Actual calories burned on the elliptical?
Options
Replies
-
Blueseraphchaos wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
Heart rate monitor, which is the best way to figure out calorie burn for steady-state cardio
Only under pretty specific conditions, which the OP doesn't meet.
For the OP, a typical consumer-grade HRM will significantly over-estimate burn, even for steady-state.
How do you know she doesn't meet certain conditions?
What is your "assessment" based on? [/quyote]
This has been covered in literally hundreds of threads, I'm not going to rehash.
I use a heart rate monitor and, as I said in my prior post, it has proven to be accurate enough based on my result of losing weight, and now maintaining.
Cool. Now all you have to do is demonstrate she's just like you, and you're done!
:drinker:
Nice try, Mr. Knight.
You didn't answer my question. Upon what do you base your assessment?
Yes, I did, numerous times.
Every time this comes up, you post the same unsubstantiated N=1 comments. Your "question" has been asked and answered MANY times - if you haven't figured it out by now, it's beyond my powers of explanation.
And I can live with that.
:drinker:
Nope. Because you don't actually know this person's situation, therefore you are (again) generalizing.
Back at ya. :drinker: :drinker:0 -
I always work out at the end of the day when I know I'm not going to eat anymore food so I never eat back any calories. So, whatever I burn whether it's more, less, or roughly the same as what the elliptical says, I don't eat any calories back. It would just be nice to have a fairly accurate idea of what I'm actually burning. But, I know I'm sweating, I know I'm pushing myself further each time, so I know I'm doing my body good.. at least better than what I used to do which was eat a huge meals and sit around on the couch.
Sorry, but sweating is not an indication of burning more calories. I'm running a few times per week. At the moment it's above 102F after sunset and it's tough to get to 5km. Still I'm sure I'm not burning more calories than when running at 80F.
This is true.0 -
Sweating by itself doesn't matter, no. But I've got (lost) 50 lbs that says you're not doing nothing if you challenge yourself every single time you go to the gym.0
-
Lol...OP.
First off, To me the elliptical is fairly accurate...I think. HR monitors are not perfect either. The machine says I burn about 500 to 600 for one hour. I am 5'5 and 168 pounds. Mfp gives me an even more generous number. My HRM gives me 520. So what gives? I think just to be on the safe side people don't like to log the whole amount because they eat back those calories. I log whatever the machine or MFP tells me because I do so much other walking during the day it end up even out in the end..or better. Also, I try not to eat back calories so who cares if it's off some.
I think 320 to 350 sounds about right but it could be more. Don't worry about it.0 -
I thought sweating is a good thing?
Means you got your heart rate up, no?
Dropping bombs on me
0 -
Can I just add to the confusion:
MFP and other tools of that nature do not record the resistance setting of the machine. I find myself wondering how much that contributes to the discrepancy. For example a low resistance setting is would presumably require less energy to operate for 40 minutes, than a higher resistance setting. The presumably the calories used should be adjusted accordingly.
When I was using a HRM I found that it gave me a calorie count somewhere between that of MFP and that of the machine.
I can only assume that it accounts for the variable of 'effort' or the efficency of my own body in performing the task (which neither MFP nor the machine do). It works out how hard I am pushing my own body (i.e. elevating heart rate - which will be influenced by fitness).
In short, riss56, it's not a silly question. Sadly, it seems that there are only silly answers, because there are so many factors to be considered in determining one person's rate of caloric consumption. There are a whole host of formula and calculations that will give you a "ball park" figure - none of which are perfect.
To give an accurate estimate of your caloric usage you can use expensive equipment under controlled conditions, alternatively you can just experiment with your diet. If you're comfortably able to do so, assume the average of your caloric burn (between the machine and MFP) and see how that affects your results over a few weeks - then adjust your caloric intake as required.
Importantly, have fun!0 -
angellll12 wrote: »I thought sweating is a good thing?
Means you got your heart rate up, no?
Dropping bombs on me
Technically no, it could just be because there's no air con and somebody's cardiovascular system isn't up to the task. However, if you combine it with feeling your muscles work - assuming you're adequately fuelled and not just tired - and speed, you can't go too far wrong if you go at it for 40+ minutes.0 -
Anaris2014 wrote: »Can I just add to the confusion:
MFP and other tools of that nature do not record the resistance setting of the machine. I find myself wondering how much that contributes to the discrepancy. For example a low resistance setting is would presumably require less energy to operate for 40 minutes, than a higher resistance setting. The presumably the calories used should be adjusted accordingly.
When I was using a HRM I found that it gave me a calorie count somewhere between that of MFP and that of the machine.
I can only assume that it accounts for the variable of 'effort' or the efficency of my own body in performing the task (which neither MFP nor the machine do). It works out how hard I am pushing my own body (i.e. elevating heart rate - which will be influenced by fitness).
In short, riss56, it's not a silly question. Sadly, it seems that there are only silly answers, because there are so many factors to be considered in determining one person's rate of caloric consumption. There are a whole host of formula and calculations that will give you a "ball park" figure - none of which are perfect.
To give an accurate estimate of your caloric usage you can use expensive equipment under controlled conditions, alternatively you can just experiment with your diet. If you're comfortably able to do so, assume the average of your caloric burn (between the machine and MFP) and see how that affects your results over a few weeks - then adjust your caloric intake as required.
Importantly, have fun!
For workload, most machines show METs as well as calories, if you push the button to see an alternate view. That captures resistance. The higher the number, the more intense.
http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/physical_activity_intensity/en/
I mean it really is all estimation when it comes down to it. All those machines are fiddly and unreliable anyway. That's why I keep saying, just work your butt off, and you will work your butt off.0 -
When I run for an hour at a 6 mph pace I sweat. When I walk 3.5 mph for an hour I don't even begin to breath heavy.0
-
Machines in general, can be very inaccurate. They are generalizations, and calculate based on averages. For example, the more fit you are, the less calories you will burn.
Ellipticals can be accurate enough if you:- Enter your weight/age accurately
- Use the handle bars
- Use the HRM on the machine
- If the elliptical calculates your wattage
The most accurate is likely putting in your correct weight and a machine that calculates your wattage.
As you get fitter, you will burn less calories at the same intensity, but you will be able to increase your intensity.0 -
Blueseraphchaos wrote: »5'4", 166 lbs here, my elliptical tells me i burn 225 calories in 10 minutes when it's actually about 60, depending on how hard I'm pushing it....lol. Pretty big disparity. I tend to log a couple minutes at most just so i know i was on it that day.
From what I've been noticing, my elliptical is telling me I'm burning about 100 calories every 11-12 minutes. So in approx. 35 minutes it says I burn (roughly) 300 calories. I don't know all the statistics behind calorie burning or what factors my height and weight play into it. But every website I go to for info says something totally different so that's why I posted on here for other MFP members input.
That burn doesn't sound that out to me
But as a word of advice work on pushing the resistance up and up ...that's where the benefit comes in
If it helps I'm 5'8, 160lbs and at a resistance of 17/25 and speeds between 6 and 9 km/hr I can burn 100 cals in around 14 minutes measured on my polar HRM
I would imagine you'd easily hit 300 so I would log that, eat them and judge your actual weight loss against target over the next 6-8 weeks
HTH0 -
I honestly just feel like I shouldn't have posted anything. I'm sorry that I'm not keen on the different factors of calorie burning and that I was unaware that elliptical machines are notorious for overestimating calories. I borderline feel attacked for asking a question and expressing my original opinion all because I was unware and obviously overzealous in what I thought in was burning. Thanks for all the feedback. I get it. Im probably only burning 100 calories per 40 minutes on the elliptical.
This makes me so sad, don't feel bad for asking a question...ever. That's how we learn, by asking sharing and commenting on what we know or has worked for us.
I personally wear a heart rate monitor (HRM) and fitness band from polar, Its the M400 model, I love it. I enter my activity level and then add any workouts beyond 10,000 steps per day and any gym workouts as added exercise. I choose to eat back my calories I've burned some days and some days not. Based on the calculations, I have been able to lose weight steadily. Fitness bands do more than just track, they motivate. Even if they aren't exactly dead on, they give a great estimate and push you to achieve personal bests, forcing you to do more than you otherwise would have.
If you're working out, good for you, you're doing yourself a great service. If you want to play with numbers, I do recommeded you try a band, they're fun a healthy way to reward your efforts.0 -
Here's an interesting story about the accuracy of exercise machines:
abcnews.go.com/Health/accuracy-exercise-machines/story?id=18559149
Once you account for the error in accuracy and remove the BMR, calories burned is near that 50% that people are using.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 984 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions