Elliptical Trainer and calories burned

sweetandtenderhooligan

i have recently bought an elliptical trainer, enjoying using it , i usually do 30 minutes each time.
The calories burned according to that is usually 535 but when i log it on here its says 300 calories, which do you thing is right or is it somwhere inbetween?

thanks

GeekyGoddess

I don't really trust the machines with calories burned, as they are set to an average size calculation for determining that number. I invested in a HRM about a year ago and have used that number because you set it based on your personal numbers (height, weight, VO2 max).

sixrings

I do a lot of my workout with an eliptical and the machine is always lower on MFP then what the machine tells me. It was worse before I figured out that I could adjust the weight on the eliptical to take into account my actual size. I'd go with the machine because it tracks the tension/level and pace you are actually using while MFP is a generic amount if you want an exact measurement. On the other hand, I use the MFP amount for logging in because then I'm not tempted to eat all of those extra calories.

Hope this helps.

sweetandtenderhooligan

thank you

Tilran

I would say of those two numbers, the MFP number is much closer but still high. I'm not sure what intensity you were doing obviously, but typically I see 90 calories every 10 minutes at HIGH intensity and 70 or so every 10 minutes at MEDIUM intensity.

Short of nearly breaking your machine, I cant see you burning 535 in 30 minutes.

runfreddyrun

it could be somewhere in between or the calories burned could be lower than what the elliptical says. i am 5' 4 and 201 lbs. i also wear a HRM when i use the elliptical. my calories burned are always much lower than what the machine says. last night for 20 minutes it was 177, and that was with an average HR of 146. i don't remember what the elliptical said i burned for that amount of time, but i'm sure it was close to 250. i don't even think HRM are totally accurate, but they are more accurate than machines and MFP, in that order for me.

2hmom

It mostly depends on what you weigh. It is best to invest in a heart rate monitor. As you lose weight,you adjust it. Good luck!

running_shoe

I would say of those two numbers, the MFP number is much closer but still high. I'm not sure what intensity you were doing obviously, but typically I see 90 calories every 10 minutes at HIGH intensity and 70 or so every 10 minutes at MEDIUM intensity.

Short of nearly breaking your machine, I cant see you burning 535 in 30 minutes.

This!

etherealdoll

I would imagine the machine would be more accurate IF you enter in your weight/age/stuff. I've been doing the elliptical lately and it usually says I burn around 300 in half an hour, going at a pretty high intensity. I haven't tested it by using my HRM yet, but it sounds about right, because I burn that much running at a similar intensity. Of course, it'll be different for everyone. I've found (when I use my HRM) that I burn more calories than MFP estimates for nearly every exercise I've tried, because my heart rate is always insanely high for unexplainable reasons...

praskovka

I don't believe the machine too.It tells me something like 1021 kcal for 30min.This is so unrealistic.I'm just logging it and using MFP information.
Forgot to say that usually my speed is approximately 19km\h.

IBetterShapeUp

I do 30 minutes and it is usually around 291 thru 305 depending on how fast I go. That is what my machine tells me anyway....:happy:

jawheb

My machine is way off. I do 5.8 miles in 45 minutes and I burn 461 calories. I use my Nike+ running app to keep track of my runs, as well as a pace calculator. HRM is your best bet. I can't wait to get one myself.

sweetandtenderhooligan

I would say of those two numbers, the MFP number is much closer but still high. I'm not sure what intensity you were doing obviously, but typically I see 90 calories every 10 minutes at HIGH intensity and 70 or so every 10 minutes at MEDIUM intensity.

Short of nearly breaking your machine, I cant see you burning 535 in 30 minutes.

no im defnitely not breaking the machine!

sweetandtenderhooligan

thanks for the replies i think i will stick with mfp to be on the safe side

DLKeeble

i have recently bought an elliptical trainer, enjoying using it , i usually do 30 minutes each time.
The calories burned according to that is usually 535 but when i log it on here its says 300 calories, which do you thing is right or is it somwhere inbetween?

thanks

Lucky you, my machine said 64 calories for 21 minutes. I don't sweat like this when I burn 64 calories doing aerobics. Mine doesn't have the features for weight, height or gender.

ashlielinn

It really depend on how much you weigh and how far you go, not the time! I weigh around 155 and burn about 440 calories in 45 mins, but that's because my distance at that point is over 6 miles!

Calories burned is really just physics. It matters how far you're pushing your weight, not how long!

Azdak

Not all machine calorie readings are bad, but almost all elliptical calorie readings are well overstated. And for a home elliptical, the numbers are really more for entertainment purposes--like one of those handles you squeeze at the carnival that reveals how "passionate" you are.

While the absolute numbers themselves are not very useful for an eating plan, you can use those numbers as a way to track your overall progress. In others, if it is saying 535 in 30 min, that 535 number is likely way too high. But if you get to 600 in 30 min, the difference would represent a real increase in your ability to sustain an effort over the workout time.

Springerrr

Here is an interesting exchange I had a few years ago with a physiologist at Cybex:

I use a Cybex 750AT [this is a brand of elliptical http://www.amazon.com/CYBEX-750AT-Total-Body-Trainer/dp/B002VL5KME I love this thing!!] at the gym. I am not a super athlete. I get my heart-rate up to ~150 and hold it there for ~45m. At the end of the workout the 750AT tells me I’ve burned ~800 cal -- equivalent to an 6 mile run!! When I run my heart rate is likely to be about the same, suggesting the same metabolic burn-rate, but it would take me 60 min to burn 800 cal, assuming my slow 10 min miles.

Can this possibly be right?

*****************************

His reply:

Thank you for your recent email regarding your use of the Cybex 750 Legacy Treadmill.

Quite honestly, your question is a bit complicated – hopefully, you weren’t seeking a “yes or no” answer.

The only means of measuring calories directly is to lock you in a sealed room with a water bath, and measure the rise in temperature of the water as you expend energy. This is referred to as direct calorimetry. Obviously, we cannot do that.

Everything else is an indirect measure. This includes the algorithms on treadmills, heart rate monitors, and any other device which professes to inform you of caloric output. Our treadmills use a formula established by the American College of Sports Medicine, which takes into account the speed of the treadmill and its incline. We could use heart rate as an indicator, but since most people don’t wear heart rate monitors, and grasping the sensors while running is difficult and leads to computation errors, it is impractical for us to do so. In the end, we do our very best to establish an accurate prediction of your caloric output by employing a well-established, scientifically supported, prediction equation.

Regarding the correlation between heart rate response and energy expenditure, we have made some interesting discoveries of our own. In a recent study conducted by the Department of Kinesiology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, we compared heart rates on two different devices – our Arc Trainer and a popular elliptical trainer – at normalized metabolic workloads. We established maximum oxygen consumption for subjects on both devices, and then had subjects exercise at 55%, 65%, and 75% of their VO2max. What we discovered, was that at each percentage, the heart rate on the Arc was significantly lower (p <.05) than the elliptical. Despite the equivalent metabolic workloads, heart rates were lower on the Arc.

How do we explain this? Biomechanically, the forces generated on the Arc create joint torques which effectively activate the large hip extensor muscles, the Glutes and hamstrings, which lowers the overall muscular stress, resulting in a lower heart rate (see pressor response), while maintaining metabolic output. The biomechanics of the elliptical are such that virtually all of the torque loading is placed on the knee joint, creating very high muscular stress on the quadriceps, with very little on the glutes and hamstrings. This results in a higher heart rate with no additional elevation of metabolic output. Kind of fascinating, really.

How does this relate to your running? A good deal of muscle activity during running goes towards management of shock on initial contact (heel strike). Our treadmills are designed in such a way that they dissipate the shock when your heel strikes the deck, reducing the stress on the muscles that are working to manage that shock. Furthermore, the deck then stiffens in the middle and at the tail, in order to allow you to efficiently generate ground reaction forces which propel you through the air. Overall, it’s a very efficient system. Consequently, if you’re managing your run according to your heart rate response, you may find that you can run a bit faster on the 750 than you would outdoors, at a comparable heart rate. Thus, the increased caloric burn.

We are currently engaged in research to examine metabolic outcomes on the 750 and other modalities. Until I have more specific scientific evidence, I’m afraid this explanation is all that I can offer. Nevertheless, it’s questions like yours which help us to continue to investigate human performance and how our products can best contribute to its enhancement.

Please feel free to contact me with any other questions.

Best regards,

Azdak

Here is an interesting exchange I had a few years ago with a physiologist at Cybex:

I use a Cybex 750AT [this is a brand of elliptical http://www.amazon.com/CYBEX-750AT-Total-Body-Trainer/dp/B002VL5KME I love this thing!!] at the gym. I am not a super athlete. I get my heart-rate up to ~150 and hold it there for ~45m. At the end of the workout the 750AT tells me I’ve burned ~800 cal -- equivalent to an 6 mile run!! When I run my heart rate is likely to be about the same, suggesting the same metabolic burn-rate, but it would take me 60 min to burn 800 cal, assuming my slow 10 min miles.

Can this possibly be right?

*****************************

His reply:

Thank you for your recent email regarding your use of the Cybex 750 Legacy Treadmill.

Quite honestly, your question is a bit complicated – hopefully, you weren’t seeking a “yes or no” answer.

The only means of measuring calories directly is to lock you in a sealed room with a water bath, and measure the rise in temperature of the water as you expend energy. This is referred to as direct calorimetry. Obviously, we cannot do that.

Everything else is an indirect measure. This includes the algorithms on treadmills, heart rate monitors, and any other device which professes to inform you of caloric output. Our treadmills use a formula established by the American College of Sports Medicine, which takes into account the speed of the treadmill and its incline. We could use heart rate as an indicator, but since most people don’t wear heart rate monitors, and grasping the sensors while running is difficult and leads to computation errors, it is impractical for us to do so. In the end, we do our very best to establish an accurate prediction of your caloric output by employing a well-established, scientifically supported, prediction equation.

Regarding the correlation between heart rate response and energy expenditure, we have made some interesting discoveries of our own. In a recent study conducted by the Department of Kinesiology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, we compared heart rates on two different devices – our Arc Trainer and a popular elliptical trainer – at normalized metabolic workloads. We established maximum oxygen consumption for subjects on both devices, and then had subjects exercise at 55%, 65%, and 75% of their VO2max. What we discovered, was that at each percentage, the heart rate on the Arc was significantly lower (p <.05) than the elliptical. Despite the equivalent metabolic workloads, heart rates were lower on the Arc.

How do we explain this? Biomechanically, the forces generated on the Arc create joint torques which effectively activate the large hip extensor muscles, the Glutes and hamstrings, which lowers the overall muscular stress, resulting in a lower heart rate (see pressor response), while maintaining metabolic output. The biomechanics of the elliptical are such that virtually all of the torque loading is placed on the knee joint, creating very high muscular stress on the quadriceps, with very little on the glutes and hamstrings. This results in a higher heart rate with no additional elevation of metabolic output. Kind of fascinating, really.

How does this relate to your running? A good deal of muscle activity during running goes towards management of shock on initial contact (heel strike). Our treadmills are designed in such a way that they dissipate the shock when your heel strikes the deck, reducing the stress on the muscles that are working to manage that shock. Furthermore, the deck then stiffens in the middle and at the tail, in order to allow you to efficiently generate ground reaction forces which propel you through the air. Overall, it’s a very efficient system. Consequently, if you’re managing your run according to your heart rate response, you may find that you can run a bit faster on the 750 than you would outdoors, at a comparable heart rate. Thus, the increased caloric burn.

We are currently engaged in research to examine metabolic outcomes on the 750 and other modalities. Until I have more specific scientific evidence, I’m afraid this explanation is all that I can offer. Nevertheless, it’s questions like yours which help us to continue to investigate human performance and how our products can best contribute to its enhancement.

Please feel free to contact me with any other questions.

Best regards,

Thanks for posting this. The ACSM equations are the accepted standard for running and walking and are programmed into most commercial treadmills. Running calorie burns are a little overstated, but that is why the calories displayed for walking (level and incline, w/out handrail support) are likely more accurate than an HRM.

Dankees

My Sole elliptical trainer says that I burn only 100 calories in 30 minutes of use, going between 10 MPH and 12 MPH, and going more than 5 miles in that time.

How could it only read out 100 calories burned? Seriously? What is it, really?