Elliptical Stats vs. MyFitnessPal Stats

I have been using the elliptical since January, and I have found the HRM to be the safest way to count. My experience is MFP and my elliptical always estimate way higher!

When I enter my weight and age in the elliptical I get close to the same number when I wear my Polar Heartrate monitor. MFP is always a little lower so I use their numbers.

70 minutes on the elliptical
(Stride on 9 - Resistance on 10)
(10223 steps)

MFP - 940
Elliptical Machine - 980
Polar HRM - 1013

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.

^ Yup, this. ^ My HRM says I am within range for my age etc. and MFP says I'm a super track star that hits 600 cals when sleeping (exaggeration of course).

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.

^ Definitely this. ^ I find that the machines are on average closer to what my HRM says (when I input the required info) than what MFP says.

Someone already posted the fact that many machines automatically default to 150 pounds.

As for the HRM, it depends upon both the make and model AND the program you use. Supposedly chest strap models are more accurate than finger or wrist type monitors and the handgrip monitors on many machines can be off by a considerable amount.

I'm not sure Polar tells you what formula they use to convert heart rate into equivalent calories burned in their own programs, but Endomondo and Digifit (with a compatile HRM) do and the basis for those conversions. (Note: older versions of Endomondo didn't really take the HRM data into account.

I have a Zephyr HRM (compatible with my bluetooth Andriod phone) and use Digifit iCardio as the basis of my workouts. Most important to me is the fact that it has some relatively sophisticated tests to calculate your heart rate zones, VO2 max, etc.which they use to calculate energy expenditure.

Plus, they have a "CP-30" test (critical power 30 minute test) that can be used for assessment. When I did the first one in July, I ran 2.77 miles in 30 minutes. I burned 485 calories at a rate of 16.2 calories per minute and 175 calories/mile. My VO2 max was estimated at 43 from the test data. When I ran my last one a couple of weeks ago, I ran 3.73 miles (nearly a mile further) in 30 minutes. I burned 597 calories at 19.9 calories per minute and 160 calories/mile. My VO2max increased to 60 on the basis of the last assessment. The basis for these estimated calorie (from heart rate) is well documented on their site.

I've noted just the opposite of some of the things about certain exercise machinery and exercise with an HRM

First, my treadmill is "stingy" compared to my HRM or MFP (though MFP isn't too far off). For example, when I do a "500 calorie" workout (variable speed and incline) that is programmed into my treadmill, right now I get 636 calories after 53 minutes and 6 seconds that the treadmill thinks it took me to burn 500 calories. As I have gotten healthier (weight maintenance), my Digifit program has been calculating fewer calories than 6 months ago at the same weight (closer to 670 calories then).

Second, when I am walking outside, the general rule of thumb of 100 calories per mile when walking at a moderate pace is too generous. Values of 65-85 are more typical. But when running, values of 165-185 calories per mile had been more typical.

Finally, as I have completed my current training, I have noted that my calorie per mile (though not necessarily my calorie per minute) values have been steadily decreasing even though I am running faster than I was even two months ago) What used to take 175-180 calories/mile now takes 145-160 calories/mile even though my minute/mile pace might be about 1 minute/mile faster than it used to be (i.e., 9:40/mile rather than 10:30-11:00 min/mile). But even at a 10:00/mile long-distance race pace. my heart rate on flat terrain barely gets above 145 bpm. In April that would have produced a heart rate of 167-175. (see above examples of the progress shown in the CP-30 test).

Hence, the calories per minute may have dropped slightly during normal runs, but it is the speed and efficiency in covering longer distances (with a slower heart rate) that has been reflected in the workout summaries.

Someone already posted the fact that many machines automatically default to 150 pounds.

As for the HRM, it depends upon both the make and model AND the program you use. Supposedly chest strap models are more accurate than finger or wrist type monitors and the handgrip monitors on many machines can be off by a considerable amount.

I'm not sure Polar tells you what formula they use to convert heart rate into equivalent calories burned in their own programs, but Endomondo and Digifit (with a compatile HRM) do and the basis for those conversions. (Note: older versions of Endomondo didn't really take the HRM data into account.

I have a Zephyr HRM (compatible with my bluetooth Andriod phone) and use Digifit iCardio as the basis of my workouts. Most important to me is the fact that it has some relatively sophisticated tests to calculate your heart rate zones, VO2 max, etc.which they use to calculate energy expenditure.

Plus, they have a "CP-30" test (critical power 30 minute test) that can be used for assessment. When I did the first one in July, I ran 2.77 miles in 30 minutes. I burned 485 calories at a rate of 16.2 calories per minute and 175 calories/mile. My VO2 max was estimated at 43 from the test data. When I ran my last one a couple of weeks ago, I ran 3.73 miles (nearly a mile further) in 30 minutes. I burned 597 calories at 19.9 calories per minute and 160 calories/mile. My VO2max increased to 60 on the basis of the last assessment. The basis for these estimated calorie (from heart rate) is well documented on their site.

I've noted just the opposite of some of the things about certain exercise machinery and exercise with an HRM

First, my treadmill is "stingy" compared to my HRM or MFP (though MFP isn't too far off). For example, when I do a "500 calorie" workout (variable speed and incline) that is programmed into my treadmill, right now I get 636 calories after 53 minutes and 6 seconds that the treadmill thinks it took me to burn 500 calories. As I have gotten healthier (weight maintenance), my Digifit program has been calculating fewer calories than 6 months ago at the same weight (closer to 670 calories then).

Second, when I am walking outside, the general rule of thumb of 100 calories per mile when walking at a moderate pace is too generous. Values of 65-85 are more typical. But when running, values of 165-185 calories per mile had been more typical.

Finally, as I have completed my current training, I have noted that my calorie per mile (though not necessarily my calorie per minute) values have been steadily decreasing even though I am running faster than I was even two months ago) What used to take 175-180 calories/mile now takes 145-160 calories/mile even though my minute/mile pace might be about 1 minute/mile faster than it used to be (i.e., 9:40/mile rather than 10:30-11:00 min/mile). But even at a 10:00/mile long-distance race pace. my heart rate on flat terrain barely gets above 145 bpm. In April that would have produced a heart rate of 167-175. (see above examples of the progress shown in the CP-30 test).

Hence, the calories per minute may have dropped slightly during normal runs, but it is the speed and efficiency in covering longer distances (with a slower heart rate) that has been reflected in the workout summaries.

^^^^ Well said, Thanks

I usually find the highest reading (calories burned) and go with that. I'm in pretty good shape but I don't loose much weight that way. I do like the fact that doing it this way also allows me to eat more. I have lost weight when I wanted to but mostly I'm just concerned about being able to eat more without putting on weight. One thing I find with myself is my hunger level will increase with the amount of exercise I do, the longer I exercise, the more calories I want, but the odd thing is that it caps out at some point. So say If I workout an hour to an hour and a half I usually need about 2,500-2,800 calories but if I go to a 2 or 3 hour workout that same amount of calories will still be sufficient. That's where I get my weight loss the easiest, just do a 3 or 4 hour work out a couple times a week and I loose weight and I'm not hungry all week.