Calorie counters on gym machines

Denerick

Those calorie counter things - are they accurate? Considering that I sweat enough to keep a small African village in water for a week every time I go to the gym, I'm willing to believe it.

I spend about 20 minutes on the spinner burning around 210 calories, 20 minutes on the stepper burning around 250 calories, and 15 minutes on the rower burning around 170 calories. If I'm ambitious enough I'll spend 15 minutes on the treadmill, burning around 200 calories.

Is this stuff more fiction than science? According to this, in little more than an hour in the gym I will have burnt over 800 calories...

The Guvnor

A number of points which I discovered over the years:

• Concept 2 rowing machine calories burned was iirc based on a man weighing about 75-80kg.

• Some machines gives much higher calorie readings than others for the same power output.

• Use them as a guideline not necessarily as totally accurate.

• If you did 200 today and do 225 tomorrow in 20 mins on a bike then you can compare the workout/results.

To put this in perspective at my weight 120kg inputed into monitor on a technogym bike I have done upto 600 calories in 30 mins. Now if my weight was 80kg it would be a lot less just based on weight. Your 800 in near an hour is very believeable and could even be underestimated.:)

spirit_77

this was something i was also wondering about. i had an exercise bike and when i spent about 20 mins on it and worked up about 7km it would say i burnt about 200 calories. in the last few weeks ive gotten a new better one as the other one stopped working and if i spent half an hour and worked up 10km it would say i only worked up 130 calories

Denerick

I'm a rather chubby chap, so the 800 calories may be an underestimate in my case. Close to a 1,000? Just trying to figure out the consequences this would have on general weight loss. I eat around 2300 calories a day and go to the gym about 4 days a week on average, meaning I would burn 4000 calories and consume 16100 calories a week on average, leading to a total of 12100 calories. I've worked out my average metabolism rate is around 2500 a day (Overweight combined with moderate day to day exercise, such as a 1.5 mile walk to work and 1.5 mile walk back 5 days a week)

So... 17500 - 12100 calories would lead to a surplus of 5400, which should mean an average of 2 and a half pounds shedded per week (Or at least 10 pounds a month) Would this be broadly correct? I should add that I'm not on some fad diet or anything, just generally trying to eat better and do more exercise.

Stench Blossoms

Half it.

I've worn my HRM while on a threadmil and got a reading of 700 from the machine and 365 from my HRM

Denerick

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

Half it.

I've worn my HRM while on a threadmil and got a reading of 700 from the machine and 365 from my HRM

How fat are you?*

I'm willing to believe that skinny people will burn less, but what about the more rotund among us?


*I realise this isn't the most charming thing to ask a lady :P

Stench Blossoms

I'm not that fat but I input my height and weight into the threadmil as well.

Edit: aldi have HRM for sale next week. Get one and see how it compares.

MaceFace

I was chatting to a guy in the gym wearing a HRM and asked him if the Technogym equipment in our gym were giving accurate readings in terms of calorie count.
He said it was pretty much accurate.

He was an elder gentleman (65?) and of average build for his age.

s.a.man

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

Half it.

I've worn my HRM while on a threadmil and got a reading of 700 from the machine and 365 from my HRM

Funny that you should say this, I have a good HRM and mine gives a higher total than what it says on the treadmill!!

The Guvnor

Variation is very common - best thing is to use whatever reading as a guideline and once it is the same equipment (I use the same bike everytime! ) you can at least say Tuesday was more productive than Monday etc.

Denerick - The math is probably correct but it may not translate into 2lb per week everyweek. You can judge progress in the mirror and with a tape measure as well and also by how clothes fit or don't etc.

The main thing always is consistency.

AntiVirus

Denerick wrote: »

Those calorie counter things - are they accurate? Considering that I sweat enough to keep a small African village in water for a week every time I go to the gym, I'm willing to believe it.

I spend about 20 minutes on the spinner burning around 210 calories, 20 minutes on the stepper burning around 250 calories, and 15 minutes on the rower burning around 170 calories. If I'm ambitious enough I'll spend 15 minutes on the treadmill, burning around 200 calories.

Is this stuff more fiction than science? According to this, in little more than an hour in the gym I will have burnt over 800 calories...

Those numbers are pretty meaningless. You spent 20 minutes on the spinner but what distance did you cover and what was your avg watts. The same goes for everything else. How far did you run in 15 minutes etc..

I see plenty of people spending time on all those machines but they all put in a different amount of work.

vard

They aren't accurate. Pay no attention to them; way too many variables to take into account.

If you want to know what you're burning find an accurate and we'll regarded calculator on the Web. Add your height, weight, general activity level and the plethora of additional information you'll need to give to display an accurate reading and there you go.

Mellor

If you arent inputting your weight, then ignore it completely. It's useless.
Even uf you are, it's a vague guess at best, and generally prob tends to over estimate.

Ultimately, what does it matter. The number on a machine means nothing in relation to what you burn. Just go and give it as much as you can (or should), don't ever ease off because a number on a machine is "acceptable".

Brian?

They are a guess. If you want a more accurate guess get yourself a HR monitor. I think everyone doing card should wear one tbh, a great way to objectively monitor your progress. They'll also stop you slacking when your fitness improves.

Also, just to be clear, never gauge the effectiveness of your workout by how much you sweat. That's more to do with ambient temperature than anything. Find objective measurements as much as possible. For cardio use heart rate and for weight training use strength. If your goal is fat loss then have your bf% measured regularly rather than fixating on weight.

Einhard

Denerick wrote: »

So... 17500 - 12100 calories would lead to a surplus of 5400, which should mean an average of 2 and a half pounds shedded per week (Or at least 10 pounds a month) Would this be broadly correct? I should add that I'm not on some fad diet or anything, just generally trying to eat better and do more exercise.

A lb is the equivalent of 3500 calories as far as I was aware, so a deficit of 5400 calories would be less than 2lbs rather than more.

I'm not exactly an expert but I have lost a fair amount of weight over the past while, and calorie restriction is the best way to go about losing weight IMO. Could you cut your intake to 2000 a day. Then you'd be losing a pound through diet alone.

Denerick

Einhard wrote: »

A lb is the equivalent of 3500 calories as far as I was aware, so a deficit of 5400 calories would be less than 2lbs rather than more.

I'm not exactly an expert but I have lost a fair amount of weight over the past while, and calorie restriction is the best way to go about losing weight IMO. Could you cut your intake to 2000 a day. Then you'd be losing a pound through diet alone.

2000 a day? You'd have me starve?

I'm trying to bring it down to that sort of level, its more like 2200 these days.