Fitness
Moderators: melkor


Which is correct - calories burned according to CC+ or the cardio machine?


Quote  |  Reply

Does anyone else notice that the cardio machines at the gym indicate that the calories burned after a cardio workout are way higher than what Calorie Counter says? I know that the machines at the gym aren't 100% accurate but the difference can be pretty huge.  I just finished a really intense workout on the eliptical machine having programmed in my current weight and burned about 750 calories according to the machine.  CC+ tells me that I've burned about 500 for the same workout. (bummer, huh.  Those 250 calories are like a free pass for an extra glass of wine...)   Until now I've been sticking with the CC+ numbers but am curious what the rest of you are doing.

13 Replies (last)

I don't think the CC count will be as accurate given that you do not supply your weight.  Unless when you click on an activity it takes your weight into account.  I also do not think that the machine at the gym is all that accurate either.  Some where in between is where I assume that I am.

You do supply your weight on CC...

I've seen other people say the CC count is usually better than the machines.  For me personally, the machine give me a lower count, CC gives me a higher count.  For figuring out what my caloric intake is, I go with what CC says but round down to the nearest hundred. 

I have found that neither are correct. I recently purchased a Polar F6 heart rate monitor and found that my elliptical read 750 calories while CC says I burned 560, and my heart rate monitor...which is programmed to my body reads 387 calories burned.

Something to think about..........

Original Post by kristinedaqueen:

I have found that neither are correct. I recently purchased a Polar F6 heart rate monitor and found that my elliptical read 750 calories while CC says I burned 560, and my heart rate monitor...which is programmed to my body reads 387 calories burned.

Something to think about..........

 I have to agree for a most accurate count use a hrm but in the meantime go by the lesser of the 2 or an average.

That could depend on the monitor, I am beginning to wonder if the one I bought is correct.  It is a timex and has all my information in it. It routinely reports a MUCH higher calorie burn than my treadmill.  I've checked several online calculators, including CC and they tend to be close to what my treadmill says, so I no longer trust the monitor for the calorie expenditure. 

I have  a friend that has a Timex one and she said it doesn't work at all. Mine is the Polar f6 model with the chest strap. I skeptical to buy it but I read many rave reviews about it so I thought it was the best one.

A doc once told a Friend that if your HRM does not have a strap over your chest its not worth squat.

 

Someone told me on CC that the activities they have for you to choose from do not take your stats into account. They give you calories burned for an average adult. Try this thing: http://www.runtheplanet.com/resources/tools/c alculators/caloriecounter.asp

Look at what CC says for an avg adult. If you are heavier than an avg adult, then assume your calories from the above website will be a bit higher than CC's count. Seeing the difference and using two websites may build your trust with these tools. I trust 'em.

mds86 if CC doesn't take into acct your current weight why is that my calorie burns for the same activities decrease as my weight decreases?  I think CC does take into account your stats to a point and much more accurately than a piece of exercise equipment that doesn't let you plug in your age, weight height and sex. 

My PolarF11 is usually within 50 - 75 cals of CC's estimate for most activities the secret though is finding the right "level" like moderate elliptical or intense.  Luckily my HRM seperates my zones so I know I worked out at light intensity for x # of min and hard at X so I can plug in seperate levels for those minutes and usually be pretty darn close.

#9  
Quote  |  Reply

I agree with the posts that you need a heart rate monitor to most accurately count calories burned.  I used to have a Timex and it was way high for me, it asks what your weight, age, and gender are, but it does not know how fit you are.  The Polar HRM's that have the fit test do.  I have since bought a Polar Running Computer which does have the fit test (you have to lay completely still for a period of time while wearing the chest strap and watch to measure your fitness level).  I have found the machines at the gym always overestimate how many calories I burn.  I burn less with my improved fitness and lower weight.  If you truly want what I think is an accurate calorie burn a Polar HRM is worth the money, not all Polars have the fit test though so look for that feature.

#10  
Quote  |  Reply

I cheked that website someone posted and put in my weight and distance run and it was only a 2 calorie difference from what my treadmill said...so I guess that's a good thing!

CC takes all your current stats into account - that's why you enter your age, height, and weight when setting up your account, and it's why the calories burned changes as your weight changes.

  Whoever told you that CC runs off "calories used for a generic adult" is mistaken.

 A  heart rate monitor with a chest strap will give you a more accurate reading, but as long as you self-asses your level of exertion correctly CC will give you a reasonably accurate guess. Certainly a better one than the ones on badly calibrated gym equipment that will typically over-estimate your burn by 20-35%.
Original Post by kristinedaqueen:

I have a friend that has a Timex one and she said it doesn't work at all. Mine is the Polar f6 model with the chest strap. I skeptical to buy it but I read many rave reviews about it so I thought it was the best one.

A doc once told a Friend that if your HRM does not have a strap over your chest its not worth squat.

 

Ah, but the one I have does have the strap to go around the chest.  And I think it reports my heart rate properly, it just overestimates my burned calories.
#13  
Quote  |  Reply

Melkor, I agree with your post that as long as you accurately asses your exertion level the numbers from CC and a heart rate monitor will be pretty close.  That, for me, is the beauty of wearing my heart rate monitor, no guessing!  I think people in general tend to over-estimate exercise and under-estimate food intake.  If I could wear something that would count calories for me instead of logging in a food log I would do that too!!

13 Replies
Advertisement
Advertisement
Allergy Remedies
Is It Possible to Go Natural?
The side effects of allergy medications keep some people from using them. Natural remedies can be a great alternative, but some are more effective than others.