it estimates and reduce it by some factor like 0.75 or 0.5.

    I don't try to get the exact number of calories from the exercise. I just record how much more I feel I should eat because I exercised. The number on the machine is just a way to loosely quantify the effort I exerted.
  • EricMurano
    EricMurano Posts: 825 Member
    Oh I might add that when you've measured your exercise calories remember that the calories you would have burned if you were just at rest are included in those exercise calories. When you add the exercise calories to your diary you need to subtract those 'at rest' calories.

    At that point, though, it's a much of a muchness. It's more reason to reduce the calories reported by the machine before adding them to your diary.
  • SomeoneSomeplace
    SomeoneSomeplace Posts: 1,094 Member
    Thank you all for your responses! I actually don't know a terrible amount of V02 Max or any of that. I am fairly out of shape at the moment. Not so much in the sense that I have a bunch of weight I absolutely NEED to lose but in the sense that after I tore my tendon I was out of pretty much ALL physical activity for 8 months minus some walking and very light biking. It was only very recently that I was cleared to get back to running and real working out, which means starting the grueling process of getting back in shape.

    I actually wasn't aware until browsing the posts here that calories burned has more to do with heart rate. My HR runs high in general, I mean like around 100? Which is a combo of the fact that I'm on a couple medications and...well I'm not sure WHY I've just always been that way. My average heart rate was 167 while using above mentioned machine today, and it said I burned 800 calories in the one hour I was on it. The calculator that Jrabes provided said I burned 620 that seems fairly accurate although I have NO IDEA what my V02 max is I just put it in as 40.

    I will definitely have to look into getting one of those heart rate monitors. I wasn't aware they gave you a calorie count as well. Again thank you all for your help!
  • dcpsu1992
    dcpsu1992 Posts: 1
    Precor DOES overestimate caloric expenditure by about 20%. I worked on the manufacturing (equipment development) side of the business as product manager for 10 years. Although I worked for many companies, but not Precor, I did work with an engineering VP who had worked at Precor as the Dir. of Engineering. He told us that it was a marketing decision by Precor to overestimate the expenditure by 20%. It is a sneaky move, but it plays to the psychology of the user...if you see more calories burned on their machine, why would you use others...presses club to have more Precor and, i.e., improved Precor sales.

    I am not saying that every other manufacturer is 100% accurate, I don't have proof of that. But my experiences with other units are more in line with what I would expect given my overall level of work. I am not the biggest fan of Precor, their machines are not that good in my opinion and am not stating the info above to be spiteful, I have no reason to be. I do love working out on the Arc Trainer by Cybex (the version movable arms) and if you get a chance to compare the two, you will find yourself working harder on the Arc (as measured by heart rate) but your level of percieved exertion will be lower. it is a great workout,
  • FatFinn320
    FatFinn320 Posts: 7
    She probably had her machine set to a higher resistance level. It makes a huge difference.
  • wilyumz1
    wilyumz1 Posts: 1
    I'm old (50) and while not fat or out of shape I'm about 25 lbs over where I want to be (165, at 5, 11 1/2")
    I'm on a precor treadmill as I type this comparing my Harmon fitness watch / HR monitor to the treadmills cal burn indicator.
    Today I have limited myself to 70-75% of max HR, and at the 45 min mark the machine says 287 cal burned, while my Harmon is at 485, true the Harmon has more data than age and weight but I don't know which is more accurate! I would suspect the Harmon as it's constantly monitoring heart rate
  • GetSoda
    GetSoda Posts: 1,267 Member
    Use a HR monitor to get slightly different but still very inaccurate calorie burns

    fixed
  • ArtistmanJ
    ArtistmanJ Posts: 6 Member
    Well fwiw, the Precor AMT's I use suggest I burn around 800 Calories in 50 minutes... I set it on "interval" with resistance set to 10 for low, and 20 for high. I then run the figure thru a net calorie calculator and it reduces it down to about 700-750 calories. I'm quite sure this is a very crude estimate at this point (and probably I simply got lucky) but with this method, plus MFP, I've gone from 220 lbs. to 180-183 lbs between mid September 2013 and now.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • ArtistmanJ
    ArtistmanJ Posts: 6 Member
    Why? Because I like messing with this stuff! Interesting suggestion though. Naturally as you lose weight you have to recalculate the TDEE anyway (presumably down as you lose the weight) and my guess is that if you correctly log your exercise, MFP basically does that for you.

    To me what matters is results. And for folks in general, if something in particular works for them, I'm all for it. I have a data-analysis background so as I actually find doing the calcs, both with calorie burn and food weight and stuff like that ... well, kind of fun. (no accounting for taste, right?)
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Zjamai
    Zjamai Posts: 1 Member
    As a general rule of thumb, for any moderate exercise you do that keeps your heart rate within the target zone, the average person (aka within your BMI) will typically burn about 100 calories every 10 minutes. I have a HRM that I use every time I exercise and give or take a few calories, I'm pretty much always in that 100 calories per 10 minute mark. This includes for aerobics, biking, running, hiking, elliptical and stair stepper. When I do intense group exercises like spin class or boxing, I find I'm more around 125 cals/10 minutes.

    But if you don't want to invest in a HRM, this is an easy way to guesstimate how many calories you've burned during just about any moderate exercise. So unless you feel like you're going to topple over and/or throw up because you're exercising so hard (like I do in spin class!), you're probably right around 300 calories for your 30 minute exercise.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories