Calories burned on gym equipment

[jen36 1]

Does anyone know how accurate the readout is on cardio equipment at the gym for calories burned?

[kelking 0]

In my experience it is not very accurate. I have worn my HRM and compared the calorie burn at the end and the machine is often higher than the machine than the HRM. I tend to think my HRM is more accurate.

[bambam31 168]

HRM are far more accurate because you program them to your specific details. Gym equipment is ballpark at best because it doesn't know you from the next person.

Brad

[jen36 1]

You know I was thinking that I am only 5ft and if I am walking at 4.1 on the treadmill wouldn't I burn more calories then someone that is alot taller than me b/c I have to work harder.

[Jachut 487]

No, you'd burn a lot less because you're smaller, have less muscle and a slower metabolism (or more accurately, lower calorie needs) as a result. It takes less energy to move your smallr body.

Most of the machines are for about "average" - a 76kg male is pretty standards. Which means that most "normal weight" women (by which again "average means under about 65kg, or 140lb) will burn substantially less than the machine says.

I dont know about anyone else, but I can guage a 700 calorie burning workout by how much it takes out of my body (of course, I dont known precisely what I burned but I can tell it was a big burn kind of thing) and how long it takes me to recover. For me, a 10kms run would achieve that and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, no matter what the stupid thing says, that 40 minutes on an elliptical machine is absolutely no comparison, it is NOT a 700 calorie workout. Its just not hard enough or taxing enough. I can also tell that I burn less calories during a run these days than I used to - I'm definitely adapted and more efficient at it now.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Jachut

[B-Man 1]

I also agree that the gym equipment is over estimating the calorie burn by at least 30% if not more.

I have used a polar Heart rate monitor, and a body bug at the same time to try and get a good idea of true calorie burn. Here is an example of the readings I received:

45 Minute elliptical workout. Moderate to high Intensity.

Elliptical = 740 Calories

Polar HRM = 650 Calories

Body Bug = 510 Calories

I would imagine the truth to be in the middle of the Body Bug and the Polar HRM. Somewhere around 575 Calories. To bad the body bug doesn't have a HRM. Then it would probably be pretty close to accurate.

[sweetsagi 28]

according to my nutritionist as long as you put in your weight on the gym machines the calories burned should be accurate.

[Jachut 487]

The thing with the elliptical is that you dont even leave the ground. There is NO WAY you can burn that many calories with a workout that doesnt require you even clearing the ground.

[bambam31 168]

according to my nutritionist as long as you put in your weight on the gym machines the calories burned should be accurate.

Physiologically impossible...

Building muscles is one of the best ways to lose more calories fast. The more muscles you have the more calories you will burn. There are a lot of exercises to build up your muscle mass but weight lifting is by far the best calorie burning muscle exercise.

Strength training is important, but actually BUILDING muscle while in a calorie deficit is next to impossible. Cardio or interval training will always burn significantly more calories than ordinary weight lifting.

Brad

[neveragain 9]

Brad, as usual, pretty much dead on. For the MOST PART, building muscle is pretty unlikely, especially for those seasoned lifters and people on crash diets, like most banders. This also kind of goes along with why our Protein intake is so FREAKING important. If we are working out and not getting our Protein in, it could easily backfire.

Jacqui, high-impact does NOT always mean more of a workout. Swimming moderate pace freestyle for 1 hour and running a 12-min mile pace for 1 hour burn around the same amount of kcal/hr. Also, swimming is a full body workout AND easy on your joints. Ha. I win. :thumbup:

[Jachut 487]

phfffffft!

[neveragain 9]

*does his happy dance, but knows that this is a rare occasion, so he will savor the victory it while it lasts* lol.

[bambam31 168]

Hello,

I don't know enough about this but Standing burns 50% more calories than sitting. Stand while talking on the phone, using the computer, or reading the paper.

Pacing is even better. By pacing, you can burn 90 more calories an hour than if you were sitting still. Make it a habit to pace whenever you use the phone.

Buy a work station or desk that you can stand at or, if you can, set up a desk over a treadmill. By walking 1 mile an hour while you work, you'll burn an additional 100 calories per hour which, if you do this for 2-3 hours a day, you could lose 44-60 pounds in a year. It's recommended that you start slowly, though, walking 15 minutes every hour and then increasing gradually. Alternatively, you can use a mini-stepper under a tall desk, or while watching TV to achieve the same results.

thanks!!

________________

TurboFire Workout DVD

Just remember, though, that no two people burn the exact same number of calories doing the exact same activity. And any activity will expend less and less calories as your body adapts to the activity.

Brad

[Kelly0900 0]

So the Gym equipment is set up to assume you are x height & x weight and calculates your calories burnt from the data it has there?

Would a HRM be more accurate then?

[bambam31 168]

So the Gym equipment is set up to assume you are x height & x weight and calculates your calories burnt from the data it has there?

Would a HRM be more accurate then?

If you get one that allows the user to enter their personal stats and track personal calorie expenditure.

Brad