Are treadmill calorie counters correct?

Azdak, do you have any comments of LifeFitness ellipticals (or any ellipticals)? With a treadmill, you can set your speed and incline and then change either the speed or the incline manually as you go along. But with the LifeFitness elliptical, it seem that you need a heart rate because the machine will vary the resistance to maintain your heart rate at a certain (narrow) range. This means that the resistance changes constantly. Do you think the calories count of ellpiticals are accurate?

That's just one program on the Life Fitness elliptical--the heart rate control program. You can run the machine manually as well. (I recommend the manual settings rather than the "cardio" or "fat burn" programs--unfortunately, I don't have time to go into detail right now about my reasons).

For the electronic machines, constantly varying resistance doesn't affect their calorie estimate calculations--the computer chips in the boards can handle that with no problem whatsoever.

With Life Fitness ellipticals, you have the best and the worst-case scenarios, depending on the age of the machine and the software version it was programmed with.

The best: newer models, such as the newest machines in the "Elevation" series (you'd recognize them because they have a unique rear drive system). http://www.lifefitness.com/commercial/cardio/ellipticalcrosstrainers/elevationseries/95xinspire.html

Or some of the 95X silver ellipticals (looks like this: http://www.lifefitness.com/commercial/cardio/ellipticalcrosstrainers/integrity-series/integrity-series-elliptical-crosstrainer-clsxh.html except that it's all silver)

The elevation ellipticals and the later 95X models were extensively tested in the biomechanical lab at Life Fitness and have algorithms for estimating calories they were specifically developed for those machines and validated using 80-100 test subjects. If you can find one of those, then the calorie estimates will be quite accurate--much more accurate than an HRM.

The bad: the most common model of LF cross trainer sold to health clubs in the US is the older CT9500HRR style (later rebranded to "91X", then as the "Classic" , and now sold as model CLSX in the "Integrity" line.)
It looks like this: http://www.lifefitness.com/commercial/cardio/ellipticalcrosstrainers/integrity-series/integrity-series-elliptical-crosstrainer-clsx.html (the shape--you will find a variety of shroud colors out there).

This model was developed around 2000, when LF did not have the testing capabilities it has today, and so the calorie counts are overestimated by a good 25%-30%. They tried to retire the model in 2004-5, but clubs hated the new replacement and so they had to bring it back. To my knowledge, they have not updated the calorie estimating algorithms in the software (unless they have done it in the last 3 years). Doing those tests is pretty expensive. Given the nature of the economy the last few years, and the need to test new products, I highly doubt they could have taken the time or $$ to go back and "redo" an existing product.

So that's probably a lot more detail than you wanted, but that's the only accurate way I can answer your question. At the park district where I work out, they have 3 of the 95X models. Two have the newer software (the accurate one) and 1 has the old version. I know which is which, so I make sure I get the one I want. For those models, I can tell you that the calorie counts are very accurate. In fact, comparing the calorie numbers on the LF elliptical with the results from my HRM has given me a lot of insights about the inaccuracies of HRMs.

bump

Bumping this

So many posts here instruct us to go to our HRM for calculating calories. When I use the numbers from my HRM, usually the calorie counter reports MORE calories burned than the LifeFitness Integrity Series Elliptical Cross-Trainer (CLSX). MFP counts fewer than the LifeFitness elliptical. I enter the MFP exercise and go by that. Sometimes the differences are as much as 50-100 calories off for a one hour workout.

HRM: 736 calories / 65 min
elliptical: 692
MFP: 681

I wear the HRM while on the elliptical and use random programs or enter my own. The elliptical reflects my heart rate on the machine regardless what program I am doing - I wear an Omron HR-100C Heart Rate Monitor chest strap and do NOT use the machine's hand grips for HRM at all. I don't hold on to the hand rail or touch the machine at all if I don't have to. Most of my time is spent on level #25. I hate that the heart rate is reflected on the machine so it "knows" that I am working out but it still gives me the PAUSE error when I drop below 2.5 in speed. This happens pretty often when I switch between reverse pedaling to forward pedaling and I am working on getting my momentum back up.

However, the numbers that I present argue that people who say, "the machines always give numbers way too high. Use a HRM instead" might not be entirely correct. Also, people say blanket statements that MFP uses numbers too high for calorie burn. So if the machine calorie burn is too high (blanket responses in many threads), and MFP calorie burn is too high (also blanket responses in many threads), how in the heck can the HRM calculation for calorie burn be correct?

I know, I know.... All are estimates. lol.

I have no technical knowledge on this subject… but I have always based my calorie burn off of the reading I'm getting off the treadmill (it allows me to input my weight).

Understanding that MFP uses "net calories", the app will give you reports of how many calories under your goal you were that week. Since calorie deficit is built in and you're "supposed" to eat back exercise calories… theoretically, you would still lose at your desired rate if you were right on with your calorie goal. So, with the understanding that 3500 calories equals one pound… if my goal is set to lose 2 pounds a week, and yet I'm 3500 calories below my MFP goal in a given week… then theoretically, I should lose 3 pounds that week. (However, as gets mentioned often… weight loss can vary due to a number of factors… that's why I use the word "theoretically")

This assumes that you are accurate in your logging of food, as well as accurate in determining the calories burned.

Like I said, I have no technical knowledge of how treadmills work when determining calories (or how HRMs work either). But, I can say that my weight loss has been consistent with the amount of deficit MFP shows for my week… based on my logging of food and exercise, using calorie burn from the machine. So, for my purposes… it's accurate enough!

The HRM estimates both your max HR and your aerobic max. If then uses that "scale" to estimate calories burned. If your actual max HR is significantly higher than the HRM estimate (very likely in your case), the HRM thinks you are working at a higher percentage of your aerobic max than you actually are and will overestimate calories.

My HRM itself does not report calories. I plug my average heart rate from the Omron HR-100C Heart Rate Monitor into http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/. That is how I arrive at the calories burned. I realize this is an estimate at best.

The problem with ellipticals (and the Life Fitness Integrity machine) is that the equations they use for translating workload into calories are not very accurate--the LF machine is off by 25%-30% last I checked.

So I should be able to deduct 30% from the elliptical calories and arrive at a more accurate calorie burn. That is pretty much what I am hearing.

The machine doesn't "know" anything--it is programmed to respond to various impulses.

Exactly my point. Why display the HR on the machine if it is not a variable in the program that I am working on. My comment about the HR being displayed and the machine going on pause was a gripe about how the machine functions. If the HR is moot in the program I am working on, why display it?

Sooooooooooooo 692 - 30% = 484.40. That is what I am really getting out of my 65 minute elliptical workout and I can leave my HRM at the house.

People find this hard to believe, but the original and primary reason why HR is displayed on exercise machines is to:

Monitor heart rate during exercise.

It can be a valuable tool for monitoring performance, training effect recovery from intervals, etc. The current preoccupation with using HR to estimate calories burned is a more recent trend (and a stroke of marketing genius by Polar to make people think that a feature that is essentially a gimmick is the "gold standard" for estimating calories).

All I can do is report my experience.

I use a HRM (Garmin 210). I input my gender and current weight into both the treadmill and the HRM. The treadmill (and MFP) generally reports more calories burned than my HRM.

If I forget my HRM and am on the treadmill, I usually take about 2/3 to 3/4 of what it reports and count that. I find that adjustment to level the reported calories between the two.

If anyone is interested
http://www.livestrong.com/article/34973-calculate-treadmill-calories/

My treadmill was accurate without a weight given, yes heart rate is important, but it only needs to be like 50-80% of your max heart rate for your given age and weight to have a good exercise, over 80% turns into anaerobic. I think as long as you are pushing yourself you should be around correct for calories.