Why the differences in cals burned???
BetesBitch
Posts: 234 Member
30 minutes elliptical exercise;
Elliptical machine says 306cals burned.
MFP says 306cals burned.
Podometer says 160cals burned.
I would say since machine and mfp match that the 306cals burned is more accurate??? What do you guys say?
Elliptical machine says 306cals burned.
MFP says 306cals burned.
Podometer says 160cals burned.
I would say since machine and mfp match that the 306cals burned is more accurate??? What do you guys say?
0
Replies
-
30 minutes elliptical exercise;
Elliptical machine says 306cals burned.
MFP says 306cals burned.
Podometer says 160cals burned.
I would say since machine and mfp match that the 306cals burned is more accurate??? What do you guys say?
That's approximately what I get for that amount of time...according to Fitbit. When in doubt though..estimate low.0 -
Always go with the lowest number, or in a few more weeks you will be wondering why no weight has been lost.0
-
I would say since machine and mfp match that the 306cals burned is more accurate??? What do you guys say?
When in doubt, use the lower number.
300 calories in 30 minutes for a 150 pound human is the equivalent of running 3 miles. Since elliptical has approximately half the MET of running, that bumps up to the equivalent of running 6 miles in 30 minutes.0 -
I believe the distance of my workout was 5 miles. If i remember correctly.I would say since machine and mfp match that the 306cals burned is more accurate??? What do you guys say?
When in doubt, use the lower number.
300 calories in 30 minutes for a 150 pound human is the equivalent of running 3 miles. Since elliptical has approximately half the MET of running, that bumps up to the equivalent of running 6 miles in 30 minutes.0 -
I believe the distance of my workout was 5 miles. If i remember correctly.I would say since machine and mfp match that the 306cals burned is more accurate??? What do you guys say?
When in doubt, use the lower number.
300 calories in 30 minutes for a 150 pound human is the equivalent of running 3 miles. Since elliptical has approximately half the MET of running, that bumps up to the equivalent of running 6 miles in 30 minutes.
Sorry, that wasn't clear. If you're fit enough to do that burn on the elliptical, you're also fit enough to run (not "ellipt" - run) 6 miles in 30 minutes. If you can't do the latter, you aren't doing the former.
Scale accordingly, and you'll have something in the right ballpark. I suspect your pedometer is actually pretty close.0 -
I'm gonna do this exercise 3-4 times a week for 30 minutes each time anyways so im sure i will lose weight from this...healthy diet is in check as well of course.0
-
I believe the distance of my workout was 5 miles. If i remember correctly.I would say since machine and mfp match that the 306cals burned is more accurate??? What do you guys say?
When in doubt, use the lower number.
300 calories in 30 minutes for a 150 pound human is the equivalent of running 3 miles. Since elliptical has approximately half the MET of running, that bumps up to the equivalent of running 6 miles in 30 minutes.
Sorry, that wasn't clear. If you're fit enough to do that burn on the elliptical, you're also fit enough to run (not "ellipt" - run) 6 miles in 30 minutes. If you can't do the latter, you aren't doing the former.
Scale accordingly, and you'll have something in the right ballpark. I suspect your pedometer is actually pretty close.
Hmmm, I don't know about that. I ran my first 5km run in the summer and it took me 40minutes. I find running soooo much harder than "ellipt running". During my race i had to walk quite a bit to catch my breath.0 -
Interesting numbers on this thread....0
-
Interesting numbers on this thread....
Care to elaborate?0 -
A little. I agree using the lower number since your question was asking which to use.
And, if you run 5 miles you're burning closer to 500 calories. The equation someone provided is great, but simple rules of thumb seem to work for a reason...they are easy to remember. So, walk or run a mile =100 calories. SImple.
Best of luck. Train hard, eat well, and have fun! Hope this helps.0 -
I would personally go with the lower number.0
-
A little. I agree using the lower number since your question was asking which to use.
And, if you run 5 miles you're burning closer to 500 calories. The equation someone provided is great, but simple rules of thumb seem to work for a reason...they are easy to remember. So, walk or run a mile =100 calories. SImple.
Best of luck. Train hard, eat well, and have fun! Hope this helps.
Ok, so i used the elliptical for about 5 miles so i've burned 500cals??? I think im misunderstanding......0 -
Podometer might be off as you are not really walking on an elleptical ?!?
I'd go with the mfp and machine number as it is the same....0 -
I'm 135 and on the elliptical I burn about 100 cals per mile I do. I use a hrm now, but mpf is semiclose most of the time, at least to me it is....0
-
podometer ? is this a step counter ? If so I know my one doesn't work very well unless I am moving in a forward direction so it may be missing the beat. Also the kinematics of elliptical may burn more calories than walking so even if it is counting the correct number of steps, each step may be harder. I agree normally with the guy who says go with the lowest but in this case I would go with 2 out of 3 because I think you may be counting apples and pairs0
-
I can do 10 mins each on three items. Cycling I can burn 170c. Jogging 140 and Eliptical 170. It all depends on the resistance I set it to or the incline. Generally I average 150 calories burned for each 10 minute period.0
-
Exactly.I find running soooo much harder than "ellipt running". During my race i had to walk quite a bit to catch my breath.0 -
I weigh 165lbs. I go at a pretty OK pace on the elliptical, not as fast as I would want but good enough for now.
Anywhoes, every 10 minutes I do, I make sure I reach 100 cals. So 30 minutes for me would reach about 300 cals. Plus I wear a heart rate monitor and the machine always gives me a lower number (but the machines here are basic and you can't fill in all your specifics). The fitness coaches and the sports man in the shop also told me that my heart rate monitor would always be the most correct.
