Quick question about Elliptical accuracy.
DakotaGregoire
Posts: 3 Member
I've been going on an elliptical for 1 hour almost everyday. In that hour i usually do anywhere from 10-13 km\hr. I weight 210 lbs. The machine screen displays that i burn around 1500-1800 calories in that hour. Do you guys think that is accurate or what do you guys figure i burn?
0
Replies
-
Are you sure it's saying calories and not kilojoules? 1500 calories is impossible, but 1500 kilojoules is about 360 calories, which would be more reasonable.1
-
the machine says calories. so what your saying is its not accurate at all?0
-
Have you set your profile up with your height etc? That being said I took a stab at your age and height on the map my fitness calculator which was the only one I found which asked you to input km for a elliptical workout as well as time and weight (a lot just had effort rather than kms) and I got about 1550 calories (1.7m 95kg 30yo male 60 min 11 kms).
Having said that I am 2kgs lighter than you and a 5km run on my fitbit shows about 550calories and I would have expected an elliptical to show less calories than running and 13km would get me about 1400 calories running so its still looks like a high number.0 -
Some of the fittest guys on the planet are pro cyclists, 400w of power that they can achieve really pushing hard would be 1440 cals for an hour. Based on that then no, your elliptical is badly exaggerating.
For more "normal" people 1000 net calories an hour requires a very high fitness level. I'm a long distance cyclist with a good fitness level and only just managing 767 for maximal effort for an hour.
You haven't stated anything about your fitness level or how hard you are trying though.
The speed is an irrelevance as there's not an equivalent movement for outdoors equipment.
Does your gym have other equipment that you could use to try and "calibrate yourself"?
Such as a Concept2 rower or a power meter equipped bike?
Or alternatively run for an hour on flat ground and use the formula bodyweight in pounds X miles X 0.631 -
I dunno. You'd think elliptical would be fairly accurate but people freak out when you mention high numbers on them. I put my weight and age into the one at my gym and work out pretty damn hard for about 99 minutes and it tells me 1500 calories. Running at my usual pace for the same time would burn about 1200 apparently. I do have the elliptical on a fairly high resistance on a "rolling hills" program. I really don't know. When I'm calorie counting I halve exercise calories just to be safe. But that's still just guessing. Even if we assume it's overestimating: by how much? Anything is a guess. Just gotta keep track as best you can and keep an eye on progress and if progress slows down then make adjustments.0
-
bendyourkneekatie wrote: »I dunno. You'd think elliptical would be fairly accurate but people freak out when you mention high numbers on them. I put my weight and age into the one at my gym and work out pretty damn hard for about 99 minutes and it tells me 1500 calories. Running at my usual pace for the same time would burn about 1200 apparently. I do have the elliptical on a fairly high resistance on a "rolling hills" program. I really don't know. When I'm calorie counting I halve exercise calories just to be safe. But that's still just guessing. Even if we assume it's overestimating: by how much? Anything is a guess. Just gotta keep track as best you can and keep an eye on progress and if progress slows down then make adjustments.
Actually I would default to the opposite viewpoint. There isn't a standard movement for ellipticals (unlike running or cycling as example), they are all subtly different.
Some manufacturers do set up lab tests with a variety of people to create a calorie table to give a reasonable estimate but that has to be done on each unique model.
On one where the numbers are clearly astronomical then I would simply work on perceived exertion for a better estimate. That's where using an accurate device (or formula) to have an idea on what is possible for yourself helps.1 -
Unfortunately, ellipticals are known for having the most inaccurate calorie counts of any machine. It’s not a conspiracy—it’s just that there is no standard movement so a manufacturer has to do a validation study for each new machine—and that is too expensive. So they use/adapt equations for other movements. With the exception of one or two specific models, most ellipticals are going to overestimate calories by 25%-40%.4
-
Some of the fittest guys on the planet are pro cyclists, 400w of power that they can achieve really pushing hard would be 1440 cals for an hour. Based on that then no, your elliptical is badly exaggerating.
For more "normal" people 1000 net calories an hour requires a very high fitness level. I'm a long distance cyclist with a good fitness level and only just managing 767 for maximal effort for an hour.
You haven't stated anything about your fitness level or how hard you are trying though.
The speed is an irrelevance as there's not an equivalent movement for outdoors equipment.
Does your gym have other equipment that you could use to try and "calibrate yourself"?
Such as a Concept2 rower or a power meter equipped bike?
Or alternatively run for an hour on flat ground and use the formula bodyweight in pounds X miles X 0.63
I have found that, to do 1000 net calories in an hour, you have to be pretty heavy, in addition to having a fairly high aerobic level. Looking at reported data from pro cyclists, they don’t do 1000 Cals an hour, not because they aren’t super fit, but because they weigh so little (GC contenders).
2 -
Some of the fittest guys on the planet are pro cyclists, 400w of power that they can achieve really pushing hard would be 1440 cals for an hour. Based on that then no, your elliptical is badly exaggerating.
For more "normal" people 1000 net calories an hour requires a very high fitness level. I'm a long distance cyclist with a good fitness level and only just managing 767 for maximal effort for an hour.
You haven't stated anything about your fitness level or how hard you are trying though.
The speed is an irrelevance as there's not an equivalent movement for outdoors equipment.
Does your gym have other equipment that you could use to try and "calibrate yourself"?
Such as a Concept2 rower or a power meter equipped bike?
Or alternatively run for an hour on flat ground and use the formula bodyweight in pounds X miles X 0.63
I have found that, to do 1000 net calories in an hour, you have to be pretty heavy, in addition to having a fairly high aerobic level. Looking at reported data from pro cyclists, they don’t do 1000 Cals an hour, not because they aren’t super fit, but because they weigh so little (GC contenders).
@Azdak
With due respect don't think you are correct there, 280w an hour (1008 cals) would be a non-competitive power output for a racer. Not that a GC contender spending the majority of the time in the peleton needs to push to their limit though for an entire stage, they ration their effort carefully, that would be the reason that they don't commonly hit 1000/hr - not that they can't.
Cycling is a bit of an oddity in the exercise world as it's non-weight bearing of course and so power to weight ratio is far more significant (for performance) rather than absolute power.
A friend who is in his mid-fifties and under 140lbs is currently pushing out 275w and won't consider a return to competing in long distance endurance events unless he gets his FTP up to 300w.
But he is very much an outlier in terms of fitness and training commitment doing 15 hours of training a week - but he's very far from pro standard.
Wout van Aert in this year's Strade Bianche is reported to have averaged 351w for over five hours, 1266 net cals/hour. He did collapse off his bike on the final climb though.
A world champion pushing himself to the absolute limit does put the OP's elliptical telling him he is burning 1500 - 1800 into a certain perspective regarding accuracy.
2 -
My personal experience has been that when my Elliptical machine almost 800cal for 1hr, my Garmin VivoSport is telling me about 355cal for the same hour. AND, when I use a different type of Elliptical Machine in the same gym...well that same basic hour shows almost 1000cals, with the Garmin showing about 375.
Following the calories on the Garmin's estimate seems closest to accurate, as I am making my weight number,0 -
I crank my resistance up to max, and the machine says about 100 calories every 5 minutes. So depending on resistance and speed, it could be accurate.1
-
Some of the fittest guys on the planet are pro cyclists, 400w of power that they can achieve really pushing hard would be 1440 cals for an hour. Based on that then no, your elliptical is badly exaggerating.
For more "normal" people 1000 net calories an hour requires a very high fitness level. I'm a long distance cyclist with a good fitness level and only just managing 767 for maximal effort for an hour.
You haven't stated anything about your fitness level or how hard you are trying though.
The speed is an irrelevance as there's not an equivalent movement for outdoors equipment.
Does your gym have other equipment that you could use to try and "calibrate yourself"?
Such as a Concept2 rower or a power meter equipped bike?
Or alternatively run for an hour on flat ground and use the formula bodyweight in pounds X miles X 0.63
I have found that, to do 1000 net calories in an hour, you have to be pretty heavy, in addition to having a fairly high aerobic level. Looking at reported data from pro cyclists, they don’t do 1000 Cals an hour, not because they aren’t super fit, but because they weigh so little (GC contenders).
@Azdak
With due respect don't think you are correct there, 280w an hour (1008 cals) would be a non-competitive power output for a racer. Not that a GC contender spending the majority of the time in the peleton needs to push to their limit though for an entire stage, they ration their effort carefully, that would be the reason that they don't commonly hit 1000/hr - not that they can't.
Cycling is a bit of an oddity in the exercise world as it's non-weight bearing of course and so power to weight ratio is far more significant (for performance) rather than absolute power.
A friend who is in his mid-fifties and under 140lbs is currently pushing out 275w and won't consider a return to competing in long distance endurance events unless he gets his FTP up to 300w.
But he is very much an outlier in terms of fitness and training commitment doing 15 hours of training a week - but he's very far from pro standard.
Wout van Aert in this year's Strade Bianche is reported to have averaged 351w for over five hours, 1266 net cals/hour. He did collapse off his bike on the final climb though.
A world champion pushing himself to the absolute limit does put the OP's elliptical telling him he is burning 1500 - 1800 into a certain perspective regarding accuracy.
Appreciate the clarification. I was going primarily on memory of a number of performance reports that have been published for Pro riders over the past couple of years. I’ve looked at 20-30 of them and none of them showed a 1k avg over the stage. But they were probably more in the pack and I trust your attention to detail on this topic.1 -
I think if possible it would best to try to use a heart rate monitor or other fitness device to see what it outputs from your calories burned.
Another way to look at it, is if you are trying to lose weight and you're tight on your logging of food but not losing at the pace you expect, then you might try lowering the amount of exercise calories you put into myfitnesspal. I usually aim to burn 400 calories on the elliptical and only log it as a 300 calorie workout because that is what has worked for me in weightloss and now maintenance.
0 -
I never estimate more than 10 cals per minute, and that's for all out hard exercise with little rest or relief.1
-
Thanks guys, I appreciate all the responses
. It's safe to assume that the elliptical i use is most likely not accurate. I do as some of you have said and input my exercise calories burned alot lower than what the machine reads just to be safe. 0 -
Most gym equipment is suspect as far a calorie accuracy. I wear a heart rate monitor. Pick one you like and use it.1
-
-
Some of the fittest guys on the planet are pro cyclists, 400w of power that they can achieve really pushing hard would be 1440 cals for an hour. Based on that then no, your elliptical is badly exaggerating.
For more "normal" people 1000 net calories an hour requires a very high fitness level. I'm a long distance cyclist with a good fitness level and only just managing 767 for maximal effort for an hour.
You haven't stated anything about your fitness level or how hard you are trying though.
The speed is an irrelevance as there's not an equivalent movement for outdoors equipment.
Does your gym have other equipment that you could use to try and "calibrate yourself"?
Such as a Concept2 rower or a power meter equipped bike?
Or alternatively run for an hour on flat ground and use the formula bodyweight in pounds X miles X 0.63
I have found that, to do 1000 net calories in an hour, you have to be pretty heavy, in addition to having a fairly high aerobic level. Looking at reported data from pro cyclists, they don’t do 1000 Cals an hour, not because they aren’t super fit, but because they weigh so little (GC contenders).
@Azdak
With due respect don't think you are correct there, 280w an hour (1008 cals) would be a non-competitive power output for a racer. Not that a GC contender spending the majority of the time in the peleton needs to push to their limit though for an entire stage, they ration their effort carefully, that would be the reason that they don't commonly hit 1000/hr - not that they can't.
Cycling is a bit of an oddity in the exercise world as it's non-weight bearing of course and so power to weight ratio is far more significant (for performance) rather than absolute power.
A friend who is in his mid-fifties and under 140lbs is currently pushing out 275w and won't consider a return to competing in long distance endurance events unless he gets his FTP up to 300w.
But he is very much an outlier in terms of fitness and training commitment doing 15 hours of training a week - but he's very far from pro standard.
Wout van Aert in this year's Strade Bianche is reported to have averaged 351w for over five hours, 1266 net cals/hour. He did collapse off his bike on the final climb though.
A world champion pushing himself to the absolute limit does put the OP's elliptical telling him he is burning 1500 - 1800 into a certain perspective regarding accuracy.
Is 3.6 calories per watt consistent across all exercise machines? If I am using an elliptical machine at 100 watts will I be burning 360 calories per hour?0 -
Some of the fittest guys on the planet are pro cyclists, 400w of power that they can achieve really pushing hard would be 1440 cals for an hour. Based on that then no, your elliptical is badly exaggerating.
For more "normal" people 1000 net calories an hour requires a very high fitness level. I'm a long distance cyclist with a good fitness level and only just managing 767 for maximal effort for an hour.
You haven't stated anything about your fitness level or how hard you are trying though.
The speed is an irrelevance as there's not an equivalent movement for outdoors equipment.
Does your gym have other equipment that you could use to try and "calibrate yourself"?
Such as a Concept2 rower or a power meter equipped bike?
Or alternatively run for an hour on flat ground and use the formula bodyweight in pounds X miles X 0.63
I have found that, to do 1000 net calories in an hour, you have to be pretty heavy, in addition to having a fairly high aerobic level. Looking at reported data from pro cyclists, they don’t do 1000 Cals an hour, not because they aren’t super fit, but because they weigh so little (GC contenders).
@Azdak
With due respect don't think you are correct there, 280w an hour (1008 cals) would be a non-competitive power output for a racer. Not that a GC contender spending the majority of the time in the peleton needs to push to their limit though for an entire stage, they ration their effort carefully, that would be the reason that they don't commonly hit 1000/hr - not that they can't.
Cycling is a bit of an oddity in the exercise world as it's non-weight bearing of course and so power to weight ratio is far more significant (for performance) rather than absolute power.
A friend who is in his mid-fifties and under 140lbs is currently pushing out 275w and won't consider a return to competing in long distance endurance events unless he gets his FTP up to 300w.
But he is very much an outlier in terms of fitness and training commitment doing 15 hours of training a week - but he's very far from pro standard.
Wout van Aert in this year's Strade Bianche is reported to have averaged 351w for over five hours, 1266 net cals/hour. He did collapse off his bike on the final climb though.
A world champion pushing himself to the absolute limit does put the OP's elliptical telling him he is burning 1500 - 1800 into a certain perspective regarding accuracy.
Is 3.6 calories per watt consistent across all exercise machines? If I am using an elliptical machine at 100 watts will I be burning 360 calories per hour?
@ap1972
Unfortunately not. It's particular to cycling.
It's a simplified calculation to convert watts to net calories (power x duration = energy basically) but part of the calculation is the assumed efficiency ratio of the cyclist.
The efficiency ratio across experienced cyclists is is in a pretty narrow band due to the relatively uniform nature of cycling.
But as ellipticals are far from standard in design and motion plus it's a weight bearing exercise you can't use the same assumption.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions