Accurate Calorie Counter?

by Anonymous

I have a running machine that has a calorie burned display, however, it does not let you enter weight, age, or monitor heart rate; so I assume they have some algorithm based on miles run. I also have a heart rate monitor that monitors continuous heart rate (chest strap) and does allow me to enter age and weight, but does not monitor miles run. The two monitors give considerably different numbers for calories burned (the running machine is high by about 15%): which should I believe?


My Answer

Well, these 2 have different functions - one is an exercise machine fed with calorie counting feature while the other is a heart rate monitor.

The machine type calorie counter offers mere estimates of calories burned during running because it does not take into account many crucial factors to calculate the calories burned.

The heart rate monitor? Well, it's main function is to monitor your heart rate when you run, so calorie counting is relegated to secondary importance, really.

In my opinion, both are not reliable. Trust me.

The best calorie counting you could rely on would be one that includes these 7 main factors concerning your:

1. Body type
2. Height
3. Weight
4. Age
5. Gender
6. Activity level
7. Duration of activity

I think these if taken into account, would offer a more accurate way of knowing the number of calories burned for a particular exercise.

And the amount of lean muscle mass decides too how many calories you burn during a particular exercise.

The more lean muscle mass you've in your body, the higher the number of calories burned as lean muscle mass is metabolically active, meaning it raises your basal metabolic rate (the number of calories burned even when you're at rest or going about doing your normal daily activities), so you have higher metabolism to burn off more calories.

Perhaps this page on calories and exercise could offer you additional insight into the subject.