Elliptical Stats vs. MyFitnessPal Stats

STrooper

Someone already posted the fact that many machines automatically default to 150 pounds.

As for the HRM, it depends upon both the make and model AND the program you use. Supposedly chest strap models are more accurate than finger or wrist type monitors and the handgrip monitors on many machines can be off by a considerable amount.

I'm not sure Polar tells you what formula they use to convert heart rate into equivalent calories burned in their own programs, but Endomondo and Digifit (with a compatile HRM) do and the basis for those conversions. (Note: older versions of Endomondo didn't really take the HRM data into account.

I have a Zephyr HRM (compatible with my bluetooth Andriod phone) and use Digifit iCardio as the basis of my workouts. Most important to me is the fact that it has some relatively sophisticated tests to calculate your heart rate zones, VO2 max, etc.which they use to calculate energy expenditure.

Plus, they have a "CP-30" test (critical power 30 minute test) that can be used for assessment. When I did the first one in July, I ran 2.77 miles in 30 minutes. I burned 485 calories at a rate of 16.2 calories per minute and 175 calories/mile. My VO2 max was estimated at 43 from the test data. When I ran my last one a couple of weeks ago, I ran 3.73 miles (nearly a mile further) in 30 minutes. I burned 597 calories at 19.9 calories per minute and 160 calories/mile. My VO2max increased to 60 on the basis of the last assessment. The basis for these estimated calorie (from heart rate) is well documented on their site.

I've noted just the opposite of some of the things about certain exercise machinery and exercise with an HRM

First, my treadmill is "stingy" compared to my HRM or MFP (though MFP isn't too far off). For example, when I do a "500 calorie" workout (variable speed and incline) that is programmed into my treadmill, right now I get 636 calories after 53 minutes and 6 seconds that the treadmill thinks it took me to burn 500 calories. As I have gotten healthier (weight maintenance), my Digifit program has been calculating fewer calories than 6 months ago at the same weight (closer to 670 calories then).

Second, when I am walking outside, the general rule of thumb of 100 calories per mile when walking at a moderate pace is too generous. Values of 65-85 are more typical. But when running, values of 165-185 calories per mile had been more typical.

Finally, as I have completed my current training, I have noted that my calorie per mile (though not necessarily my calorie per minute) values have been steadily decreasing even though I am running faster than I was even two months ago) What used to take 175-180 calories/mile now takes 145-160 calories/mile even though my minute/mile pace might be about 1 minute/mile faster than it used to be (i.e., 9:40/mile rather than 10:30-11:00 min/mile). But even at a 10:00/mile long-distance race pace. my heart rate on flat terrain barely gets above 145 bpm. In April that would have produced a heart rate of 167-175. (see above examples of the progress shown in the CP-30 test).

Hence, the calories per minute may have dropped slightly during normal runs, but it is the speed and efficiency in covering longer distances (with a slower heart rate) that has been reflected in the workout summaries.

mynewlife10

Thank you for the more scientific Reply and thorough explanation. I was wondering how the HRM would be able to show Calories burned, but yes, it's all about technology.

I am going to get myself one asap.

Speaking of your heart rate, I am recovering from heart surgery to correct WPW (an extra node by the main node) and then I started having SVT. So, it was impossible for me to exercise without a major spike (at times above 200 bpm). At rest I would be up to 140 bpm. Now, I am at a maximum of 145 bpm when exercising (when using the heart monitor on the elliptical), and I am able to pace the heart rate by simply slowing down a little. I do carry a beta blocker with me at all times just in case my heart decides to be silly with me. In fact, I didn't have to start out slow - I went on after the first 15 minutes and realized that I was able to keep going without much struggle. it will take a while to get in shape (not on the outward only), but more so with how the autonomic system regulates the vascular reactions which in return regulates our heart rate and everything else that is supposed to function on auto pilot.

bugaha1

Someone already posted the fact that many machines automatically default to 150 pounds.

As for the HRM, it depends upon both the make and model AND the program you use. Supposedly chest strap models are more accurate than finger or wrist type monitors and the handgrip monitors on many machines can be off by a considerable amount.

I'm not sure Polar tells you what formula they use to convert heart rate into equivalent calories burned in their own programs, but Endomondo and Digifit (with a compatile HRM) do and the basis for those conversions. (Note: older versions of Endomondo didn't really take the HRM data into account.

I have a Zephyr HRM (compatible with my bluetooth Andriod phone) and use Digifit iCardio as the basis of my workouts. Most important to me is the fact that it has some relatively sophisticated tests to calculate your heart rate zones, VO2 max, etc.which they use to calculate energy expenditure.

Plus, they have a "CP-30" test (critical power 30 minute test) that can be used for assessment. When I did the first one in July, I ran 2.77 miles in 30 minutes. I burned 485 calories at a rate of 16.2 calories per minute and 175 calories/mile. My VO2 max was estimated at 43 from the test data. When I ran my last one a couple of weeks ago, I ran 3.73 miles (nearly a mile further) in 30 minutes. I burned 597 calories at 19.9 calories per minute and 160 calories/mile. My VO2max increased to 60 on the basis of the last assessment. The basis for these estimated calorie (from heart rate) is well documented on their site.

I've noted just the opposite of some of the things about certain exercise machinery and exercise with an HRM

First, my treadmill is "stingy" compared to my HRM or MFP (though MFP isn't too far off). For example, when I do a "500 calorie" workout (variable speed and incline) that is programmed into my treadmill, right now I get 636 calories after 53 minutes and 6 seconds that the treadmill thinks it took me to burn 500 calories. As I have gotten healthier (weight maintenance), my Digifit program has been calculating fewer calories than 6 months ago at the same weight (closer to 670 calories then).

Second, when I am walking outside, the general rule of thumb of 100 calories per mile when walking at a moderate pace is too generous. Values of 65-85 are more typical. But when running, values of 165-185 calories per mile had been more typical.

Finally, as I have completed my current training, I have noted that my calorie per mile (though not necessarily my calorie per minute) values have been steadily decreasing even though I am running faster than I was even two months ago) What used to take 175-180 calories/mile now takes 145-160 calories/mile even though my minute/mile pace might be about 1 minute/mile faster than it used to be (i.e., 9:40/mile rather than 10:30-11:00 min/mile). But even at a 10:00/mile long-distance race pace. my heart rate on flat terrain barely gets above 145 bpm. In April that would have produced a heart rate of 167-175. (see above examples of the progress shown in the CP-30 test).

Hence, the calories per minute may have dropped slightly during normal runs, but it is the speed and efficiency in covering longer distances (with a slower heart rate) that has been reflected in the workout summaries.

^^^^ Well said, Thanks

heybales

Someone already posted the fact that many machines automatically default to 150 pounds.

As for the HRM, it depends upon both the make and model AND the program you use. Supposedly chest strap models are more accurate than finger or wrist type monitors and the handgrip monitors on many machines can be off by a considerable amount.

I'm not sure Polar tells you what formula they use to convert heart rate into equivalent calories burned in their own programs, but Endomondo and Digifit (with a compatile HRM) do and the basis for those conversions. (Note: older versions of Endomondo didn't really take the HRM data into account.

I have a Zephyr HRM (compatible with my bluetooth Andriod phone) and use Digifit iCardio as the basis of my workouts. Most important to me is the fact that it has some relatively sophisticated tests to calculate your heart rate zones, VO2 max, etc.which they use to calculate energy expenditure.

Plus, they have a "CP-30" test (critical power 30 minute test) that can be used for assessment. When I did the first one in July, I ran 2.77 miles in 30 minutes. I burned 485 calories at a rate of 16.2 calories per minute and 175 calories/mile. My VO2 max was estimated at 43 from the test data. When I ran my last one a couple of weeks ago, I ran 3.73 miles (nearly a mile further) in 30 minutes. I burned 597 calories at 19.9 calories per minute and 160 calories/mile. My VO2max increased to 60 on the basis of the last assessment. The basis for these estimated calorie (from heart rate) is well documented on their site.

I've noted just the opposite of some of the things about certain exercise machinery and exercise with an HRM

First, my treadmill is "stingy" compared to my HRM or MFP (though MFP isn't too far off). For example, when I do a "500 calorie" workout (variable speed and incline) that is programmed into my treadmill, right now I get 636 calories after 53 minutes and 6 seconds that the treadmill thinks it took me to burn 500 calories. As I have gotten healthier (weight maintenance), my Digifit program has been calculating fewer calories than 6 months ago at the same weight (closer to 670 calories then).

Second, when I am walking outside, the general rule of thumb of 100 calories per mile when walking at a moderate pace is too generous. Values of 65-85 are more typical. But when running, values of 165-185 calories per mile had been more typical.

Finally, as I have completed my current training, I have noted that my calorie per mile (though not necessarily my calorie per minute) values have been steadily decreasing even though I am running faster than I was even two months ago) What used to take 175-180 calories/mile now takes 145-160 calories/mile even though my minute/mile pace might be about 1 minute/mile faster than it used to be (i.e., 9:40/mile rather than 10:30-11:00 min/mile). But even at a 10:00/mile long-distance race pace. my heart rate on flat terrain barely gets above 145 bpm. In April that would have produced a heart rate of 167-175. (see above examples of the progress shown in the CP-30 test).

Hence, the calories per minute may have dropped slightly during normal runs, but it is the speed and efficiency in covering longer distances (with a slower heart rate) that has been reflected in the workout summaries.

Your VO2max is higher than being estimated and used for calorie calcs. And great endurance training improvement too.

If at the same weight and pace, your improvement in efficiency to decrease the calorie burn would be very minor, not as much as observed. But an improvement in VO2max can lower the HR pretty well.

60 VO2max is great, I'll bet you are higher though.

The studies those formula's are based on for estimating it, usually have a cut off where it starts to get less and less accurate.

For instance, the Polar VO2max test, that looks at your resting HR and your selection of athletic level, and your BMI, starts losing it above 50 for men.
The test you did sounds better, but I'll bet it starts losing it too only a tad higher.

Since you've made great improvements, and future ones are going to be much harder to come by without specific training - I think you've earned the reward of a puke test, I mean, VO2max and HRmax test.

You can estimate first to see what you should be able to reach in the lab with fun head gear on.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1061893-testing-heart-rate-max-vo2-max-for-hrm-settings

joecro

I usually find the highest reading (calories burned) and go with that. I'm in pretty good shape but I don't loose much weight that way. I do like the fact that doing it this way also allows me to eat more. I have lost weight when I wanted to but mostly I'm just concerned about being able to eat more without putting on weight. One thing I find with myself is my hunger level will increase with the amount of exercise I do, the longer I exercise, the more calories I want, but the odd thing is that it caps out at some point. So say If I workout an hour to an hour and a half I usually need about 2,500-2,800 calories but if I go to a 2 or 3 hour workout that same amount of calories will still be sufficient. That's where I get my weight loss the easiest, just do a 3 or 4 hour work out a couple times a week and I loose weight and I'm not hungry all week.