Validity of Machines
Options
Replies
-
robertw486 wrote: »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.
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.
Thanks for the posting. From what I read (just skimming), the study was looking at consistency as much as absolute accuracy. In other words, even if the machine was inaccurate, it was consistent, so that you could add a correction factor to the machine display.
If I am reading it correctly, the graph also suggests that, at higher intensities, the AMT overestimated calorie burn by over 60%, which is consisted with my estimates.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »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.
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.
Thanks for the posting. From what I read (just skimming), the study was looking at consistency as much as absolute accuracy. In other words, even if the machine was inaccurate, it was consistent, so that you could add a correction factor to the machine display.
If I am reading it correctly, the graph also suggests that, at higher intensities, the AMT overestimated calorie burn by over 60%, which is consisted with my estimates.
Consistency was the primary concern, so they could simply employ an offset to the machines. There are actually several other studies as they worked on implementing this project for testing purposes.
I'm not seeing the large error rate, as the AMT machine had a very low data spread and actually under reported calorie burn as the test progressed. I'm not quite sure how they are getting the lower end error in many machines, since they will always start at the zero count. I'm wondering if they somehow were moving the machines as they set the user weights and such.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »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.
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.
Thanks for the posting. From what I read (just skimming), the study was looking at consistency as much as absolute accuracy. In other words, even if the machine was inaccurate, it was consistent, so that you could add a correction factor to the machine display.
If I am reading it correctly, the graph also suggests that, at higher intensities, the AMT overestimated calorie burn by over 60%, which is consisted with my estimates.
Consistency was the primary concern, so they could simply employ an offset to the machines. There are actually several other studies as they worked on implementing this project for testing purposes.
I'm not seeing the large error rate, as the AMT machine had a very low data spread and actually under reported calorie burn as the test progressed. I'm not quite sure how they are getting the lower end error in many machines, since they will always start at the zero count. I'm wondering if they somehow were moving the machines as they set the user weights and such.
I am just reading the graph which shows that, when the machine indicated approx 157 calories burned, the measured burn was less than 100. Unless I am completely misreading it.
FWIW, my interpretation is a much better “fit” to the OPs reported numbers. I can say with a 95% “confidence interval” that a 180 pound man did not burn 1400 calories in a little over 60 min.
0 -
The other thing to note is that most of the calorie estimates are based on data from athletes giving consistent and constant effort, something non-athletes tend not to do.
Notably, military personnel tend to be pretty fit and so their data is probably a poor estimate for us normal folks too. I take the calories reported by machines to be advisories on my relative level of effort.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »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.
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.
Thanks for the posting. From what I read (just skimming), the study was looking at consistency as much as absolute accuracy. In other words, even if the machine was inaccurate, it was consistent, so that you could add a correction factor to the machine display.
If I am reading it correctly, the graph also suggests that, at higher intensities, the AMT overestimated calorie burn by over 60%, which is consisted with my estimates.
Consistency was the primary concern, so they could simply employ an offset to the machines. There are actually several other studies as they worked on implementing this project for testing purposes.
I'm not seeing the large error rate, as the AMT machine had a very low data spread and actually under reported calorie burn as the test progressed. I'm not quite sure how they are getting the lower end error in many machines, since they will always start at the zero count. I'm wondering if they somehow were moving the machines as they set the user weights and such.
I am just reading the graph which shows that, when the machine indicated approx 157 calories burned, the measured burn was less than 100. Unless I am completely misreading it.
FWIW, my interpretation is a much better “fit” to the OPs reported numbers. I can say with a 95% “confidence interval” that a 180 pound man did not burn 1400 calories in a little over 60 min.
I think you're making the same error as I did at first. The line you are looking at is the Star Trac TBT machine. The line for the AMT is the shorter one that intersects the red line at the high end of the calorie burn. The length of the line indicates the data spread, so the two Precor machines noted in the text are the ones closer to the line of identity. The AMT machine under estimated the calorie burn.
