Conversion of Calories on Elliptical

Tmvirgo
Tmvirgo Posts: 12 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi---I ran on my elliptical machine at home this morning for 30 minutes. The machine said I burned 410 calories, but MFP said only 291. I went with what MFP said so as to not to feel like I'm cheating, but I wondered if this has happened to others and if so, how do you convert your time into calories?

Thanks for your help,
Tami

Replies

  • Greenrun99
    Greenrun99 Posts: 2,065 Member
    There isn't a conversion method.. it really depends on weight, height, heart rate, age to get a general estimate.. a HRM would give that estimate as well (as you enter all that information into them) but that still isn't 100%.. but 30 minutes on the elliptical at moderate intensity I would say 291
  • Jcsmith5210
    Jcsmith5210 Posts: 150 Member
    I also ran on elliptical machine this morning for 30 my machine is old and says 235 and MVP says 354 I log Mfp.
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    If the elliptical has a heartrate function on it, and you enter your information (weight/height/age) go with that. MFP estimates aren't going to be as accurate.
  • cadaverousbones
    cadaverousbones Posts: 421 Member
    When I do the elliptical I go off of what the machine says. Some machines have HRM built into them, so if that is the case definitely go with that. Mine does not have HRM, but I am going to get one soon so I can more accurately log it. Do whatever you want thought, its your life! lol 50-100 calories isn't a huge difference. Maybe just do an average of what your machine says and what MFP says.
  • IrishHarpy1
    IrishHarpy1 Posts: 399 Member
    MFP tends to exaggerate calorie burns , which is why I rely on my HRM for a more accurate reading. These days, the readout on the machine is pretty close to what I'm getting from my Polar, but I"m still recording the HRM results.
  • NeverCatchYourBreath
    NeverCatchYourBreath Posts: 197 Member
    Machines and MFP both are horrible inaccurate so you honestly are going to struggle relying on either one. Here are some things to consider:
    -Does MFP know your current weight and activity level? This makes a diff in the calories is calculates.
    -Did you enter your height, weight, age into the elliptical before beginning? If not, it's just taking a wild guess and you shouldn't rely on it at all.
  • Fitres1
    Fitres1 Posts: 4
    Try getting a Polar watch that monitors your heart rate. Combine it with your height, weight, age and you should be able to calculate your estimate calorie burn. I believe The Fitness Resource sells them. I bought it from them when i purchased my Arc Trainer.
  • tomwatso
    tomwatso Posts: 1,304 Member
    Go with the machine or buy a polar watch (HRM) device. Don't go with MFP estimates.
  • annakow
    annakow Posts: 385 Member
    Heart rate monitor can be misleading, what about people with high blood pressure? do they burn more calories? no. I don't know anymore about machines in the gym, I think they double the results to make you feel better and MFP does it too, to motivate you:)
  • mallen404
    mallen404 Posts: 266 Member
    Hi---I ran on my elliptical machine at home this morning for 30 minutes. The machine said I burned 410 calories, but MFP said only 291. I went with what MFP said so as to not to feel like I'm cheating, but I wondered if this has happened to others and if so, how do you convert your time into calories?

    Thanks for your help,
    Tami

    I go with the lower one always
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    Ellipticals are known for overestimating caloric burn. Kind of a marketing ploy to get you to choose it over a treadmill. Treadmills caloric counts are pretty accurate as long as you enter your info in as it measures work done and is a tried and tested method, elliptical on the other hand don't work the same so they develop their own equations, which for everyone I have seen, seem far to generous in the burns they tell you you got.

    In the absence of an HRM, I would suggest going with the lower of MFP or the machine, every method is just an estimate anyway.
  • SteveHunt113
    SteveHunt113 Posts: 648 Member
    If you don't plan to purchase a HRM, I think you are on the right track to use the lower calorie count. I purchased a HRM so that I could get a more accurate idea of the calories I burn. But like one poster pointed out, you'll never get anything but an estimate out of the machine or the HRM. The one that considers age, sex, height and weight will do a better job of guessing.

    Ideally, you'd also want one that allows you to enter your fitness level, such as VO2MAX. I person who is in really great shape will normally have a lower HR doing the same activity as another person who is not in shape. Both should be burning roughly the same calories, but the person in great shape will get a lower calorie reading because of the lower HR being recorded.

    As you can tell, it's not an exact science.
  • kinmad4it
    kinmad4it Posts: 185 Member
    I've found that after getting my Polar FT4 a fortnight ago, the calorie burns it's giving me are actually slightly higher than the ones MFP give me. We're not talking massive differences though, so from my little experience using an HRM, the calorie burns are very similar to the ones I've been inputting from here.
    Maybe I'm just lucky in that my height/weight/age and general fitness level is extremely close to what MFP uses. I imagine things will change the fitter I become.
  • MinnieInMaine
    MinnieInMaine Posts: 6,400 Member
    As with walking/running, I've found that the elliptical burns about 100 calories per mile so if your machine shows distance, you can use that. Either way, it's really hard to get more than 10 calories per minute unless you're obese or very unfit so the lower number sounds much more appropriate.
  • o2bADyer
    o2bADyer Posts: 208
    Some thoughts...

    1 - When entering your weight information on a machine, round "down" to help (i.e., instead of "183", enter "180")

    2 - If you're deciding between MFP calorie burn and a machine...underestimating is better

    I would rather underestimate the BURN and overestimate CONSUMPTION because the reverse won't get you to your goals.

    Good luck! :flowerforyou:
  • Tmvirgo
    Tmvirgo Posts: 12 Member
    Thanks, everyone!! This was very helpful. I am going to look into a Polar HRM just as some added information, but it made me feel better to see that it isn't an exact science and that others have had it happen to them. I definitely will underestimate the BURN and overestimate the CONSUMPTION to help get me toward my goal---thanks!!!!!:smile:
  • LannyM74
    LannyM74 Posts: 25 Member
    30 mins on the elliptical for me (39 years old, female, 130lbs, 5'6", average pace 7.75 mph) is usually about 320cals on my HRM. MFP give me 275 cals and the elliptical says 390 cals.
  • SteveHunt113
    SteveHunt113 Posts: 648 Member
    I definitely will underestimate the BURN and overestimate the CONSUMPTION ...
    Excellent! Can't go wrong with that kind of thinking! :happy:

Categories