Exercise Machine Calorie Counters

[Gutshot John]

I've been hitting the elliptical machines pretty regularly and all told they seem to record some miraculous calorie burns, about 420 calories/30 minutes.

Can I rely on these? or is there a better method of judging?

[JeffWard]

They're based off of heart rate and weight. But don't take into account lean mass vs fat. If you're leaner, you'll burn more. If you're fatter, you'll burn less. The chest-strap HR monitors are twice as accurate

840 kcal/hr is typical for a heavier athlete, working really hard.

Jeff

[Gutshot John]

Swagging it would you say that's plus/minus 10%? 20%?

[WillBrink]

I've been hitting the elliptical machines pretty regularly and all told they seem to record some miraculous calorie burns, about 420 calories/30 minutes.

Can I rely on these?

No, they are gross estimates, and generally far over estimating actual calorie use (which of course makes the user happy) but they are not of much use in terms of actually calculating your cals in/out type math.

[R Moran]

So is there a "better", simple quick way to guage your calorie burn at the gym?
How about swag as to how far over the machines are?

I always figured they were way off, especially when different machines give you different numbers for the same work out, but they also dont seem to be consistent in the "level" department either.

Bob

[WillBrink]

So is there a "better", simple quick way to guage your calorie burn at the gym?
How about swag as to how far over the machines are?

I always figured they were way off, especially when different machines give you different numbers for the same work out, but they also dont seem to be consistent in the "level" department either.

Bob

You can try something like:

http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php

Without direct measurement it's always an approximation.

This gizmo supposedly accurate, but I can't vouch for it:

http://metabolicratetest.com/bodygem...r-measure-rmr/

[rjacobs]

I second getting a heart rate monitor. I use a Polar FT7 and it seems pretty accurate from what I have figured out online, or at least close enough for me. I think I paid about 100 bucks for it.

From what I have figured out about the built in ones on machines they are not accurate. Different machines will read differently, if you take your hands off the sensors for a couple minutes it will approximate from your last readings, etc... I greatly prefer heart rate monitors.

[Gutshot John]

I don't need a hard/fast number for calorie counting, I just wanted to get a good approximation.

Based on the caloriesperhour.com, and calculating the difference, it would seem that I should subtract about 10% from what the machine is telling me.

[rjacobs]

I don't need a hard/fast number for calorie counting, I just wanted to get a good approximation.

Based on the caloriesperhour.com, and calculating the difference, it would seem that I should subtract about 10% from what the machine is telling me.

I would still suggest getting your own heart rate monitor. I pretty much know when I cycle or do a cycling class how much I am going to burn per hour(roughly 1000), but I do a couple classes plus swimming that I dont do very often so I like having the heart rate monitor on those to see. Example: I did a class called body pump this morning for the first time at Golds Gym, it was weight lifting. I didnt feel like I exerted myself that much(compared to the hour of cycling I had just done), but to my surprise after the 1 hour class I had burned almost 800 calories.

A heart rate monitor is obviously the only way to go when you start exercising without being on a machine(running on the street, cycling, weight lifting, swimming, etc...).

[dookie1481]

I would still suggest getting your own heart rate monitor. I pretty much know when I cycle or do a cycling class how much I am going to burn per hour(roughly 1000), but I do a couple classes plus swimming that I dont do very often so I like having the heart rate monitor on those to see. Example: I did a class called body pump this morning for the first time at Golds Gym, it was weight lifting. I didnt feel like I exerted myself that much(compared to the hour of cycling I had just done), but to my surprise after the 1 hour class I had burned almost 800 calories.

A heart rate monitor is obviously the only way to go when you start exercising without being on a machine(running on the street, cycling, weight lifting, swimming, etc...).

Even HRM aren't particularly accurate. Two people at the same weight and heart rate can have drastically different energy expenditures. If one is a well-trained athlete, he can burn a substantial amount more calories than an untrained person at a given heart rate.

And most folks, unless highly trained, aren't getting 600 cal/hour during cardio or the weight room.

900 cal/hour is humping it. I've done it but I was working like hell.

And this a trained endurance athlete (speed skating)
http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=2185