As for the comment on the OP's calorie burn, I can't guess with any confidence interval to know how hard they are working. In my original comment I stated a 10 MPH hour, being less generous than your statement of at least 9 MPH. Being that gross calorie burn is being used, it would no doubt be a quick distance runner. But when someone states multiple long distance runs I would be more inclined to think that they may be fairly quick as well.The other thing to note is that most of the calorie estimates are based on data from athletes giving consistent and constant effort, something non-athletes tend not to do.
Notably, military personnel tend to be pretty fit and so their data is probably a poor estimate for us normal folks too. I take the calories reported by machines to be advisories on my relative level of effort.
I'm not sure about other machines, but our Precor slows quickly at anything other than very light resistance. The data screens show any pace changes very quickly, so even attempting a constant pace shows power changes.
As for the calorie reports, I take them with a grain of salt in most cases. But when quite a few brands have testing such as the above, I note the error rates and factor that in as well. I still personally think one of the bigger problems probably lies in the fact that they estimate gross calories, rather than just report net energy use.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »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.
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.
Thanks for the posting. From what I read (just skimming), the study was looking at consistency as much as absolute accuracy. In other words, even if the machine was inaccurate, it was consistent, so that you could add a correction factor to the machine display.
If I am reading it correctly, the graph also suggests that, at higher intensities, the AMT overestimated calorie burn by over 60%, which is consisted with my estimates.
Consistency was the primary concern, so they could simply employ an offset to the machines. There are actually several other studies as they worked on implementing this project for testing purposes.
I'm not seeing the large error rate, as the AMT machine had a very low data spread and actually under reported calorie burn as the test progressed. I'm not quite sure how they are getting the lower end error in many machines, since they will always start at the zero count. I'm wondering if they somehow were moving the machines as they set the user weights and such.
I am just reading the graph which shows that, when the machine indicated approx 157 calories burned, the measured burn was less than 100. Unless I am completely misreading it.
FWIW, my interpretation is a much better “fit” to the OPs reported numbers. I can say with a 95% “confidence interval” that a 180 pound man did not burn 1400 calories in a little over 60 min.
I think you're making the same error as I did at first. The line you are looking at is the Star Trac TBT machine. The line for the AMT is the shorter one that intersects the red line at the high end of the calorie burn. The length of the line indicates the data spread, so the two Precor machines noted in the text are the ones closer to the line of identity. The AMT machine under estimated the calorie burn.
As for the comment on the OP's calorie burn, I can't guess with any confidence interval to know how hard they are working. In my original comment I stated a 10 MPH hour, being less generous than your statement of at least 9 MPH. Being that gross calorie burn is being used, it would no doubt be a quick distance runner. But when someone states multiple long distance runs I would be more inclined to think that they may be fairly quick as well.The other thing to note is that most of the calorie estimates are based on data from athletes giving consistent and constant effort, something non-athletes tend not to do.
Notably, military personnel tend to be pretty fit and so their data is probably a poor estimate for us normal folks too. I take the calories reported by machines to be advisories on my relative level of effort.
I'm not sure about other machines, but our Precor slows quickly at anything other than very light resistance. The data screens show any pace changes very quickly, so even attempting a constant pace shows power changes.
As for the calorie reports, I take them with a grain of salt in most cases. But when quite a few brands have testing such as the above, I note the error rates and factor that in as well. I still personally think one of the bigger problems probably lies in the fact that they estimate gross calories, rather than just report net energy use.
OK, I see the mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm still not buying the OPs numbers, but that's just one data point. I may have to ask some other people to give me their calorie numbers. We have one AMT and very few people use it, so I don't have a lot of local, anecdotal data to consider, but now I am curious.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »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.
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.
Thanks for the posting. From what I read (just skimming), the study was looking at consistency as much as absolute accuracy. In other words, even if the machine was inaccurate, it was consistent, so that you could add a correction factor to the machine display.
If I am reading it correctly, the graph also suggests that, at higher intensities, the AMT overestimated calorie burn by over 60%, which is consisted with my estimates.
Consistency was the primary concern, so they could simply employ an offset to the machines. There are actually several other studies as they worked on implementing this project for testing purposes.
I'm not seeing the large error rate, as the AMT machine had a very low data spread and actually under reported calorie burn as the test progressed. I'm not quite sure how they are getting the lower end error in many machines, since they will always start at the zero count. I'm wondering if they somehow were moving the machines as they set the user weights and such.
I am just reading the graph which shows that, when the machine indicated approx 157 calories burned, the measured burn was less than 100. Unless I am completely misreading it.
FWIW, my interpretation is a much better “fit” to the OPs reported numbers. I can say with a 95% “confidence interval” that a 180 pound man did not burn 1400 calories in a little over 60 min.
I think you're making the same error as I did at first. The line you are looking at is the Star Trac TBT machine. The line for the AMT is the shorter one that intersects the red line at the high end of the calorie burn. The length of the line indicates the data spread, so the two Precor machines noted in the text are the ones closer to the line of identity. The AMT machine under estimated the calorie burn.
As for the comment on the OP's calorie burn, I can't guess with any confidence interval to know how hard they are working. In my original comment I stated a 10 MPH hour, being less generous than your statement of at least 9 MPH. Being that gross calorie burn is being used, it would no doubt be a quick distance runner. But when someone states multiple long distance runs I would be more inclined to think that they may be fairly quick as well.The other thing to note is that most of the calorie estimates are based on data from athletes giving consistent and constant effort, something non-athletes tend not to do.
Notably, military personnel tend to be pretty fit and so their data is probably a poor estimate for us normal folks too. I take the calories reported by machines to be advisories on my relative level of effort.
I'm not sure about other machines, but our Precor slows quickly at anything other than very light resistance. The data screens show any pace changes very quickly, so even attempting a constant pace shows power changes.
As for the calorie reports, I take them with a grain of salt in most cases. But when quite a few brands have testing such as the above, I note the error rates and factor that in as well. I still personally think one of the bigger problems probably lies in the fact that they estimate gross calories, rather than just report net energy use.
OK, I see the mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm still not buying the OPs numbers, but that's just one data point. I may have to ask some other people to give me their calorie numbers. We have one AMT and very few people use it, so I don't have a lot of local, anecdotal data to consider, but now I am curious.
Like I said, I couldn't tell which machine was which until I read the explanation of the line lengths and relationship to data spread. But I'd be interested to see what kinds of numbers the more fit people using the AMT at your place of work can output. Being the AMT has a unique motion, I'd think it might be more forgiving of different muscle use than many "normal" elliptical machines. And though I've never used any cardio devices with upper body input long term, I would think most people could up output at least some.
I've both talked to people personally and seen posts online indicating that many people manage a higher calorie burn on the AMT machines vs the elliptical. Since the stride length and height is instantly variable, to me this makes sense. But more than user input, the testing shows it measures power fairly accurately. I know some of the equipment manufacturers put more effort into testing and validation, and Precor has stated sources of this as far back as they sold elliptical machines. But they still openly state that calorie burns are estimates and not 100% accurate. But we know that nothing is 100%, and probably few devices short of a metabolic cart are even within 5% most of the time. I'd be happy with 10% myself.
Testing of fitness power meters shows a spread about as wide, which is no real surprise. Any decent elliptical will only measure as accurately as the power meter accuracy AND the inputs they use in their algorithms for BMR/age/sex equations. I really think they might be better off just showing net output, but the average user probably likes seeing gross, mile equivalents, etc.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.
I noticed the bolded after my initial posts. This could easily bring the calorie burn into the realm of the more average user.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »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.
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.
Thanks for the posting. From what I read (just skimming), the study was looking at consistency as much as absolute accuracy. In other words, even if the machine was inaccurate, it was consistent, so that you could add a correction factor to the machine display.
If I am reading it correctly, the graph also suggests that, at higher intensities, the AMT overestimated calorie burn by over 60%, which is consisted with my estimates.
Consistency was the primary concern, so they could simply employ an offset to the machines. There are actually several other studies as they worked on implementing this project for testing purposes.
I'm not seeing the large error rate, as the AMT machine had a very low data spread and actually under reported calorie burn as the test progressed. I'm not quite sure how they are getting the lower end error in many machines, since they will always start at the zero count. I'm wondering if they somehow were moving the machines as they set the user weights and such.
I am just reading the graph which shows that, when the machine indicated approx 157 calories burned, the measured burn was less than 100. Unless I am completely misreading it.
FWIW, my interpretation is a much better “fit” to the OPs reported numbers. I can say with a 95% “confidence interval” that a 180 pound man did not burn 1400 calories in a little over 60 min.
I think you're making the same error as I did at first. The line you are looking at is the Star Trac TBT machine. The line for the AMT is the shorter one that intersects the red line at the high end of the calorie burn. The length of the line indicates the data spread, so the two Precor machines noted in the text are the ones closer to the line of identity. The AMT machine under estimated the calorie burn.
As for the comment on the OP's calorie burn, I can't guess with any confidence interval to know how hard they are working. In my original comment I stated a 10 MPH hour, being less generous than your statement of at least 9 MPH. Being that gross calorie burn is being used, it would no doubt be a quick distance runner. But when someone states multiple long distance runs I would be more inclined to think that they may be fairly quick as well.The other thing to note is that most of the calorie estimates are based on data from athletes giving consistent and constant effort, something non-athletes tend not to do.
Notably, military personnel tend to be pretty fit and so their data is probably a poor estimate for us normal folks too. I take the calories reported by machines to be advisories on my relative level of effort.
I'm not sure about other machines, but our Precor slows quickly at anything other than very light resistance. The data screens show any pace changes very quickly, so even attempting a constant pace shows power changes.
As for the calorie reports, I take them with a grain of salt in most cases. But when quite a few brands have testing such as the above, I note the error rates and factor that in as well. I still personally think one of the bigger problems probably lies in the fact that they estimate gross calories, rather than just report net energy use.
OK, I see the mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm still not buying the OPs numbers, but that's just one data point. I may have to ask some other people to give me their calorie numbers. We have one AMT and very few people use it, so I don't have a lot of local, anecdotal data to consider, but now I am curious.
Like I said, I couldn't tell which machine was which until I read the explanation of the line lengths and relationship to data spread. But I'd be interested to see what kinds of numbers the more fit people using the AMT at your place of work can output. Being the AMT has a unique motion, I'd think it might be more forgiving of different muscle use than many "normal" elliptical machines. And though I've never used any cardio devices with upper body input long term, I would think most people could up output at least some.
I've both talked to people personally and seen posts online indicating that many people manage a higher calorie burn on the AMT machines vs the elliptical. Since the stride length and height is instantly variable, to me this makes sense. But more than user input, the testing shows it measures power fairly accurately. I know some of the equipment manufacturers put more effort into testing and validation, and Precor has stated sources of this as far back as they sold elliptical machines. But they still openly state that calorie burns are estimates and not 100% accurate. But we know that nothing is 100%, and probably few devices short of a metabolic cart are even within 5% most of the time. I'd be happy with 10% myself.
Testing of fitness power meters shows a spread about as wide, which is no real surprise. Any decent elliptical will only measure as accurately as the power meter accuracy AND the inputs they use in their algorithms for BMR/age/sex equations. I really think they might be better off just showing net output, but the average user probably likes seeing gross, mile equivalents, etc.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.
I noticed the bolded after my initial posts. This could easily bring the calorie burn into the realm of the more average user.
10 miles at max resistance is a big deal. 900-1000 is probably more likely, and yes. 65 vs 95 minutes certainly matters1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »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.
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.
Thanks for the posting. From what I read (just skimming), the study was looking at consistency as much as absolute accuracy. In other words, even if the machine was inaccurate, it was consistent, so that you could add a correction factor to the machine display.
If I am reading it correctly, the graph also suggests that, at higher intensities, the AMT overestimated calorie burn by over 60%, which is consisted with my estimates.
Consistency was the primary concern, so they could simply employ an offset to the machines. There are actually several other studies as they worked on implementing this project for testing purposes.
I'm not seeing the large error rate, as the AMT machine had a very low data spread and actually under reported calorie burn as the test progressed. I'm not quite sure how they are getting the lower end error in many machines, since they will always start at the zero count. I'm wondering if they somehow were moving the machines as they set the user weights and such.
I am just reading the graph which shows that, when the machine indicated approx 157 calories burned, the measured burn was less than 100. Unless I am completely misreading it.
FWIW, my interpretation is a much better “fit” to the OPs reported numbers. I can say with a 95% “confidence interval” that a 180 pound man did not burn 1400 calories in a little over 60 min.
I think you're making the same error as I did at first. The line you are looking at is the Star Trac TBT machine. The line for the AMT is the shorter one that intersects the red line at the high end of the calorie burn. The length of the line indicates the data spread, so the two Precor machines noted in the text are the ones closer to the line of identity. The AMT machine under estimated the calorie burn.
As for the comment on the OP's calorie burn, I can't guess with any confidence interval to know how hard they are working. In my original comment I stated a 10 MPH hour, being less generous than your statement of at least 9 MPH. Being that gross calorie burn is being used, it would no doubt be a quick distance runner. But when someone states multiple long distance runs I would be more inclined to think that they may be fairly quick as well.The other thing to note is that most of the calorie estimates are based on data from athletes giving consistent and constant effort, something non-athletes tend not to do.
Notably, military personnel tend to be pretty fit and so their data is probably a poor estimate for us normal folks too. I take the calories reported by machines to be advisories on my relative level of effort.
I'm not sure about other machines, but our Precor slows quickly at anything other than very light resistance. The data screens show any pace changes very quickly, so even attempting a constant pace shows power changes.
As for the calorie reports, I take them with a grain of salt in most cases. But when quite a few brands have testing such as the above, I note the error rates and factor that in as well. I still personally think one of the bigger problems probably lies in the fact that they estimate gross calories, rather than just report net energy use.
OK, I see the mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm still not buying the OPs numbers, but that's just one data point. I may have to ask some other people to give me their calorie numbers. We have one AMT and very few people use it, so I don't have a lot of local, anecdotal data to consider, but now I am curious.
Like I said, I couldn't tell which machine was which until I read the explanation of the line lengths and relationship to data spread. But I'd be interested to see what kinds of numbers the more fit people using the AMT at your place of work can output. Being the AMT has a unique motion, I'd think it might be more forgiving of different muscle use than many "normal" elliptical machines. And though I've never used any cardio devices with upper body input long term, I would think most people could up output at least some.
I've both talked to people personally and seen posts online indicating that many people manage a higher calorie burn on the AMT machines vs the elliptical. Since the stride length and height is instantly variable, to me this makes sense. But more than user input, the testing shows it measures power fairly accurately. I know some of the equipment manufacturers put more effort into testing and validation, and Precor has stated sources of this as far back as they sold elliptical machines. But they still openly state that calorie burns are estimates and not 100% accurate. But we know that nothing is 100%, and probably few devices short of a metabolic cart are even within 5% most of the time. I'd be happy with 10% myself.
Testing of fitness power meters shows a spread about as wide, which is no real surprise. Any decent elliptical will only measure as accurately as the power meter accuracy AND the inputs they use in their algorithms for BMR/age/sex equations. I really think they might be better off just showing net output, but the average user probably likes seeing gross, mile equivalents, etc.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.
I noticed the bolded after my initial posts. This could easily bring the calorie burn into the realm of the more average user.
10 miles at max resistance is a big deal. 900-1000 is probably more likely, and yes. 65 vs 95 minutes certainly matters
I didn't notice the time discrepancy at first, so I assumed others might have missed it as well. But in either case, being the cardio background the OP stated, I give benefit of the doubt. I've cracked 1000+ per hour on an elliptical, and I know plenty of people more fit than myself. As for "big deal", I see that as subjective. A big deal to a couch potato is a brisk walk, where as a big deal to a quick and accomplished endurance athlete could be at or well above OPs stated calorie burn.
As for the resistance level, keep in mind max resistance doesn't equal max power. It's still impacted by stride rate, vertical rate, and stride distance. The AMT uses a different generator than my machine, with a lower power max, so higher resistance setting wouldn't be as big of a factor.0 -
Why not address the foot pain so you can get back to running? See a sport’s doctor or PT.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions