The calories count on my elliptical seems far too low.

Mochaccino10

I have an Exerpeutic Aero elliptical. It cost me only about $80 brand new, so you can imagine how the quality compares to a gym elliptical. It says that I travel about 7 miles per hour but only burn 120 calories per hour. I have the resistance set to a lowish level, but definitely not "0". I can feel a decent amount of resistance, but there are no actual numbers on the resistance dial for reference. I can't enter my weight, so the computer must be using a default weight to calculate calories. The default weight used by most machines is 150 lb, and I only weigh 125, so if the machine is correct, I'm burning only around 100 calories per hour. Does that number seem too low to you? Is the number at least within the possible range?

Liftng4Lis

Get a heart rate monitor.

violasmith85

For me, but i'm much larger than you, it says I would burn 833 cals an hour at moderate. So yeah 100 is probably a bit low. I agree with getting a heart rate monitor then you will really know.

Mr_Knight

That sounds about right. You have to be quite fit to generate big burns on an elliptical.

ETA: 800+ calories burned an hour is a fantasy.

Tigs2614

I use a gym one and if I do it for 15 minutues, I burn 85 calories. Your's doesn't sound right.

fatcity66

That sounds about right. You have to be quite fit to generate big burns on an elliptical.

ETA: 800+ calories burned an hour is a fantasy.

I think it's somewhere in between. For someone like me, around 200 lbs, most estimates say about 10 cal/min=600 cal/hr, which is less than most machine readouts say. Someone who weighs 125 would burn a lot less, but still at least 300 calories an hour I would think. If we only burned 100 calories in an HOUR of moderate exercise, it wouldn't even be worth it to get off the couch! Even walking burns more than that. Sounds like there's a reason it was so cheap, OP

llUndecidedll

That does seem really low. It always seem easier to get a higher calorie burn on an elliptical.

I guess it's a good idea to invest in a heart rate monitor as previously suggested.

Mr_Knight

For someone like me, around 200 lbs, most estimates say about 10 cal/min=600 cal/hr, which is less than most machine readouts say.

At 200 pounds you'd need to be capable of running 8km in 60 minutes to be fit enough to get a 600 calorie burn. If you can, great, but most on MFP aren't close to that.

krennie8

For someone like me, around 200 lbs, most estimates say about 10 cal/min=600 cal/hr, which is less than most machine readouts say.

At 200 pounds you'd need to be capable of running 8km in 60 minutes to be fit enough to get a 600 calorie burn. If you can, great, but most on MFP aren't close to that.

I'm 158 and burn 600 calories on the elliptical in 60 mins. 605 today by the machine's estimation. If heart rate is more accurate though it's actually higher. Granted I DO push myself to my limits, or as close as i feel comfortable but I just mean I don't think it's outside the realm of realism.

Mochaccino10

Thanks guys. I actually do have an HRM but in the past I've had issues with using an hrm to count calories because my heart rate would shoot up so high. Unlike most people on here, HRM's tended to give me higher calorie counts then the gym machines did. Sometimes it was much, much higher. People often seem to forget that heart rate is only an indirect measure of the amount of work being done, so if your heart rate is abnormally high or low the calorie count will be wrong. A year ago my resting heart rate was an unbelievable 90 BPM while still in bed in the morning, and it could top 200 during moderate exercise. I was considering seeing a doctor to check for a heart condition because it was so high. Now after a year of regular exercise, it's a perfectly normal 60 BPM when I wake up, and after several rounds of 400 meter sprints (by far the most difficult bout of exercise I have ever done) my hear rate only went up to 180. I think the heart rate monitor will actually be able to accurately track my calories now that I'm not so unbelievably, ridiculously out of shape. This has been a really longwinded way to say that I will go ahead and enter the calories from the HRM. I think I'm going about 5 mph and averaging 155 BPM. 500 calories makes much more sense than 100 in this case. Normally I'd average the two numbers or even go with the lower number, but this machine must be really malfunctioning if it thinks I'm going seven miles per hour (I wish!) but only burning 100 cals.

Mochaccino10

My heart rate is now normal as far as I can tell. 60 BPM in the morning, 140-150 during moderate exercise, 160 to 165 for hard endurance exercise, 180 for EXTREMELY difficult nausea inducing 400 meter sprints. I don't even do the sprints anymore because they were making me absolutely hate exercise. I'm pretty sure I was just unbelievably out of shape a year ago, and that's why my BPM could hit 200 so easily. If anything ever happens to make me think otherwise, I will definitely see a doc, but so far so good.

fatcity66

For someone like me, around 200 lbs, most estimates say about 10 cal/min=600 cal/hr, which is less than most machine readouts say.

At 200 pounds you'd need to be capable of running 8km in 60 minutes to be fit enough to get a 600 calorie burn. If you can, great, but most on MFP aren't close to that.

Um, ok, if you say so.

Actually, 8km/hr is not that fast. I used to run 5Ks in under 35 min...so yeah, I could probably do that, and I'm not super fit or anything.

fatcity66

Thanks guys. I actually do have an HRM but in the past I've had issues with using an hrm to count calories because my heart rate would shoot up so high. Unlike most people on here, HRM's tended to give me higher calorie counts then the gym machines did. Sometimes it was much, much higher. People often seem to forget that heart rate is only an indirect measure of the amount of work being done, so if your heart rate is abnormally high or low the calorie count will be wrong. A year ago my resting heart rate was an unbelievable 90 BPM while still in bed in the morning, and it could top 200 during moderate exercise. I was considering seeing a doctor to check for a heart condition because it was so high. Now after a year of regular exercise, it's a perfectly normal 60 BPM when I wake up, and after several rounds of 400 meter sprints (by far the most difficult bout of exercise I have ever done) my hear rate only went up to 180. I think the heart rate monitor will actually be able to accurately track my calories now that I'm not so unbelievably, ridiculously out of shape. This has been a really longwinded way to say that I will go ahead and enter the calories from the HRM. I think I'm going about 5 mph and averaging 155 BPM. 500 calories makes much more sense than 100 in this case. Normally I'd average the two numbers or even go with the lower number, but this machine must be really malfunctioning if it thinks I'm going seven miles per hour (I wish!) but only burning 100 cals.

Yeah, if you're going 5mph, that's faster than 8km/hr (which is about 4.96miles/hr, or around a 12 minute mile) so again, you would be burning a lot more than 125 calories in an hour!

Tigs2614

I'm lucky to last 15 minutes on the elliptical trainer haha. I must be really unfit compared to others here. I do the "mix" which is a whole body workout or sport intervals. I couldn't get on it for an hour. On my cardio only days I generally break it up into 2 x 10 minutes.

I only started exercising 6 weeks ago but can feel my fitness improving heaps but I find the elliptical trainer a killer even though I do use it.

fatcity66

I'm lucky to last 15 minutes on the elliptical trainer haha. I must be really unfit compared to others here. I do the "mix" which is a whole body workout or sport intervals. I couldn't get on it for an hour. On my cardio only days I generally break it up into 2 x 10 minutes.

I only started exercising 6 weeks ago but can feel my fitness improving heaps but I find the elliptical trainer a killer even though I do use it.

Every little bit helps! I try to do at least 20 min if that's all I have time for. If I do an hour it's usually broken up into 2x30 min. But I often do 35-45min in one go...and I increase the resistance every 5-10 min until cool down. I think it goes up to 10, but the max I've used it at is 4. After that it gets seriously hard. I might start using a higher setting for short periods to build more muscle!

aneary1980

For someone like me, around 200 lbs, most estimates say about 10 cal/min=600 cal/hr, which is less than most machine readouts say.

At 200 pounds you'd need to be capable of running 8km in 60 minutes to be fit enough to get a 600 calorie burn. If you can, great, but most on MFP aren't close to that.

Really I'm 170lbs and I ran 8KM in 56 minutes on Sunday I'm not fit at all!

ctinawilson

Worth mentioning that the calorie count on any fitness machine, including a HRM, is just an estimate.

If you have a HRM that is programmed with your height, weight, gender etc, then it should be closer to accurate than an elliptical (unless the elliptical takes these stats before you workout as well?), but even so, it is still an estimate, based on averages.

My suggestion would be to use a number somewhere in-between the readings you're getting, and work by trial and error. If after 2 weeks it seems that the count is too high, i.e. your not getting the loss you expect, take it down.

I used to live and die by my HRM, until I read some really interesting articles about the science behind calorie burn/count and the limitations of HRMs. They're very very good for monitoring heart rate and the more pricey ones have some other great functions, but calorie count on a HRM is just an estimate, based on the info you give it.

I hope this doesn't throw a cat amongst the pigeons, but its worth knowing!

Tigs2614

I think that is my problem right there. I do way over level 4 sometimes reaching level 8. Maybe I should lower my resistance or just stick to breaking it up. I also think I am anaemic, so might go for a test soon.