Elliptical Trainer in the gym - when the stats don't match

melanie3103
melanie3103 Posts: 246 Member
edited October 2 in Fitness and Exercise
Anyone found that the site doesn't match what the CV machine tells ya ?? Now I know sometimes these machines dont allow for weight and age. But also that this site doesn't allow for different programme settings - just "elliptical trainer".

So my question.. I did 30mins on the elliptical trainer, on a random hilly program (so varying resistance) - it DID ask me my age and my weight, so you would hope the cals burned would be fairly accurate. And it said 300cals burned in total after 30mins. I wasn't "flat out" but kept up a good steady pace for the majority.

This site told me when I input "30mins on elliptical trainer" - 394 cals. The site has my height and weight, and my age - so again hopefully this is pretty accurate too.

Now I appreciate that without a heart rate monitor it won't be 100% accurate - but this is a discrepancy of 94 cals !! How do I record it ? I ended up trusting the machine - and changing the 394 cals to 300.

Would be interested to know what everyone else does ??
Thanks,

Mel

Replies

  • Bella7810
    Bella7810 Posts: 39
    I just asked the same thing. I actually went to the website for the brand of elliptical stairstepper that I have and unfortunately even the manufacturer said the machine's count can be off by as much as 25%. Yikes! That really bummed me out. Everyone keeps saying to get a HRM so I'm gonna look at getting one ASAP. What I'm doing now is simply deducting 25% off the total the machine gives me. If I'm burning more, then great. It'll show in the way I look but in case the machine has over estimated, I won't get plowed over by too many calories without even realizing it. I'd rather be under than over, ya kow?
  • sprky182
    sprky182 Posts: 20
    Whenever I find a discrepancy, I usually go with the lower number, just in case. Like the above poster, I'd rather underestimate the calories I've burned than overestimate and accidentally each more than I should.
  • heathersmilez
    heathersmilez Posts: 2,579 Member
    Machines don't take into account gender, that’s the biggest problem.

    I've found MFP to be the most accurate.

    For example,

    In 55 min I'll burn about 558 cals as per the elliptical
    - on an older (and not “old” like maybe 2-6 yrs old) machine it said 670
    - my HRM said 570
    - MFP said 550 – super especially if you don’t have brand spanking new equipment to compare what “older” machinery looks like.
  • melanie3103
    melanie3103 Posts: 246 Member
    Yeah that's what I thought. And in truth I was so pleased having got to 30mins on it (usually I pass out way before that!!) - that even 300cals I was happy with.

    Just felt a bit cheated when the MFP site said 394. You think "ooo even better"... but yeah I agree - will stick with 300cals. I'd rather do it that way round that rely on the higher count.

    Thanks,
  • melanie3103
    melanie3103 Posts: 246 Member
    Ah so conflicting advice - MFP will take into consideration my gender and height....

    Hmmm....
  • runningartist
    runningartist Posts: 24 Member
    I think about this ALL the time. I have my own HRM, which is often very different from the machines. Often it says I burn MORE then the machine. So I tend to go with the lower number.
  • sunshinethompson
    sunshinethompson Posts: 106 Member
    I use my elliptical trainer every night and I go with MFP figures! Because I know that the number are misconstrued, I do not eat the calories back after a workout!
  • SeasideOasis
    SeasideOasis Posts: 1,057 Member
    Get an HRM. Guessing game will be over. Polar FT4 for those who need a "starter" model. Amazon.com has some great prices. Your health is worth it.
  • melanie3103
    melanie3103 Posts: 246 Member
    So... being fairly new to all this... a HRM will tell me exactly what I'm burning (in terms of cals) ??

    Somebody that replied uses a HRM but still uses the "lowest number" when recording info.. is the HRM NOT accurate then ?

    Just so I can decide if worth investing in one...

    Appreciate all the advice folks...
    Mel
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,605 Member
    I use the mfp figures to calculate my exercise calories on the site. But I never eat back more than a third of my calories so I don't think it really poses much of an issue for me.
  • melanie3103
    melanie3103 Posts: 246 Member
    I do eat some of my cals back, I have to admit. Not all of them.

    I know I won't get 100% accurate, just want an idea of what is more accurate. 94 cals is quite a difference.

    Seriously debating a HRM.. are they difficult to use ?!?
  • d2footballJRC
    d2footballJRC Posts: 2,684 Member
    I use the lowest number between the HRM and MFP. Then I put the other amount in the comments. A heart rate monitor or bodybug will give you exact amounts burnt based on your heart rate. On my polar HRM I had to put height, weight, and vo2, along with age. From there it does it's thing.

    94 calories is actually not a lot. I've had the discrepancy be over 500 from MFP had and what the HRM had. One day where I worked out 2 hours MFP had it at 1.1k and my HRM had it at 1.7k. The reasoning I think is I went with the 3.5 walking on one of them when it was really 3.9 for a majority and higher in spurts. So that is another issue with MFP you are limited to those preset categories. The HRM doesn't care if you speed up and slow down. It's based on you, not a set speed or event.

    Though as of late it's been fairly close. Just some days you'll get a random discrepancy which I do think is because you shoe horn things into a category that is a little more broad.
  • Sherie13
    Sherie13 Posts: 250 Member
    I just got a heart rate monitor. I found that the machine was pretty much on target with my monitor, give or take a few calories. MFP was a bit high. I would go with the machine's number when you are not using a heart rate monitor.
  • SunshineKisses_2012
    SunshineKisses_2012 Posts: 471 Member
    MFP puts me as much as 200-300 higher in calories burned than the machine does. Frankly, I'd rather trust the machine, so I always change it. Eventually I will get a HRM to see what is more accurate, but I'd rather under estimate than over estimate.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Not all machines are inaccurate, but most ellipticals are.

    Having said that, 94 calories is not that big of a discrepancy. No one should be using any exercise calorie figures--no matter how they are derived--as precise numbers.
  • MzMiller1215
    MzMiller1215 Posts: 633 Member
    Since I don't have an HRM of my own, I always go by the machines at the gym. I'd much rather underestimate than overestimate.
  • KelieHerrera
    KelieHerrera Posts: 93
    I also have the Polar FT4 and I am finding that MFP and my NordicTrack elliptical machine at home grossly overestimate calories burned.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories