Mfp calories vs elliptical Cals

Options
jmbrown090
jmbrown090 Posts: 48 Member
in Getting Started
not sure which number to go off... When on the elliptical after about 40 minutes it says I burn between 400-450 but when I type in 40 minutes on the elliptical on mfp it fills in the cals for me and will be insanely higher (like double what the elliptical says)
I plan on purchasing a fit bit soon but until then what number should I be going by?

Thanks :)
«1

Replies

  • Heidi_Sullivan
    Heidi_Sullivan Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    And if you have a fitbit do you just go by "strps" or fo you still input "eliptical" I would typically go with the less calories burned errr on the side of caution :)
  • jmbrown090
    jmbrown090 Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    Yeah I've been doing the lower amount. Especially because mfp is saying id burn like 900 in a 40 minute session with the elliptical.
  • katsmo
    katsmo Posts: 219 Member
    Options
    I would log the lower number of the two, and I'd maybe be apprehensive about that. I wear a heart rate monitor (which isn't foolproof either), and I have to run steady for 40 minutes to burn 400 calories. I would burn about half of that on an elliptical, but it will obviously vary, based on how hard you're working. Good luck!
  • jmbrown090
    jmbrown090 Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    That's exactly why I'm nervous to eat back exercise calories because I'm never sure what the true number is.

    Thanks for your input!
  • miss_rye_
    miss_rye_ Posts: 94 Member
    Options
    I would go with the elliptical, even though that won't be that accurate either. MFP is based off a consistent pace and cookie cutter person, where at least the elliptical was able to measure when you went faster or slower.

    I personally count macros based on a weekly average, so I never eat back my calories, I just eat the same 1700ish a day (when I am cutting).
  • ManiacalLaugh
    ManiacalLaugh Posts: 1,048 Member
    Options
    If you're planning on eating back and are a little nervous about it, 1/2 the lowest reading. That way, you'll get a little nutrition - and the chances of going over what you burned are slim.

    Ellipticals can be all over the place as far as calorie burn goes.
  • snowflake930
    snowflake930 Posts: 2,188 Member
    Options
    jmbrown090 wrote: »
    not sure which number to go off... When on the elliptical after about 40 minutes it says I burn between 400-450 but when I type in 40 minutes on the elliptical on mfp it fills in the cals for me and will be insanely higher (like double what the elliptical says)
    I plan on purchasing a fit bit soon but until then what number should I be going by?

    Thanks :)

    I have a fit bit. All of my numbers (fit bit, MFP, the machine, iphone) are different. I agree with ManiacalLaugh, take the smallest number, and eat back 1/2.

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited September 2015
    Options
    If you put your weight in to the elliptical at the start - that's your most accurate assessment.
    If it's a nicer unit. A home unit that feels like it could fall apart if you moved wrong, not so much.

    Log that and eat it all back in that case.

    MFP has no levels of intensity for some stuff. When it does and you match it exactly (walking 4 mph) - accuracy can be very good if honest about time doing it.

    And remember, just because you don't have exact burn - you know full well it ain't zero.

    Do you still log food even though nutrition labels are allowed to be rounded and can be 10% off?
  • jmbrown090
    jmbrown090 Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    I had no idea labels could be off. I do use the label as well as a food scale because my eyeballing can be a hefty bit more ;)

    I'll continue to use the smaller number to be on the safe side. And like you said, I know for sure the number isn't zero! I sweat way too much for that lol.
  • kami3006
    kami3006 Posts: 4,978 Member
    edited September 2015
    Options
    The actual margin of error is 20%.

    ETA: At least in the US. :(
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    That's why I switched to the TDEE method, lol. Couldn't bother with exercise calories anymore!

    Interestingly though, when I used my HRM on the treadmill, it was actually more than what MFP said!
  • kami3006
    kami3006 Posts: 4,978 Member
    edited September 2015
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    That's why I switched to the TDEE method, lol. Couldn't bother with exercise calories anymore!

    Interestingly though, when I used my HRM on the treadmill, it was actually more than what MFP said!

    Interesting. When I used my HRM for the elliptical the first time it was 2 calories off from MFP. I know, it has to be close for at least some of us.

    Yep, TDEE is awesome if you're exercising regularly. Otherwise, it's trial and error until you get the number right. Took me a few months of playing with the number but I have been eating back 100% of mine for a couple years now. It's all a learning curve.

    ETA: It's also a lot easier when you're boring like me and enjoy consistent routines. The numbers stay pretty predictable. :)
  • zoeysasha37
    zoeysasha37 Posts: 7,089 Member
    Options
    When I first started, I didn't know how crazy inflated the machine numbers and mfp numbers where. I wasn't losing ..then I figured it out! The machine was saying I burned 900 cals, and in reality it was more like 250 cals.
    Many here just eat back a small portion of their calories earned to be safe.
  • michellemybelll
    michellemybelll Posts: 2,228 Member
    Options
    the elliptical really doesn't burn nearly as many calories as you think.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Well, like any exercise - it totally depends on how hard you do it.

    Don't let the lack of impact fool you, just like biking - it may feel easier and you recover easier, but usually that means you can have just as hard if not harder workout than say running with that impact.

    And that means bigger calorie burn actually.

    Because you are involving more muscle too, and even in the legs.

    You might look up at least 2 studies I've seen where they measured by gas analysis the calorie burn on elliptical compared to running, but didn't show the people any info on pace or effort, but instead the people self-selected the same level only by perceived effort, matching what felt the same.
    They burned more on elliptical.
  • deminimis
    deminimis Posts: 47 Member
    edited September 2015
    Options
    Hopefully this helps. I find MFP way overestimates cals burned on a elliptical vs. what the elliptical states. I'm inputting age, weight and use a HRM with the elliptical. I keep my heart rate at 120-150HR (with 120 reps minimum regardless of resistance/angle, except during warm up and cool down, and up to 160+rpm spurts of misery during the last minutes). I roll back the numbers a bit on the elliptical as well and come up with 100 cals/10 mins averaged over the length of the workout. I like easy math and it works out to less than MFP by a lot and a bit lower than what the elliptical shows. In other words, for me, 60 minutes equals 600 cals. If you're getting off the elliptical exhausted w/noodle legs, the 100cals/10min average is probably a safe ratio to use, and, perhaps, a bit conservative.
  • kami3006
    kami3006 Posts: 4,978 Member
    Options
    deminimis wrote: »
    Hopefully this helps. I find MFP way overestimates cals burned on a elliptical vs. what the elliptical states. I'm inputting age, weight and use a HRM with the elliptical. I keep my heart rate at the top of the spectrum (120-150HR with 120 reps minimum regardless of resistance/angle, except during warm up and cool down, and up to 160+rpm spurts of misery during the last minutes). I roll back the numbers a bit on the elliptical as well and come up with 100 cals/10 mins averaged over the length of the workout. I like easy math and it works out to less than MFP by a lot and a bit lower than what the elliptical shows. In other words, for me, 60 minutes equals 600 cals. If you're getting off the elliptical exhausted w/noodle legs, the 100cals/10min average is probably a safe ratio to use, and, perhaps, a bit conservative.

    Yep, I burn right around 100 cals/10 minutes per my HRM. And, I eat them all back with no issues to my weight so it's pretty darn close.
  • jmbrown090
    jmbrown090 Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    That's generally what the elliptical numbers are. 45 minutes (I do intervals and try to keep the steps per minute between 145-150) and it'll say around 450 cals.

    Thanks for all the replies. This is my second time around and the first I lost 35 pounds. Then moved across the country and gained it all back lol. But I'm here for good so time to get a new life routine going again. :)
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited September 2015
    Options
    deminimis wrote: »
    Hopefully this helps. I find MFP way overestimates cals burned on a elliptical vs. what the elliptical states. I'm inputting age, weight and use a HRM with the elliptical. I keep my heart rate at 120-150HR (with 120 reps minimum regardless of resistance/angle, except during warm up and cool down, and up to 160+rpm spurts of misery during the last minutes). I roll back the numbers a bit on the elliptical as well and come up with 100 cals/10 mins averaged over the length of the workout. I like easy math and it works out to less than MFP by a lot and a bit lower than what the elliptical shows. In other words, for me, 60 minutes equals 600 cals. If you're getting off the elliptical exhausted w/noodle legs, the 100cals/10min average is probably a safe ratio to use, and, perhaps, a bit conservative.

    Except weight moved is a huge factor - really is impossible to compare or suggest calorie burns without weight being in the discussion, unless it's a rough figure per distance.
    And since so many variable settings distance being the same in pretty iffy.
    Like running per mile - though even that matters per weight too.

    http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

    10 cal/min really isn't that intense anyway.

    Looking at some gas-exchange measured calorie burns for various activities, especially running, might share some insight as to what the body can burn.
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,598 Member
    Options
    I count on 50% of what MFP tells me. I have no idea why they don't fix this. It's insanely off base.

Categories