Elliptical Stats vs. MyFitnessPal Stats

mynewlife10

So, the elliptical told me yesterday that I had burned 560 calories during the one hour I was on it (I did not enter my weight) so perhaps it gave me an "average." When I entered the same information in to the MyFitnessPal exercise tracker, it told me I had burned right around 800 calories. Is that because MyFitnessPal knows my weight and calculates it differently based on that? It is my understanding that the more you weigh the more you burn during cardio.

Does anyone have a thought on this? I am trying to gauge the accuracy of my daily calorie burn.

Vanlind

Does your elliptical machine calculate your weight as well. I have the Sole elliptical that has my weight pre-programmed so it's "fairly" accurate. The calories are always way off on MFP for me. I recently purchased a Polar heart rate monitor watch that I love love love because it tracks your heartrate and calories burned during your workout which is more accurate than the elliptical machine. I noticed that my elliptical machine in comparison to my watch is a close match depending on the workout setting I use but have noticed that if I use the manual mode it is waaaay off. My advice would be to get yourself a heart rate monitor and track your workout calories that way for the most accurate results.

mynewlife10

I do not input my weight to the elliptical but perhaps I should do that tonight and see what happens. That way I will know the comparison. The machine monitors my heart rate, so I am good in that department. My heart condition had my heart rate at 140-180 at all times and I had surgery for this. Now, my heart rate is at around 80 during rest and at 140 maximum during exercise. The calories I really want to keep an eye on.

howardheilweil

Neither are particularly accurate, but since MFP has no idea how intense your workout was, I would guess that the elliptical machine might be closer. I find that when I wear my HRM, it is virtually always lower then the machine and the MFP number. Good luck!

heatherlas

I wouldn't trust the MyFitnessPal Stats at all. I got a HRM a few weeks ago and I was shocked on how little calories I burned, especially in comparison to MFP. I have never tracked my calories with an elliptical or treadmill so I don't have any advice on that. They don't "average" the calories, they have a default weight already entered. Is this a machine that relies only on you holding the handles all the time to get the heart rate, or do you use a chest band with it? I would only really trust something with a chest band to tell me how many calories I burned.

heybales

Sadly the studies really testing your calorie burn on ellipticals, have been bad at getting any formula for the makers to use, unlike treadmill or cycle ergometer that is most tested.

There are too many variables on ellipticals, resistance, slope or grade, size of circle or range of movement, ect, plus great variety in your personal efficiency and method of doing it.

Without asking for weight, it's likely going for how many watts the machine had to supply to withstand your work effort.
That actually can be very accurate, as watts is energy measurement, just like calories.
1 watt/hr is 0.859845228 calories. So 300 watts in an hr would be 258 calories.

So see if the display shows watts, if they use it they usually show it, in which case the calorie estimate is potentially really good.

This is a case where doing it by weight, with formula's that have no validity in studies, could be way off. MFP could be very off too.

marisbowen

This happend to me Saturday. But I put in my weight and it said 401, when I put it into MFP - 700! Since I knew the intense level I worked the machine, MFP had to be wrong. So I adjusted the time to match more of what the elliptical told me.

gsager

Yes, that is the reason

ruthrowlett1

I wouldn't trust the MyFitnessPal Stats at all. I got a HRM a few weeks ago and I was shocked on how little calories I burned, especially in comparison to MFP. I have never tracked my calories with an elliptical or treadmill so I don't have any advice on that. They don't "average" the calories, they have a default weight already entered. Is this a machine that relies only on you holding the handles all the time to get the heart rate, or do you use a chest band with it? I would only really trust something with a chest band to tell me how many calories I burned.

I too was SO shocked! Actually depressed to find out I wasn't burning that many calories!! Our machines are approx 40% higher compared to my HRM!

Holly_Roman_Empire

Neither way is very accurate, but I'd be conservative and go with the smaller number.

tinana_RN

I agree with hollydubs.

Get a heart rate monitor as soon as you can- the difference in numbers is crazy.

WeepingAngel81

I wouldn't trust the MyFitnessPal Stats at all. I got a HRM a few weeks ago and I was shocked on how little calories I burned, especially in comparison to MFP. I have never tracked my calories with an elliptical or treadmill so I don't have any advice on that. They don't "average" the calories, they have a default weight already entered. Is this a machine that relies only on you holding the handles all the time to get the heart rate, or do you use a chest band with it? I would only really trust something with a chest band to tell me how many calories I burned.

I too was SO shocked! Actually depressed to find out I wasn't burning that many calories!! Our machines are approx 40% higher compared to my HRM!

I will join that shocked club! I was very bummed out when I saw the difference between what my HRM read compared to MFP. At the same time, I was happy to have something that would be more consistant for what I was losing.
OP-as many people have said, go with a HRM. Mine isn't the most expensive one out there (I got it from Target) but my best friend has a fitbit and her numbers are generally very close to mine.

UsaJewels05

MFP always greatly over estimates my calorie burn. With that being said the elliptical normally underestimates my Calorie burn anywhere from 20-40 cals. I have a HRM and with my height and weight I normally burn avg 30 more calories then what the elliptical actually says but this is based on the time of day (I burn more calories in the morning), and the level that I have the machine set on. It really all depends on your stats, but better to underestimate so I would go with the elliptical.

PJ64

HRM, is all I use. Never trust a Machine! Have you NEVER seen TERMINATOR?...................oh wait an HRM is a machine
anyway...........HRM............it's a Bettererest Machine:bigsmile:

scrapjen

My elliptical DOES allow me to enter my weight, and of course it can determine the speed and resistance level. I also have a HRM and a Fitbit. For my average 20min/2mile workout (resistance level 8)

Machine - 200 calories
Fitbit - 175 calories
HRM - 140 calories

Not a HUGE difference, until to take into account that I do five 20 minute sessions throughout the day (then it's a 300 difference between the highest and the lowest). I think I checked MFP once, and it was also on the higher end. As others have suggested through, probably best to assume the lowest and underestimate calories burned.

My bike gives me an even larger discrepancy! I did a post on my blog about it ...
http://jenbsjourney.blogspot.com/2013/10/exercise-estimates-trying-to-be-truthful.html

MinnieInMaine

560 is probably about right, it still might be a bit overestimated but I would guess only by 150 at most. One trick I noticed, at least with the ellipticals in my gym (Precor) is that you can do the same math trick that generally works for walking where 1 mile = 100 calories (so if you go 2.5 miles, that's 250 calories). Check your elliptical next time to see if it shows distance and see how that compares to what it gives you for calorie burn.

FYI, this is in comparison to what my Polar FT4 HRM gives me for calorie burns.

Melissa22G

I always used whichever was lower before I purchased a HRM.

DesDawn24

In your case, I would trust the elliptical more than the MFP stats. I find MFP always burns high compared to what my HRM says. If you enter your weight into the elliptical it will probably give you more accurate results. I've noticed on my elliptical (which has sensors in the handles) that it's usually only a 40-60 calorie difference between HRM and the machine.

csheltra26

Most machines are set up for 150 pound person - so yes if you weigh more than that you typcially burn more calories. The method I found most reliable is the HRM. If you are going to go off the elliptical numbers, I would recommend you input your weight for a more accurate reading.

bugaha1

My HRM and MFP are pretty close to the same number (650 to 700 an hour) but my elliptical (NordicTrack 990) has a much higher calorie burn (40% higher) plus the elliptical can read my HR. Now I wonder if my elliptical still thinks I weigh 270? lol

rtouchstone

Use a Heart Rate Monitor to get a better calorie burn rate.

suziepoo1984

Neither, atleast for me. Both of them over estimate, i usually go by what my HRM says.

disasterman

A few weeks ago I had the following results from a 45 minute elliptical workout:

Elliptical 1082
MFP 580
HRM 311

.

bugaha1

What I’ve learned from my HRM is that the healthier I get the harder or longer I have to workout to burn the same amount of calories I did a few months ago.

bugaha1

A few weeks ago I had the following results from a 45 minute elliptical workout:

Elliptical 1082
MFP 580
HRM 311

.

45 min and only 311, I think you need to up the resistance a wee bit

disasterman

45 min and only 311, I think you need to up the resistance a wee bit

Probably. But it takes a lot to get my HR going. Resting is about 40 so I guess I'm very adapted.

ETA - I should say "possibly". >400 calories/hour burn isn't too bad for someone in excellent condition.

ellybeann

Per a friend that is an exercise equipment maintenace guy.... most cardio machines are pre set at a 150lb man, so always enter your weight and age. It wont be spot on but closer. I too use a polar heart rate chest strap with watch and wow was I surpirised at the difference. In some cases I was shorting myself and in some not so much.... Good Luck!!

nikkylyn

How does MFP know how intense you worked out.... Your calorie burn is gonna diff if your going slow reading a book or if you are really cranking it out and sweating.

I enter my weight on the eliptical my calorie burns from the machine always show at least 100 less than what MFP estimates. This is me going pretty moderate to intense at times. Since then I dont trust MFP estimates because intensity can vary and throw calorie counts way off.

Heart rate monitor?? I want one also but no $$ LOL. So for now I always enter my weight on the machines I figure that is closer than what MFP states.

bugaha1

Probably. But it takes a lot to get my HR going. Resting is about 40 so I guess I'm very adapted.

I follow you I just started up on my elliptical again after 4 months off because of summer running and biking. I found out I’m way more elliptical fit than I was four months.

perfectflightisbeingthere

I wouldn't trust the MyFitnessPal Stats at all. I got a HRM a few weeks ago and I was shocked on how little calories I burned, especially in comparison to MFP. I have never tracked my calories with an elliptical or treadmill so I don't have any advice on that. They don't "average" the calories, they have a default weight already entered. Is this a machine that relies only on you holding the handles all the time to get the heart rate, or do you use a chest band with it? I would only really trust something with a chest band to tell me how many calories I burned.

I would agree - I use a Polar HRM and it gives consistently lower calories than elipticals or other machines and the MFP or similar calculations, normally by around 20% but sometimes much more (although on static exercise bikes it always reads higher). To be fair though, HRMs are not necessarily entirely accurate either, they too have to estimate calories using formulae based on weight etc and including heart rate as a measure of exertion levels. The only proper way to measure calories burned is in a laboratory using indirect calorimetry, but obviously in the real world we have to use a best guess - and with a HRM there is more reliable data going into the estimate. I would tend to take the lowest of all the calorie used estimates to be on the safe side, especially if intending to consume the calories burned!

Don't get me started on how difficult it is to accurately measure calories consumed in any given meal either, but the key for me is to record everything I eat and all my exercise and hope the overs and unders in the various estimates average out over time...

disasterman

Probably. But it takes a lot to get my HR going. Resting is about 40 so I guess I'm very adapted.

I follow you I just started up on my elliptical again after 4 months off because of summer running and biking. I found out I’m way more elliptical fit than I was four months.

I run too and I think the elliptical is easier even on the higher resistance settings. What I focus on, and others have mentioned this I think, is getting consistent results. All of those numbers are just estimates and I don't really know or care which one is "right" I only care about getting the results I expect which I do when I use the lower calorie burn numbers.