Elliptical Stats vs. MyFitnessPal Stats

Options
mynewlife10
mynewlife10 Posts: 52
in Getting Started
So, the elliptical told me yesterday that I had burned 560 calories during the one hour I was on it (I did not enter my weight) so perhaps it gave me an "average." When I entered the same information in to the MyFitnessPal exercise tracker, it told me I had burned right around 800 calories. Is that because MyFitnessPal knows my weight and calculates it differently based on that? It is my understanding that the more you weigh the more you burn during cardio.

Does anyone have a thought on this? I am trying to gauge the accuracy of my daily calorie burn.
«13

Replies

  • Vanlind
    Vanlind Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    Does your elliptical machine calculate your weight as well. I have the Sole elliptical that has my weight pre-programmed so it's "fairly" accurate. The calories are always way off on MFP for me. I recently purchased a Polar heart rate monitor watch that I love love love because it tracks your heartrate and calories burned during your workout which is more accurate than the elliptical machine. I noticed that my elliptical machine in comparison to my watch is a close match depending on the workout setting I use but have noticed that if I use the manual mode it is waaaay off. My advice would be to get yourself a heart rate monitor and track your workout calories that way for the most accurate results.
  • mynewlife10
    mynewlife10 Posts: 52
    Options
    I do not input my weight to the elliptical but perhaps I should do that tonight and see what happens. That way I will know the comparison. The machine monitors my heart rate, so I am good in that department. My heart condition had my heart rate at 140-180 at all times and I had surgery for this. Now, my heart rate is at around 80 during rest and at 140 maximum during exercise. The calories I really want to keep an eye on.
  • howardheilweil
    howardheilweil Posts: 604 Member
    Options
    Neither are particularly accurate, but since MFP has no idea how intense your workout was, I would guess that the elliptical machine might be closer. I find that when I wear my HRM, it is virtually always lower then the machine and the MFP number. Good luck!
  • heatherlas
    heatherlas Posts: 21
    Options
    I wouldn't trust the MyFitnessPal Stats at all. I got a HRM a few weeks ago and I was shocked on how little calories I burned, especially in comparison to MFP. I have never tracked my calories with an elliptical or treadmill so I don't have any advice on that. They don't "average" the calories, they have a default weight already entered. Is this a machine that relies only on you holding the handles all the time to get the heart rate, or do you use a chest band with it? I would only really trust something with a chest band to tell me how many calories I burned.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Sadly the studies really testing your calorie burn on ellipticals, have been bad at getting any formula for the makers to use, unlike treadmill or cycle ergometer that is most tested.

    There are too many variables on ellipticals, resistance, slope or grade, size of circle or range of movement, ect, plus great variety in your personal efficiency and method of doing it.

    Without asking for weight, it's likely going for how many watts the machine had to supply to withstand your work effort.
    That actually can be very accurate, as watts is energy measurement, just like calories.
    1 watt/hr is 0.859845228 calories. So 300 watts in an hr would be 258 calories.

    So see if the display shows watts, if they use it they usually show it, in which case the calorie estimate is potentially really good.

    This is a case where doing it by weight, with formula's that have no validity in studies, could be way off. MFP could be very off too.
  • marisbowen
    marisbowen Posts: 15
    Options
    This happend to me Saturday. But I put in my weight and it said 401, when I put it into MFP - 700! Since I knew the intense level I worked the machine, MFP had to be wrong. So I adjusted the time to match more of what the elliptical told me.
  • gsager
    gsager Posts: 977 Member
    Options
    Yes, that is the reason
  • ruthrowlett1
    ruthrowlett1 Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    I wouldn't trust the MyFitnessPal Stats at all. I got a HRM a few weeks ago and I was shocked on how little calories I burned, especially in comparison to MFP. I have never tracked my calories with an elliptical or treadmill so I don't have any advice on that. They don't "average" the calories, they have a default weight already entered. Is this a machine that relies only on you holding the handles all the time to get the heart rate, or do you use a chest band with it? I would only really trust something with a chest band to tell me how many calories I burned.


    I too was SO shocked! Actually depressed to find out I wasn't burning that many calories!! Our machines are approx 40% higher compared to my HRM!
  • Holly_Roman_Empire
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    Options
    Neither way is very accurate, but I'd be conservative and go with the smaller number.
  • tinana_RN
    tinana_RN Posts: 541 Member
    Options
    I agree with hollydubs.

    Get a heart rate monitor as soon as you can- the difference in numbers is crazy.
  • WeepingAngel81
    WeepingAngel81 Posts: 2,232 Member
    Options
    I wouldn't trust the MyFitnessPal Stats at all. I got a HRM a few weeks ago and I was shocked on how little calories I burned, especially in comparison to MFP. I have never tracked my calories with an elliptical or treadmill so I don't have any advice on that. They don't "average" the calories, they have a default weight already entered. Is this a machine that relies only on you holding the handles all the time to get the heart rate, or do you use a chest band with it? I would only really trust something with a chest band to tell me how many calories I burned.


    I too was SO shocked! Actually depressed to find out I wasn't burning that many calories!! Our machines are approx 40% higher compared to my HRM!

    I will join that shocked club! I was very bummed out when I saw the difference between what my HRM read compared to MFP. At the same time, I was happy to have something that would be more consistant for what I was losing.
    OP-as many people have said, go with a HRM. Mine isn't the most expensive one out there (I got it from Target) but my best friend has a fitbit and her numbers are generally very close to mine.
  • UsaJewels05
    UsaJewels05 Posts: 229 Member
    Options
    MFP always greatly over estimates my calorie burn. With that being said the elliptical normally underestimates my Calorie burn anywhere from 20-40 cals. I have a HRM and with my height and weight I normally burn avg 30 more calories then what the elliptical actually says but this is based on the time of day (I burn more calories in the morning), and the level that I have the machine set on. It really all depends on your stats, but better to underestimate so I would go with the elliptical.
  • PJ64
    PJ64 Posts: 866 Member
    Options
    HRM, is all I use. Never trust a Machine! Have you NEVER seen TERMINATOR?...................oh wait an HRM is a machine
    anyway...........HRM............it's a Bettererest Machine:bigsmile:
  • scrapjen
    scrapjen Posts: 387 Member
    Options
    My elliptical DOES allow me to enter my weight, and of course it can determine the speed and resistance level. I also have a HRM and a Fitbit. For my average 20min/2mile workout (resistance level 8)

    Machine - 200 calories
    Fitbit - 175 calories
    HRM - 140 calories

    Not a HUGE difference, until to take into account that I do five 20 minute sessions throughout the day (then it's a 300 difference between the highest and the lowest). I think I checked MFP once, and it was also on the higher end. As others have suggested through, probably best to assume the lowest and underestimate calories burned.

    My bike gives me an even larger discrepancy! I did a post on my blog about it ...
    http://jenbsjourney.blogspot.com/2013/10/exercise-estimates-trying-to-be-truthful.html
  • MinnieInMaine
    MinnieInMaine Posts: 6,400 Member
    Options
    560 is probably about right, it still might be a bit overestimated but I would guess only by 150 at most. One trick I noticed, at least with the ellipticals in my gym (Precor) is that you can do the same math trick that generally works for walking where 1 mile = 100 calories (so if you go 2.5 miles, that's 250 calories). Check your elliptical next time to see if it shows distance and see how that compares to what it gives you for calorie burn.

    FYI, this is in comparison to what my Polar FT4 HRM gives me for calorie burns.
  • Melissa22G
    Melissa22G Posts: 847 Member
    Options
    I always used whichever was lower before I purchased a HRM.
  • DesDawn24
    DesDawn24 Posts: 147 Member
    Options
    In your case, I would trust the elliptical more than the MFP stats. I find MFP always burns high compared to what my HRM says. If you enter your weight into the elliptical it will probably give you more accurate results. I've noticed on my elliptical (which has sensors in the handles) that it's usually only a 40-60 calorie difference between HRM and the machine.
  • csheltra26
    csheltra26 Posts: 272 Member
    Options
    Most machines are set up for 150 pound person - so yes if you weigh more than that you typcially burn more calories. The method I found most reliable is the HRM. If you are going to go off the elliptical numbers, I would recommend you input your weight for a more accurate reading.
  • bugaha1
    bugaha1 Posts: 602 Member
    Options
    My HRM and MFP are pretty close to the same number (650 to 700 an hour) but my elliptical (NordicTrack 990) has a much higher calorie burn (40% higher) plus the elliptical can read my HR. Now I wonder if my elliptical still thinks I weigh 270? lol
  • rtouchstone
    rtouchstone Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    Use a Heart Rate Monitor to get a better calorie burn rate.

Categories