Since you have 2 things saying the same thing (and the pedometer doesn't really count because you're not actually walking), I would stick with the 300. To be sure, you could buy a heart rate monitor, they're really good and they show you if your heart beat is not elevated too much and so on. They're not that expensive, at least not here in Belgium. I bought mine for 70 euros I think, so that would be about 96 dollars. I think that's an OK price, because you can use it forever (if you take good care of it, the battery also lasts years with moderate usage).0 -
Me, too. But only time will tell. If you eat back all your exercise calories for two weeks and don't lose, then you'll have to trust the lower number.I would personally go with the lower number.0 -
I second the heart rate monitor. Numbers on here are averages, so if you've got some massive guys with huge burns in the mix, then little girls like me are never going to hit those numbers. I was shocked at how low my burns were when I wore my hrm at first, but at least I knew exactly what I was dealing with. Totally made a difference for me to know what was going on.0
-
Yes it's a step counter that counts calories burned too. I just wanted something to help me know how many calories i burn from day-to-day and exercise can really vary for me on a day-to-day basis. I am going to test the pedometer walking outside one of these days and see how accurate that may be. For now, I will go with what MFP and my elliptical says.podometer ? is this a step counter ? If so I know my one doesn't work very well unless I am moving in a forward direction so it may be missing the beat. Also the kinematics of elliptical may burn more calories than walking so even if it is counting the correct number of steps, each step may be harder. I agree normally with the guy who says go with the lowest but in this case I would go with 2 out of 3 because I think you may be counting apples and pairs0 -
A little. I agree using the lower number since your question was asking which to use.
And, if you run 5 miles you're burning closer to 500 calories. The equation someone provided is great, but simple rules of thumb seem to work for a reason...they are easy to remember. So, walk or run a mile =100 calories. SImple.
Best of luck. Train hard, eat well, and have fun! Hope this helps.
Ok, so i used the elliptical for about 5 miles so i've burned 500cals??? I think im misunderstanding......
You didn't run though. As Mr. Knight pointed out above, the MET of the elliptical is roughly half of running. MET is the metabolic equivalent of task - basically a way of expressing how much energy a task requires. So running requires about twice as much energy as using the elliptical. So if running 5 miles burns 500 calories, going the same distance on the elliptical is roughly half of that.
ETA- keep in mind the elliptical entry on MFP is very general. It does not even allow for different resistance levels that most ellipticals have. It sound like your elliptical and MFP are using the same equation to figure out the calories burned. I would be leery.0 -
HRM is the way to go. It's the most accurate number you can get. Not 100% but closer than an estimate from number of steps taken...0
-
MFP is an estimate and so is the machine. I use a HRM and the machines at the gym never correlate with what my HRM says (they are usually reflect higher burns). It's safer to go with the lower number of 160, but if you feel that is too low, use the average of both number (233 cals). If you find you aren't losing weight like you should be, then you know you are miscalculating.0
-
When I used a HRM I actually burned slightly more calories on the elliptical than the machine said I did. For 30 mins I burn around 300 calories. According to the HRM a burned a lot more on the treadmill than the machine told me. The stepper was wrong though.0
-
A little. I agree using the lower number since your question was asking which to use.
And, if you run 5 miles you're burning closer to 500 calories. The equation someone provided is great, but simple rules of thumb seem to work for a reason...they are easy to remember. So, walk or run a mile =100 calories. SImple.
Best of luck. Train hard, eat well, and have fun! Hope this helps.
Ok, so i used the elliptical for about 5 miles so i've burned 500cals??? I think im misunderstanding......
You didn't run though. As Mr. Knight pointed out above, the MET of the elliptical is roughly half of running. MET is the metabolic equivalent of task - basically a way of expressing how much energy a task requires. So running requires about twice as much energy as using the elliptical. So if running 5 miles burns 500 calories, going the same distance on the elliptical is roughly half of that.
ETA- keep in mind the elliptical entry on MFP is very general. It does not even allow for different resistance levels that most ellipticals have. It sound like your elliptical and MFP are using the same equation to figure out the calories burned. I would be leery.
I understand the basis of MET but you can't compare like for like here. You can't say that elliptical trainers are half that of running because it depends on the setting you have the trainer set to and how fast. I am sure if I turned the trainer right up and jogged at 4.5 mph the trainer MET would be twice that of my running activity :-)0 -
A little. I agree using the lower number since your question was asking which to use.
And, if you run 5 miles you're burning closer to 500 calories. The equation someone provided is great, but simple rules of thumb seem to work for a reason...they are easy to remember. So, walk or run a mile =100 calories. SImple.
Best of luck. Train hard, eat well, and have fun! Hope this helps.
Ok, so i used the elliptical for about 5 miles so i've burned 500cals??? I think im misunderstanding......
You didn't run though. As Mr. Knight pointed out above, the MET of the elliptical is roughly half of running. MET is the metabolic equivalent of task - basically a way of expressing how much energy a task requires. So running requires about twice as much energy as using the elliptical. So if running 5 miles burns 500 calories, going the same distance on the elliptical is roughly half of that.
ETA- keep in mind the elliptical entry on MFP is very general. It does not even allow for different resistance levels that most ellipticals have. It sound like your elliptical and MFP are using the same equation to figure out the calories burned. I would be leery.
I understand the basis of MET but you can't compare like for like here. You can't say that elliptical trainers are half that of running because it depends on the setting you have the trainer set to and how fast. I am sure if I turned the trainer right up and jogged at 4.5 mph the trainer MET would be twice that of my running activity :-)
I understand that it may depend on the intensity, which is why I pointed it out with the MFP entry. I was addressing the fact that she asked if she went 5 miles if she burned 500 calories, which is the general amount for running that distance for the average person (I believe they use 160lb person for "average").
4.5 MPH on the elliptical is still not a very intense running pace. Perhaps going 4.5 MPH with the resistance cranked up might be closer.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions