Eliptical burning 1000 calories in a hour
Options
Fentyman
Posts: 58 Member
Hi,
I enter my weight in the machine (280 pounds), put the resistance up to 16 so it harder to pedal, and according to the machine my heart rate can be between 150-180 depending on how fast I'm going of course. Considering all that, is 1000 calories in a hour accurate or am I really burning 600 or less? If it's not accurate why don't they make them more accurate lol? How can they make them more accurate?
Another thing, if it's a well-known fact that MFP app overestimates calories why hasn't this been changed?
I enter my weight in the machine (280 pounds), put the resistance up to 16 so it harder to pedal, and according to the machine my heart rate can be between 150-180 depending on how fast I'm going of course. Considering all that, is 1000 calories in a hour accurate or am I really burning 600 or less? If it's not accurate why don't they make them more accurate lol? How can they make them more accurate?
Another thing, if it's a well-known fact that MFP app overestimates calories why hasn't this been changed?
0
Replies
-
Get a polar watch or some other device to monitor your calories for better accuracy0
-
Hi,
I enter my weight in the machine (280 pounds), put the resistance up to 16 so it harder to pedal, and according to the machine my heart rate can be between 150-180 depending on how fast I'm going of course. Considering all that, is 1000 calories in a hour accurate or am I really burning 600 or less? If it's not accurate why don't they make them more accurate lol? How can they make them more accurate?
Another thing, if it's a well-known fact that MFP app overestimates calories why hasn't this been changed?
It's a frequently made assumption not a fact. Remember people can't actually measure calorie output so assumptions are made. You will see people assuming a lower number "must" be more accurate - maybe the problem causing people to get poor results is inaccurate food logging not exercise logging. Some entries do appear highly unlikely for sure, but I've also found some entirely reasonable ones (walking, running, strength training, some cycling speeds) and some also appear low.
At 280lbs you are a big guy and will be burning at a high rate but no-one can tell you if 1000 or 600 are the closest to the truth. Are you big and fit or big and unfit? Did you put maximal effort in? Too many variables.
0 -
If the machine has a heart rate monitor, and is reasonably well calibrated, likely it is as accurate as any other device.
If it doesnt have a HRM, then there is no way for it to know how hard you are working, and therefore cant be accurate.
Having said that, you should know that even in the best case scenario, they are only estimates. Your actual expenditure will vary.0 -
Considering all that, is 1000 calories in a hour accurate...
No, it's not, it'll be more along the order of 300 calories.
If you can't run 5 miles, you can't burn that many calories on a machine...any machine.
Using HRMs as calorie estimators is a disaster for people who are out of shape - they will always vastly over-estimate.
0 -
Machines aren't accurate.
You definitely are not burning 1000 calories an hour on the elliptical.
If you want a more accurate reading, I'd recommend a HRM like a Polar.0 -
It's a frequently made assumption not a fact. Remember people can't actually measure calorie output so assumptions are made. You will see people assuming a lower number "must" be more accurate - maybe the problem causing people to get poor results is inaccurate food logging not exercise logging. Some entries do appear highly unlikely for sure, but I've also found some entirely reasonable ones (walking, running, strength training, some cycling speeds) and some also appear low.
At 280lbs you are a big guy and will be burning at a high rate but no-one can tell you if 1000 or 600 are the closest to the truth. Are you big and fit or big and unfit? Did you put maximal effort in? Too many variables.
Agreed. People on here have a pretty bad perception of calorie burns. Your HR, age, weight, height, intensity, fitness level, resistance, etc. all play into part of how many calories you actually burn. MFP can't measure some of these and that is why the burns can be off.
At 280lbs and if you did indeed keep your HR at 150-180 (a machine reading is probably not accurate) for an entire hour...then honestly I wouldn't be surprised at close to a 1k burn. I'm at 186lbs, 5'8 and reasonably fit...I've logged 1200 burns via my Polar FT7 doing 7 miles of snow covered trail running in an hour and a half. Average HR was 167.
I would suggest investing in a lower end Polar watch with HR monitor strap to get a more accurate HR read and calorie burn on the eliptical.0 -
-
I figure the overestimates have more to do with marketing than reality. If you think you’re burning 1000 calories on one machine, would you use the machine that only shows 600 for the same time/effort?
As for MFP, it is a tool. One that you’ll have to learn and use to suit your needs. They can’t be everything to everybody, but you can make the most of what they do have to be healthier. I personally wish they weren’t so weight focused, and instead let people list bf% lost or even, inches lost. One can wish...0 -
Then please provide him with a better alternative for a more accurate measurement.0 -
Then please provide him with a better alternative for a more accurate measurement.
Trial and error.
0 -
Another thing, if it's a well-known fact that MFP app overestimates calories why hasn't this been changed?
It's a frequently wheeled out, questionable assumption used by people wanting to justify buying a new toy
For some activities it's pretty accurate, for others there are so many unknowns that it's less likely to be all that accurate. But then again nothing would be in those cases anyway.
0 -
what I've found with the elliptical is that it seems to base calories burned mostly on resistance. I can do a 40 min on res=1 at high speed with high heart rate (wearing a hrm - but the machine calculating, watch is broken) and get a display of maybe 350-400. As soon as there is some resistance on there, even if my heart rate is the same as it would be at high speed, the amount of calories is very different (~600)0
-
It's a frequently made assumption not a fact. Remember people can't actually measure calorie output so assumptions are made. You will see people assuming a lower number "must" be more accurate - maybe the problem causing people to get poor results is inaccurate food logging not exercise logging. Some entries do appear highly unlikely for sure, but I've also found some entirely reasonable ones (walking, running, strength training, some cycling speeds) and some also appear low.
At 280lbs you are a big guy and will be burning at a high rate but no-one can tell you if 1000 or 600 are the closest to the truth. Are you big and fit or big and unfit? Did you put maximal effort in? Too many variables.
Agreed. People on here have a pretty bad perception of calorie burns. Your HR, age, weight, height, intensity, fitness level, resistance, etc. all play into part of how many calories you actually burn. MFP can't measure some of these and that is why the burns can be off.
At 280lbs and if you did indeed keep your HR at 150-180 (a machine reading is probably not accurate) for an entire hour...then honestly I wouldn't be surprised at close to a 1k burn. I'm at 186lbs, 5'8 and reasonably fit...I've logged 1200 burns via my Polar FT7 doing 7 miles of snow covered trail running in an hour and a half. Average HR was 167.
I would suggest investing in a lower end Polar watch with HR monitor strap to get a more accurate HR read and calorie burn on the eliptical.
Calorie burn is based on workload intensity and weight. That's it. Some other factors such as muscle mass might make a small difference, but not enough to make a significant difference.
HRM manufacturers want you to believe you need all this complex data,but it's not true. HRMs need more data in order to mathematically attempt to compensate for their inherent inaccuracy.
The reason why cross trainers are so inaccurate is simple: there is no standard movement and so, to be accurate, a manufacturer would have to run their own validation studies on each model. Most don't have the time, interest, expertise, money or motivation to do so. So they don't. They just program an equation for a related activity--like walking or running.
Under optimum conditions, a HRM might be a little more accurate than the readout on an elliptical. But there is at least an equal chance the HRM could be even less accurate,especially over time.
0 -
Interesting. So HRMs are only valid for people in shape? Which oddly enough is not the target market.Using HRMs as calorie estimators is a disaster for people who are out of shape - they will always vastly over-estimate.
I am out of shape and use the machines' estimates, not an HRM. Their estimates may be worse. Still, it is something. Over time I adjust my consumption and exercise. If I am a little wobble-legged after a cardio session or can't do another set after a strength session, that seems about right for my situation.
0 -
Interesting. So HRMs are only valid for people in shape? Which oddly enough is not the target market.Using HRMs as calorie estimators is a disaster for people who are out of shape - they will always vastly over-estimate.
I am out of shape and use the machines' estimates, not an HRM. Their estimates may be worse. Still, it is something. Over time I adjust my consumption and exercise.
Disagree. An HRM should really be used for training purposes. Most of the people who would want to train to their optimum capability would be the "target" market in my opinion.
People just seem to think that they are called "calorie estimators" when that's not their purpose.
0 -
Interesting. So HRMs are only valid for people in shape? Which oddly enough is not the target market.Using HRMs as calorie estimators is a disaster for people who are out of shape - they will always vastly over-estimate.
I am out of shape and use the machines' estimates, not an HRM. Their estimates may be worse. Still, it is something. Over time I adjust my consumption and exercise.
Disagree. An HRM should really be used for training purposes. Most of the people who would want to train to their optimum capability would be the "target" market in my opinion.
They aren't all that good for that, either, because the whole "heart rate zone" thing is a bit woo-woo, too. By the end of the year, we should have cheap, widely available power meters for runners, and that'll pretty much be the end of the HRM market.People just seem to think that they are called "calorie estimators" when that's not their purpose.
Yep. There are many who come to MFP thinking HRMs even *measure* calories. Great marketing but....
0 -
I am out of shape and use the machines' estimates, not an HRM.
The easiest way to get an upper bound on what you're burning is to go out and do a 30 minute running test. If you can't run all of it, run as much as you can. That'll give you an upper bound on how quickly your body can burn calories (because an operative definition of "fit" is "can burn more calories, faster"), so at least you can keep your errors to the conservative side of the equation.
All these gadgets and machines needlessly complicate something that's not that hard to figure out. One could be cynical as to the reasons why....
0 -
Elipticals even have warnings on them saying they arent reliable. I think they deliberately make the counts high because it makes their machine look effective.
MFP may overestimate in many cases, but people also overestimate their own effort.
People also use their own experience of how much they burn but fail to take into account that if you are pretty heavy/obese then the burns do get higher.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions