Which is more accurate, elliptical calories vs MFP

vanityy99
vanityy99 Posts: 2,583 Member
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
When I log my cardio onto mfp it shows me a higher calorie estimate then what my elliptical tells me.

I don’t have my age, and weight set onto my elliptical if that has any relevance to it.

Thanks in advance.

Replies

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,808 Member
    Age is irrelevant, weight is very relevant for a weight bearing exercise.

    Copy/paste my earlier response to you in another thread....
    Your elliptical knows more about your intensity level than MFP. At least the calories would be proportionate if not accurate.

    But elliptical estimates can vary from well thought out and reasonable through to ludicrously exaggerated.
    The old adage "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" works. Some manufacturers will test a selection of people in a lab to come up with a calorie table, some will just aim to convince people their machine is a magical calorie burning device....

    You could try to calibrate yourself with a more accurate method such as running (use a weight/distance formula), using a power meter equipped bike, a Concept2 rower (using their calculator not the machine readout)....
  • AllanMisner
    AllanMisner Posts: 4,136 Member
    All calorie counts, in or out, are estimates. When I'm using these estimates as a tool, I tend to take the more conservative number. After three weeks of tracking, if I'm not getting the intended results, I tweak it.

    At one point in time, I reduced the number the elliptical gave me by 20% (I was using a food scale, so I figured my issue was on the burn side of the equation).
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,489 Spam Moderator
    Hard to say which is more accurate. As @sijomial already covered, inputs and accuracy of the machine play a big part of it. But if you aren't inputting your weight, most machines will default to a certain weight. So I would start putting in your weight on the machine. Also agree that age shouldn't matter, most machines only use this for the HR "zones" and max which vary by person regardless.

    What type of elliptical are you using?
  • vanityy99
    vanityy99 Posts: 2,583 Member
    edited September 2018
    robertw486 wrote: »
    Hard to say which is more accurate. As @sijomial already covered, inputs and accuracy of the machine play a big part of it. But if you aren't inputting your weight, most machines will default to a certain weight. So I would start putting in your weight on the machine. Also agree that age shouldn't matter, most machines only use this for the HR "zones" and max which vary by person regardless.

    What type of elliptical are you using?

    A NordicTrack. E 5.7

    It’s a elliptical cross trainer and you can adjust the incline which I put on the max And At 7 resistance.
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,762 Member
    I think the gym ones are pretty accurate while the home ones are not. I can tell you that my fitbit (while it still worked) paralleled the high-end Precor elliptical very closely. Part of that was probably the arm movements. Not sure what would happen if you didn't move your arms (as for some Precor units).
  • vanityy99
    vanityy99 Posts: 2,583 Member
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    I think the gym ones are pretty accurate while the home ones are not. I can tell you that my fitbit (while it still worked) paralleled the high-end Precor elliptical very closely. Part of that was probably the arm movements. Not sure what would happen if you didn't move your arms (as for some Precor units).

    The arms on my elliptical moves
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    I just came to post the same question. I just started working out in a gym as I will get less of my outdoor exercise in the months ahead. So this morning, I got on what seems to be a fairly high end elliptical at PlanetFitness. I set it for cardio, target HR=140 and entered my age (59) and weight (155). After 45 minutes, it said I had burned over 500 calories, which would be almost 700 calories an hour. Those are fantasy calories; I wasn't nearly tired or sweaty enough to be burning at that rate. mfp said 475 without any question about intensity. I edited that down to 350. It's really annoying to feel like I can only use the machine's number and mfp's number as a basis for making a guess that's about a third less.

    The question about moving arms is an interesting one. I chose the elliptical and may also try a Nordic style machine based largely on the arm involvement. My primary activity this summer has been paddling and I want to keep my arms in the mix with regards to cardio exercises because of the endurance aspect. I sometimes paddle over 3 hours at a time pretty much non stop. I will do some bench/weight work also, but I will spend most of my time doing cardio. Anyway, on the elliptical I sometimes shift my weight back so that I am somewhat unbalanced and requiring more exertion from the arms and then bring my weight back center after a little of that. I mix it in here and there throughout the routine. My guess is that this causes a higher burn, but it is just a guess.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    If the machine is displaying watts as measurement because they are measuring the motor resistance against your effort - pretty good accuracy available.
    But that's the higher end machines usually found in gyms.
    As long as you got the weight of you and clothes correct.

    The home machines are usually going by formula since watts not measured - and since there hasn't been found any good formula in studies (because of the highly variable way you can choose to do elliptical) - pretty good chance of being off.

    But considering a database entry of 1 intensity level - either will likely beat that.

    There is one study that database entry is based on the average of - and get a load of the tension description.
    Mier and Freito 2006
    Resistance Level 2, light effort - 4.6 METS
    Resistance Level 5, moderate effort - 4.9
    Resistance Level 8, vigorous effort - 5.7

    Since a MET calculation is your per min BMR burn x min of workout x MET value - that range appears rather small and may not amount to much at say 20 min anyway.
    Could do your own math based on how hard you think you did it rather than avg database entry.

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxjb21wZW5kaXVtb2ZwaHlzaWNhbGFjdGl2aXRpZXN8Z3g6MjdiN2Y3NzAwYTU1YWExZQ
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    In the mode I chose, the machine was dynamically changing the resistance to get my heart rate up since i wasn't going really fast due to concerns about my knees. That's why I like the cardio mode with a HR target. After a minute or so the machine figures out I am just not going to "run" any faster and so it makes it harder to keep the speed I am at until my HR gets to what I specified. When I set my age, it chose 135 as the target and I upped it to 140 just to be contrary. :smiley: Is that "vigorous" effort?

    It did seem like to me that knowing my weight and HR plus setting, and therefore knowing, the resistance it seems like the machine had the info to make an accurate calculation. But I fear logging too high of a burn; I think it is one of the top causes of "unexplained" gains or slow loss.
  • vanityy99
    vanityy99 Posts: 2,583 Member
    edited September 2018
    Pfffffff mfp says I burnt 181 calories in 19min does that seem about right ? I actually did 45min, but that looked way off too.
    heybales wrote: »
    If the machine is displaying watts as measurement because they are measuring the motor resistance against your effort - pretty good accuracy available.
    But that's the higher end machines usually found in gyms.
    As long as you got the weight of you and clothes correct.

    The home machines are usually going by formula since watts not measured - and since there hasn't been found any good formula in studies (because of the highly variable way you can choose to do elliptical) - pretty good chance of being off.

    But considering a database entry of 1 intensity level - either will likely beat that.

    There is one study that database entry is based on the average of - and get a load of the tension description.
    Mier and Freito 2006
    Resistance Level 2, light effort - 4.6 METS
    Resistance Level 5, moderate effort - 4.9
    Resistance Level 8, vigorous effort - 5.7

    Since a MET calculation is your per min BMR burn x min of workout x MET value - that range appears rather small and may not amount to much at say 20 min anyway.
    Could do your own math based on how hard you think you did it rather than avg database entry.

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxjb21wZW5kaXVtb2ZwaHlzaWNhbGFjdGl2aXRpZXN8Z3g6MjdiN2Y3NzAwYTU1YWExZQ

    I’ll give this a shot.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    Using the MET calculation I come up with around 300 for 45 minutes, +/-20 depending on how my intensity level maps to their numbers. The program did a brief (5 minutes at most, and I think less) ramp up to a HR of 140 and then kept it there for the remainder of the 45 minutes. If I slowed, I might see a dip to 138 before it notched up the resistance to bring me back to 140.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Didn't do this before - For me, calculated, 1 hr:
    402 light
    499 vigorous

    So I guess if I did 1 hr daily, picking the middle of the road, means only 50 cal off max if I actually did more or less.

    I guess I see now why 1 entry in the database is perhaps not really that bad. Huh.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    edited September 2018
    I kind of guessed at my BMR. I think it is a little lower than calculators come up with from some AT. I did some really extreme diets before joining mfp, like 1000 or less a day for months at a time. I am absolutely not recommending this (if I were, the thread could get closed and the admins might have a word with me). I lost a lot of muscle when I did that (got most of it back, but it was hard work) and I am pretty sure AT has left me needing less calories than calculators indicate.
  • cloudninesterling
    cloudninesterling Posts: 1 Member
    edited November 2018
    On treadmill I just log what the treadmill calories says, because MFP doesn’t consider the hills. But I use the elliptical 4 times per week and I use MFP’s calculation. It doesn’t seem accurate as it gives me about 40 percent more calories burned than the treadmill itself (and I do enter my weight & age into gym elliptical). But, my goal is to lose 1 lb per week, which so far I am, so unless that changes I am using and eating up the MFP very-high-seeming elliptical calories burned numbers.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories