Validity of Machines

Hi, my name is Sascha. I'm new to this site. So I I've been a runner for several years now. I've run many half and full marathons. However, after my last marathon in October, I had incredible pain in my left foot every time I ran, so I haven't been running as much. Also, I have completely gotten out of shape over the last year and a half. I'd say I've probably gained about 20-25 pounds. I seriously cannot stand being overweight (I currently weigh 188 and am 5' 11''), so I've gone back to the elliptical to try and lose weight. I've been doing elliptical for several weeks now. I use the manual option and put in my weight and age, but I'm still not sure how much I can trust the machine when it comes to calories. Every time I use the elliptical, I set it to 5 incline and 20 resistance (max for this elliptical). I usually do an hour and five minutes, in which I average 10 miles and 1400 calories, at least according to the machine. I was always of the mindset that the reason elliptical burns so many calories is because of the foot and arm motion, so I almost never take my hands off the handles except to check heart rate maybe once or twice in the 95 minute workout. I'm just wondering if anyone else has any thoughts in regards to the validity of the elliptical when it comes to calorie count. By the way, the elliptical I use is a PRECOR AMT.
«1

Replies

  • Muscleflex79
    Muscleflex79 Posts: 1,917 Member
    I don't think 1400 calories is accurate. Especially not for an hour workout.

    this! very, very unlikely you are burning 1400 calories per hour on an elliptical!
  • mitch16
    mitch16 Posts: 2,113 Member
    I would probably halve that, if you're eating back exercise calories. Do you have a heart rate monitor? That would probably give a slightly better estimate.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    edited November 2017
    Ellipticals are notorious for inflated calorie readings. It’s because the motion is unique to each machine and companies are unwilling to do the research needed to develop reliable, machine-specific algorithms. The varied nature of the AMT, makes this problem even worse. Based on your weight and the avg person’s fitness level, your calorie burn is more likely in the 700-750 per hour range.

    PS: Using arms will not by itself increase the calorie burn—only if adding arms allows you to maintain a higher workload. The AMT works best as an arm/leg movement, so you are doing the right thing—just not for the reasons you think.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,379 Member
    saschakhan wrote: »
    Hi, my name is Sascha. I'm new to this site. So I I've been a runner for several years now. I've run many half and full marathons. However, after my last marathon in October, I had incredible pain in my left foot every time I ran, so I haven't been running as much. Also, I have completely gotten out of shape over the last year and a half. I'd say I've probably gained about 20-25 pounds. I seriously cannot stand being overweight (I currently weigh 188 and am 5' 11''), so I've gone back to the elliptical to try and lose weight. I've been doing elliptical for several weeks now. I use the manual option and put in my weight and age, but I'm still not sure how much I can trust the machine when it comes to calories. Every time I use the elliptical, I set it to 5 incline and 20 resistance (max for this elliptical). I usually do an hour and five minutes, in which I average 10 miles and 1400 calories, at least according to the machine. I was always of the mindset that the reason elliptical burns so many calories is because of the foot and arm motion, so I almost never take my hands off the handles except to check heart rate maybe once or twice in the 95 minute workout. I'm just wondering if anyone else has any thoughts in regards to the validity of the elliptical when it comes to calorie count. By the way, the elliptical I use is a PRECOR AMT.

    More than anything, it depends on your fitness level as to whether the machine is close or not on the calorie burn estimation. Being you are obviously a trained runner quite possible that it's close.

    Most Precor machines do not measure true miles, but a "mile equivalent" based on stride length and resistance. With the AMT, it would also have to factor the vertical axis so possibly a more complicated system. But at any rate, they measure approximate energy required to run a mile on flat ground and call it a mile for distance. But they use a system that can be very accurate.

    If in fact you are that fast of a runner that you can run 10 mph for an hour, the calorie estimate of the machine is close to accepted formulas for your weight and speed. (Side note: If you are that quick, GO YOU!) I've never hit that number on the elliptical, but I've never been a really fast runner either.


    I have a few studies done for the Navy that test elliptical machines for possible use in physical testing, and I think at least one of them includes one or more of the AMT machines. I can't remember which one, but one test actually included testing machine calories vs a metabolic cart. Despite frequent claims that machines usually over estimate, I think more of the machines actually under estimated calorie expenditure. When I get a chance I'll find the links, but first I have to find the PDF so I can search for a link. :)
  • jesspen91
    jesspen91 Posts: 1,383 Member
    Also make sure that you enter your age and weight into the machine as this will affect your calorie burn.
  • fuzzylop72
    fuzzylop72 Posts: 651 Member
    edited November 2017
    I think 0.072 * bodyweight (in lbs) is the calories per minute rate (2.16 per 30m) per the harvard estimates is reasonable to start off with (although, perhaps that's inflated too).
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    1400 per hour is a bit generous. Even running 10 miles would only net you something on order of 1100 or so at your weight.

    I'm similar to your weight and my burn for an hour on the elliptical is a little north of 500. With your added resistance and speed, I'd wager that something closer to 600-700 is more in the ballpark for your workout.
  • andrea4736
    andrea4736 Posts: 211 Member
    It's funny because I hear of so many machines being way off. It definitely depends on the machine. While I was just on vacation, I used the elliptical at the hotel. I wore my regular HRM but inputted my info into the machine. They were only like 10 cals different.
  • saschakhan
    saschakhan Posts: 4 Member
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    1400 per hour is a bit generous. Even running 10 miles would only net you something on order of 1100 or so at your weight.

    I'm similar to your weight and my burn for an hour on the elliptical is a little north of 500. With your added resistance and speed, I'd wager that something closer to 600-700 is more in the ballpark for your workout.

    To your point about running, that's what I was talking about in regards to elliptical. I would think that because of the constant arm motion on the elliptical, that the elliptical should burn more than just running. So does your elliptical actually say 500 or are you measuring this in some other way?
  • saschakhan
    saschakhan Posts: 4 Member
    jesspen91 wrote: »
    Also make sure that you enter your age and weight into the machine as this will affect your calorie burn.

    I do put in my age and weight into the machine. I asked the fitness instructor at the YMCA that I go to, and she said this should give me a more accurate assessment. After putting in my info., it's reading about an extra 100 calories burned per hour. From around 1300 to 1400+.
  • saschakhan
    saschakhan Posts: 4 Member
    Azdak wrote: »
    Ellipticals are notorious for inflated calorie readings. It’s because the motion is unique to each machine and companies are unwilling to do the research needed to develop reliable, machine-specific algorithms. The varied nature of the AMT, makes this problem even worse. Based on your weight and the avg person’s fitness level, your calorie burn is more likely in the 700-750 per hour range.

    PS: Using arms will not by itself increase the calorie burn—only if adding arms allows you to maintain a higher workload. The AMT works best as an arm/leg movement, so you are doing the right thing—just not for the reasons you think.

    I have read the same thing on the internet about ellipticals. That's a main reason I am concerned. However, it's hard for me to fathom that I'm only burning half of what the machine is tracking, even after putting in my weight and age. One reason I might have to think that the machine is somewhat accurate is because I've noticed I burn significantly more calories than other individuals who do the elliptical on less incline and resistance. But again, 1400 is a huge number. Also, I guess I'm not really understanding your point about arms. So are you saying that it is likely that I will burn the same calories even if I keep my hands on the handles that are stuck in position?
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    saschakhan wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Ellipticals are notorious for inflated calorie readings. It’s because the motion is unique to each machine and companies are unwilling to do the research needed to develop reliable, machine-specific algorithms. The varied nature of the AMT, makes this problem even worse. Based on your weight and the avg person’s fitness level, your calorie burn is more likely in the 700-750 per hour range.

    PS: Using arms will not by itself increase the calorie burn—only if adding arms allows you to maintain a higher workload. The AMT works best as an arm/leg movement, so you are doing the right thing—just not for the reasons you think.

    I have read the same thing on the internet about ellipticals. That's a main reason I am concerned. However, it's hard for me to fathom that I'm only burning half of what the machine is tracking, even after putting in my weight and age. One reason I might have to think that the machine is somewhat accurate is because I've noticed I burn significantly more calories than other individuals who do the elliptical on less incline and resistance. But again, 1400 is a huge number. Also, I guess I'm not really understanding your point about arms. So are you saying that it is likely that I will burn the same calories even if I keep my hands on the handles that are stuck in position?

    Calories burned during exercise is based on: body weight and the workload being performed.

    Let’s say you work on the AMT legs only and we measured your power output at 200 watts.
    If you then did the AMT with arms and legs, but did the same power of 200 watts, your calorie burn would be the same as doing 200 watts with legs only.

    It’s the 200 watts that determines calorie burn, not whether the effort was expended using arms only or arms and legs.

    Now it might *feel* different. Trying to do 200 watts with legs only might feel harder because the work is being done by a smaller amount of muscle, but it wouldn’t change the calories.

    If adding arms and legs allowed you to push harder and do 250 watts, then you would burn more calories. Again, not because you added arms, but because you did a higher workload (more watts).

    To your other point: you could very well be working harder than the others—that means you are burning more calories than they are, but it doesn’t validate the accuracy of the machine count—their readings will be as inaccurate as yours.

    The main reason I say your calorie burn is grossly overestimated is that, at your weight, you would have to run a sustained speed of at least 9 mph (6:40 mile) to burn 1400 calories in an hour. Not many average exercisers can do that, and even fewer can do that on an AMT. I would wager that, given the random movement of the AMT, it is almost unthinkable that anyone could sustain that level of effort (unless it was a very fit 300 pounder).
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,329 Member
    fuzzylop72 wrote: »
    I think 0.072 * bodyweight (in lbs) is the calories per minute rate (2.16 per 30m) per the harvard estimates is reasonable to start off with (although, perhaps that's inflated too).

    For running, the generally accepted amount is 0.63*weight in lbs * distance in miles. An eliptical burns less as one does not jump against gravity. The feet stay on the ground the whole time. However, it's the question how you calculate distance anyway on such a thing. I would probably use the running equation and use a fraction of it.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    fuzzylop72 wrote: »
    I think 0.072 * bodyweight (in lbs) is the calories per minute rate (2.16 per 30m) per the harvard estimates is reasonable to start off with (although, perhaps that's inflated too).

    For running, the generally accepted amount is 0.63*weight in lbs * distance in miles. An eliptical burns less as one does not jump against gravity. The feet stay on the ground the whole time. However, it's the question how you calculate distance anyway on such a thing. I would probably use the running equation and use a fraction of it.

    Generally, the elliptical burns less, but It certainly can burn more if you up the intensity and speed.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,329 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    fuzzylop72 wrote: »
    I think 0.072 * bodyweight (in lbs) is the calories per minute rate (2.16 per 30m) per the harvard estimates is reasonable to start off with (although, perhaps that's inflated too).

    For running, the generally accepted amount is 0.63*weight in lbs * distance in miles. An eliptical burns less as one does not jump against gravity. The feet stay on the ground the whole time. However, it's the question how you calculate distance anyway on such a thing. I would probably use the running equation and use a fraction of it.

    Generally, the elliptical burns less, but It certainly can burn more if you up the intensity and speed.

    True, but it's difficult to quantify as they generally don't provide data in wats.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    fuzzylop72 wrote: »
    I think 0.072 * bodyweight (in lbs) is the calories per minute rate (2.16 per 30m) per the harvard estimates is reasonable to start off with (although, perhaps that's inflated too).

    For running, the generally accepted amount is 0.63*weight in lbs * distance in miles. An eliptical burns less as one does not jump against gravity. The feet stay on the ground the whole time. However, it's the question how you calculate distance anyway on such a thing. I would probably use the running equation and use a fraction of it.

    Generally, the elliptical burns less, but It certainly can burn more if you up the intensity and speed.

    True, but it's difficult to quantify as they generally don't provide data in wats.

    Indeed. And Most people aren't putting in the effort to get the running through knee deep water sensation.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,379 Member
    edited November 2017
    Here is a chart from actual comparison of a few machines vs a metabolic cart. One of the Precor AMT machines is used, and is noted in the full text as a having the lowest data spread.

    roen9uci2zm0.jpg

    The full text of the study that is the source of the above is at....

    dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA590107


    Without data, taking a guess at what any given machine is doing is just that... a guess. Being that we can't possibly know how hard any given user is working, figuring out the accuracy if the calorie burns reported is still just a guess. Thankfully there are studies for some machines that help narrow things down.

  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,393 Member
    dns error :disappointed: