Are treadmill calorie counters correct?
Options
Replies
-
No, they typically majorly overestimate calories burned. I would highly recommend investing in a heart rate monitor (polar ft4) which is constantly gauging your heartrate and giving you a much, much more accurate calorie expenditure.
--
edit-- even when you enter in your weight.. heart rate is a crucial determinant.
Actually, for walking and running, the energy cost of the activity (e.g. speed and incline) is well-established and relatively easy to calculate. All you need is body weight. Heart rate is irrelevant in this case.
I don't understand...
Your calorie expenditure depends on how much oxygen your body uses. During aerobic activity, the need for oxygen increases, therefore the heart beats faster to deliver more blood to the working tissues so that oxygen can be extracted.
For simple aerobic movements, such as walking or running, there is a relatively fixed energy cost for any workout intensity. For example, walking at 3.0 mph on level ground requires about 10.5 ml of oxygen per kg of body wt per minute (ml/kg/min). Unless you are really short or really tall or really obese, that energy cost of 10.5 ml/kg/min is the same for everyone. For walking 4.0 mph, the cost is about 14 ml/kg/min, running 6.0 mph is about 35 ml/kg/min, and so on. We burn a fixed number of calories for every milliliter of O2 consumed, so knowing the energy cost makes it simple to estimate calorie burn with good accuracy.
You'll note that I haven't mentioned heart rate yet. That's because if we know the oxygen cost of the activity, then heart rate is irrelevant. Walking and running are simple activities--they have been well researched and the oxygen cost (and therefore the calories burn) of any combination and speed and elevation can be easily estimated using established equations. So, we don't need heart rate, or gender, or fitness level or anything else except weight (heavier bodies burn more calories than lighter ones).
Where heart rate becomes necessary is when we perform aerobic exercise movements that are not simple, not continuous, or do not have consistent established movements common to all individuals. For these activities, there are no established equations for estimating oxygen uptake.
However, during steady-state aerobic exercise, there is a consistent relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake. Changes in oxygen uptake are accompanied by predictable changes in heart rate. For example we know that a heart rate of 70% of one's maximum heart rate corresponds to about 57% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). If we know that a persons max heart rate is 180 beats/min and their VO2max is 40 ml/kg/min and they are working at a heart rate of 126 (70% of maximum), it means their oxygen uptake is about 23 ml/kg/min (57% of the VO2max of 40). From that 23 ml/kg/min, we can estimate calorie expenditure.
That, in essence, is how HRMs work. They develop algorithms based on the relationship of heart rate to oxygen uptake and then validate them by comparing the predicted calorie burn from the HRM to the actual measured calorie burn for the same activity. The nature of math is such (and I can't explain it any better because I am not a math expert) and including more variables--height, gender, age, along with weight--increases the accuracy of the HRM's algorithms, so that's why they include these extra variables.
Right away, you can see two things that will affect the accuracy of HRM calorie estimates: if you are estimating maximum heart rate and you are estimating maximum oxygen uptake, then overall accuracy of the HRM will be affected. Not everyone is able to get these numbers, which is why HRMs are probably only about 80% accurate under the best of conditions.
You can also see that if your VO2 max increases over time with training, but the HRM settings aren't updated, you will see a decrease in your calorie numbers. That's because your heart rate has decreased for the same workload--it has decreased because your maximum has INCREASED--now the work level (that 14 ml/kg/min example from before) represents a lower percentage of your maximum. The display suggests you are burning fewer calories, but in fact it's just your setup information that is outdated.
Lastly, HRM algorithms are only accurate when an increase in heart rate is accompanied by an increase in oxygen uptake--i.e. during steady-state cardio exercise.
Any condition or activity that causes heart rate to increase WITHOUT and increase in oxygen uptake will result in a bogus calorie number. That is why HRMs calorie readings for activities such as weight lifting and bikram yoga are useless--heart rate increases, but oxygen uptake does not. The HRM doesn 't know the difference.
Hopefully this helps--you can go to my profile and my blogs and find several articles that address these issues.0 -
Deleted because the post above was more coherent.0
-
It depends, the treadmill at the gym says only about half that my HRM says, and I go with the HRM.. but you cannot enter your weight in.
A HRM is your best bet imho.
0 -
the treadmill for always says that I have burnt more than I actually have, Honestly the best option is to get a HRM and there are many cheap options out there. the best bang for your buck is the Polar ft40
-
bump0
-
Azdak, do you have any comments of LifeFitness ellipticals (or any ellipticals)? With a treadmill, you can set your speed and incline and then change either the speed or the incline manually as you go along. But with the LifeFitness elliptical, it seem that you need a heart rate because the machine will vary the resistance to maintain your heart rate at a certain (narrow) range. This means that the resistance changes constantly. Do you think the calories count of ellpiticals are accurate?0
-
My calorie counter on my Pro-Form Performance 600 is actually pretty darn close, as compared to my Heart Rate Monitor. But it must be luck since the treadmill does not know how much I weigh...0
-
No, they typically majorly overestimate calories burned. I would highly recommend investing in a heart rate monitor (polar ft4) which is constantly gauging your heartrate and giving you a much, much more accurate calorie expenditure.
--
edit-- even when you enter in your weight.. heart rate is a crucial determinant.
Actually, for walking and running, the energy cost of the activity (e.g. speed and incline) is well-established and relatively easy to calculate. All you need is body weight. Heart rate is irrelevant in this case.
I don't understand...
Your calorie expenditure depends on how much oxygen your body uses. During aerobic activity, the need for oxygen increases, therefore the heart beats faster to deliver more blood to the working tissues so that oxygen can be extracted.
For simple aerobic movements, such as walking or running, there is a relatively fixed energy cost for any workout intensity. For example, walking at 3.0 mph on level ground requires about 10.5 ml of oxygen per kg of body wt per minute (ml/kg/min). Unless you are really short or really tall or really obese, that energy cost of 10.5 ml/kg/min is the same for everyone. For walking 4.0 mph, the cost is about 14 ml/kg/min, running 6.0 mph is about 35 ml/kg/min, and so on. We burn a fixed number of calories for every milliliter of O2 consumed, so knowing the energy cost makes it simple to estimate calorie burn with good accuracy.
You'll note that I haven't mentioned heart rate yet. That's because if we know the oxygen cost of the activity, then heart rate is irrelevant. Walking and running are simple activities--they have been well researched and the oxygen cost (and therefore the calories burn) of any combination and speed and elevation can be easily estimated using established equations. So, we don't need heart rate, or gender, or fitness level or anything else except weight (heavier bodies burn more calories than lighter ones).
Where heart rate becomes necessary is when we perform aerobic exercise movements that are not simple, not continuous, or do not have consistent established movements common to all individuals. For these activities, there are no established equations for estimating oxygen uptake.
However, during steady-state aerobic exercise, there is a consistent relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake. Changes in oxygen uptake are accompanied by predictable changes in heart rate. For example we know that a heart rate of 70% of one's maximum heart rate corresponds to about 57% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). If we know that a persons max heart rate is 180 beats/min and their VO2max is 40 ml/kg/min and they are working at a heart rate of 126 (70% of maximum), it means their oxygen uptake is about 23 ml/kg/min (57% of the VO2max of 40). From that 23 ml/kg/min, we can estimate calorie expenditure.
That, in essence, is how HRMs work. They develop algorithms based on the relationship of heart rate to oxygen uptake and then validate them by comparing the predicted calorie burn from the HRM to the actual measured calorie burn for the same activity. The nature of math is such (and I can't explain it any better because I am not a math expert) and including more variables--height, gender, age, along with weight--increases the accuracy of the HRM's algorithms, so that's why they include these extra variables.
Right away, you can see two things that will affect the accuracy of HRM calorie estimates: if you are estimating maximum heart rate and you are estimating maximum oxygen uptake, then overall accuracy of the HRM will be affected. Not everyone is able to get these numbers, which is why HRMs are probably only about 80% accurate under the best of conditions.
You can also see that if your VO2 max increases over time with training, but the HRM settings aren't updated, you will see a decrease in your calorie numbers. That's because your heart rate has decreased for the same workload--it has decreased because your maximum has INCREASED--now the work level (that 14 ml/kg/min example from before) represents a lower percentage of your maximum. The display suggests you are burning fewer calories, but in fact it's just your setup information that is outdated.
Lastly, HRM algorithms are only accurate when an increase in heart rate is accompanied by an increase in oxygen uptake--i.e. during steady-state cardio exercise.
Any condition or activity that causes heart rate to increase WITHOUT and increase in oxygen uptake will result in a bogus calorie number. That is why HRMs calorie readings for activities such as weight lifting and bikram yoga are useless--heart rate increases, but oxygen uptake does not. The HRM doesn 't know the difference.
Hopefully this helps--you can go to my profile and my blogs and find several articles that address these issues.
Adzak,
You seem to be really knowledgable on this issue. Its still hard me me to understand how more variables (heart rate, weight, height, gender-). Wouldn't be better than less..
Anyways,
How would you recommend more accurately measure calorie expenditure for a well conditioned female Athlete. Are there any better devices. For example- I do 2 rounds on the heavy bag- 2 minutes spinning for 30 minutes- and I am measuring using my Polar- (Clearly these are not machines that have calorie readings, anyways). Is there anything better than the Polar HRM?:0 -
No, they typically majorly overestimate calories burned. I would highly recommend investing in a heart rate monitor (polar ft4) which is constantly gauging your heartrate and giving you a much, much more accurate calorie expenditure.
--
edit-- even when you enter in your weight.. heart rate is a crucial determinant.
Actually, for walking and running, the energy cost of the activity (e.g. speed and incline) is well-established and relatively easy to calculate. All you need is body weight. Heart rate is irrelevant in this case.
I don't understand...
Your calorie expenditure depends on how much oxygen your body uses. During aerobic activity, the need for oxygen increases, therefore the heart beats faster to deliver more blood to the working tissues so that oxygen can be extracted.
For simple aerobic movements, such as walking or running, there is a relatively fixed energy cost for any workout intensity. For example, walking at 3.0 mph on level ground requires about 10.5 ml of oxygen per kg of body wt per minute (ml/kg/min). Unless you are really short or really tall or really obese, that energy cost of 10.5 ml/kg/min is the same for everyone. For walking 4.0 mph, the cost is about 14 ml/kg/min, running 6.0 mph is about 35 ml/kg/min, and so on. We burn a fixed number of calories for every milliliter of O2 consumed, so knowing the energy cost makes it simple to estimate calorie burn with good accuracy.
You'll note that I haven't mentioned heart rate yet. That's because if we know the oxygen cost of the activity, then heart rate is irrelevant. Walking and running are simple activities--they have been well researched and the oxygen cost (and therefore the calories burn) of any combination and speed and elevation can be easily estimated using established equations. So, we don't need heart rate, or gender, or fitness level or anything else except weight (heavier bodies burn more calories than lighter ones).
Where heart rate becomes necessary is when we perform aerobic exercise movements that are not simple, not continuous, or do not have consistent established movements common to all individuals. For these activities, there are no established equations for estimating oxygen uptake.
However, during steady-state aerobic exercise, there is a consistent relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake. Changes in oxygen uptake are accompanied by predictable changes in heart rate. For example we know that a heart rate of 70% of one's maximum heart rate corresponds to about 57% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). If we know that a persons max heart rate is 180 beats/min and their VO2max is 40 ml/kg/min and they are working at a heart rate of 126 (70% of maximum), it means their oxygen uptake is about 23 ml/kg/min (57% of the VO2max of 40). From that 23 ml/kg/min, we can estimate calorie expenditure.
That, in essence, is how HRMs work. They develop algorithms based on the relationship of heart rate to oxygen uptake and then validate them by comparing the predicted calorie burn from the HRM to the actual measured calorie burn for the same activity. The nature of math is such (and I can't explain it any better because I am not a math expert) and including more variables--height, gender, age, along with weight--increases the accuracy of the HRM's algorithms, so that's why they include these extra variables.
Right away, you can see two things that will affect the accuracy of HRM calorie estimates: if you are estimating maximum heart rate and you are estimating maximum oxygen uptake, then overall accuracy of the HRM will be affected. Not everyone is able to get these numbers, which is why HRMs are probably only about 80% accurate under the best of conditions.
You can also see that if your VO2 max increases over time with training, but the HRM settings aren't updated, you will see a decrease in your calorie numbers. That's because your heart rate has decreased for the same workload--it has decreased because your maximum has INCREASED--now the work level (that 14 ml/kg/min example from before) represents a lower percentage of your maximum. The display suggests you are burning fewer calories, but in fact it's just your setup information that is outdated.
Lastly, HRM algorithms are only accurate when an increase in heart rate is accompanied by an increase in oxygen uptake--i.e. during steady-state cardio exercise.
Any condition or activity that causes heart rate to increase WITHOUT and increase in oxygen uptake will result in a bogus calorie number. That is why HRMs calorie readings for activities such as weight lifting and bikram yoga are useless--heart rate increases, but oxygen uptake does not. The HRM doesn 't know the difference.
Hopefully this helps--you can go to my profile and my blogs and find several articles that address these issues.
Adzak,
You seem to be really knowledgable on this issue. Its still hard me me to understand how more variables (heart rate, weight, height, gender-). Wouldn't be better than less..
Anyways,
How would you recommend more accurately measure calorie expenditure for a well conditioned female Athlete. Are there any better devices. For example- I do 2 rounds on the heavy bag- 2 minutes spinning for 30 minutes- and I am measuring using my Polar- (Clearly these are not machines that have calorie readings, anyways). Is there anything better than the Polar HRM?:
In your case, probably not. I don't mean to be too negative about Polars (I've used their products myself for 20 years). They are the best at this--the limitations are because of our physiology.
The only caveat about using HRMs for the activities you describe is that when you are doing exercise that works primarily upper body, the HRMs will tend to overestimate calories somewhat. That's because upper body work results in a higher heart rate for comparable levels of oxygen uptake than leg work. For example, if you were doing a 50 watt workload using an arm ergometer, your heart rate would be higher than doing the same 50 watt workload with your legs on a bike. Yet both would burn the same calories (since workload was the same). The HRM doesn't know the difference, so it will give you a higher reading for the arm work.
So the a Polar or Suunto HRM is still probably going to be the best bet, despite their limitations. You need to make sure they are set up properly (get as close as you can with your true maximum heart rate and VO2 max), updated when weight or fitness level changes, and then you just have to be aware that they are not precise instruments, so there will still be some trial and error involved.
The really huge discrepancies occur in the following situations: doing exercises that can result in high heart rates but little or no increase in oxygen uptake (e.g. lifting weights), or doing exercises under conditions of thermal stress (e.g. bikram yoga)--once again, heart rate increases, but oxygen uptake and calorie burn do not, or when people have naturally high heart rates, where their true max heart rate is 20+ beats above the age-predicted number and they don't change the setup.
Otherwise, HRMs will be about 80% accurate (at best) in my experience. And that's OK --I don't think it really needs to be closer than that.0 -
No, they typically majorly overestimate calories burned. I would highly recommend investing in a heart rate monitor (polar ft4) which is constantly gauging your heartrate and giving you a much, much more accurate calorie expenditure.
--
edit-- even when you enter in your weight.. heart rate is a crucial determinant.
Actually, for walking and running, the energy cost of the activity (e.g. speed and incline) is well-established and relatively easy to calculate. All you need is body weight. Heart rate is irrelevant in this case.
I don't understand...
Your calorie expenditure depends on how much oxygen your body uses. During aerobic activity, the need for oxygen increases, therefore the heart beats faster to deliver more blood to the working tissues so that oxygen can be extracted.
For simple aerobic movements, such as walking or running, there is a relatively fixed energy cost for any workout intensity. For example, walking at 3.0 mph on level ground requires about 10.5 ml of oxygen per kg of body wt per minute (ml/kg/min). Unless you are really short or really tall or really obese, that energy cost of 10.5 ml/kg/min is the same for everyone. For walking 4.0 mph, the cost is about 14 ml/kg/min, running 6.0 mph is about 35 ml/kg/min, and so on. We burn a fixed number of calories for every milliliter of O2 consumed, so knowing the energy cost makes it simple to estimate calorie burn with good accuracy.
You'll note that I haven't mentioned heart rate yet. That's because if we know the oxygen cost of the activity, then heart rate is irrelevant. Walking and running are simple activities--they have been well researched and the oxygen cost (and therefore the calories burn) of any combination and speed and elevation can be easily estimated using established equations. So, we don't need heart rate, or gender, or fitness level or anything else except weight (heavier bodies burn more calories than lighter ones).
Where heart rate becomes necessary is when we perform aerobic exercise movements that are not simple, not continuous, or do not have consistent established movements common to all individuals. For these activities, there are no established equations for estimating oxygen uptake.
However, during steady-state aerobic exercise, there is a consistent relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake. Changes in oxygen uptake are accompanied by predictable changes in heart rate. For example we know that a heart rate of 70% of one's maximum heart rate corresponds to about 57% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). If we know that a persons max heart rate is 180 beats/min and their VO2max is 40 ml/kg/min and they are working at a heart rate of 126 (70% of maximum), it means their oxygen uptake is about 23 ml/kg/min (57% of the VO2max of 40). From that 23 ml/kg/min, we can estimate calorie expenditure.
That, in essence, is how HRMs work. They develop algorithms based on the relationship of heart rate to oxygen uptake and then validate them by comparing the predicted calorie burn from the HRM to the actual measured calorie burn for the same activity. The nature of math is such (and I can't explain it any better because I am not a math expert) and including more variables--height, gender, age, along with weight--increases the accuracy of the HRM's algorithms, so that's why they include these extra variables.
Right away, you can see two things that will affect the accuracy of HRM calorie estimates: if you are estimating maximum heart rate and you are estimating maximum oxygen uptake, then overall accuracy of the HRM will be affected. Not everyone is able to get these numbers, which is why HRMs are probably only about 80% accurate under the best of conditions.
You can also see that if your VO2 max increases over time with training, but the HRM settings aren't updated, you will see a decrease in your calorie numbers. That's because your heart rate has decreased for the same workload--it has decreased because your maximum has INCREASED--now the work level (that 14 ml/kg/min example from before) represents a lower percentage of your maximum. The display suggests you are burning fewer calories, but in fact it's just your setup information that is outdated.
Lastly, HRM algorithms are only accurate when an increase in heart rate is accompanied by an increase in oxygen uptake--i.e. during steady-state cardio exercise.
Any condition or activity that causes heart rate to increase WITHOUT and increase in oxygen uptake will result in a bogus calorie number. That is why HRMs calorie readings for activities such as weight lifting and bikram yoga are useless--heart rate increases, but oxygen uptake does not. The HRM doesn 't know the difference.
Hopefully this helps--you can go to my profile and my blogs and find several articles that address these issues.
Adzak,
You seem to be really knowledgable on this issue. Its still hard me me to understand how more variables (heart rate, weight, height, gender-). Wouldn't be better than less..
Anyways,
How would you recommend more accurately measure calorie expenditure for a well conditioned female Athlete. Are there any better devices. For example- I do 2 rounds on the heavy bag- 2 minutes spinning for 30 minutes- and I am measuring using my Polar- (Clearly these are not machines that have calorie readings, anyways). Is there anything better than the Polar HRM?:
In your case, probably not. I don't mean to be too negative about Polars (I've used their products myself for 20 years). They are the best at this--the limitations are because of our physiology.
The only caveat about using HRMs for the activities you describe is that when you are doing exercise that works primarily upper body, the HRMs will tend to overestimate calories somewhat. That's because upper body work results in a higher heart rate for comparable levels of oxygen uptake than leg work. For example, if you were doing a 50 watt workload using an arm ergometer, your heart rate would be higher than doing the same 50 watt workload with your legs on a bike. Yet both would burn the same calories (since workload was the same). The HRM doesn't know the difference, so it will give you a higher reading for the arm work.
So the a Polar or Suunto HRM is still probably going to be the best bet, despite their limitations. You need to make sure they are set up properly (get as close as you can with your true maximum heart rate and VO2 max), updated when weight or fitness level changes, and then you just have to be aware that they are not precise instruments, so there will still be some trial and error involved.
The really huge discrepancies occur in the following situations: doing exercises that can result in high heart rates but little or no increase in oxygen uptake (e.g. lifting weights), or doing exercises under conditions of thermal stress (e.g. bikram yoga)--once again, heart rate increases, but oxygen uptake and calorie burn do not, or when people have naturally high heart rates, where their true max heart rate is 20+ beats above the age-predicted number and they don't change the setup.
Otherwise, HRMs will be about 80% accurate (at best) in my experience. And that's OK --I don't think it really needs to be closer than that.
That works- typically I cut 100 or 200 calories off what it tells me anyways- for good measure. Thanks!0 -
Azdak, do you have any comments of LifeFitness ellipticals (or any ellipticals)? With a treadmill, you can set your speed and incline and then change either the speed or the incline manually as you go along. But with the LifeFitness elliptical, it seem that you need a heart rate because the machine will vary the resistance to maintain your heart rate at a certain (narrow) range. This means that the resistance changes constantly. Do you think the calories count of ellpiticals are accurate?
That's just one program on the Life Fitness elliptical--the heart rate control program. You can run the machine manually as well. (I recommend the manual settings rather than the "cardio" or "fat burn" programs--unfortunately, I don't have time to go into detail right now about my reasons).
For the electronic machines, constantly varying resistance doesn't affect their calorie estimate calculations--the computer chips in the boards can handle that with no problem whatsoever.
With Life Fitness ellipticals, you have the best and the worst-case scenarios, depending on the age of the machine and the software version it was programmed with.
The best: newer models, such as the newest machines in the "Elevation" series (you'd recognize them because they have a unique rear drive system). http://www.lifefitness.com/commercial/cardio/ellipticalcrosstrainers/elevationseries/95xinspire.html
Or some of the 95X silver ellipticals (looks like this: http://www.lifefitness.com/commercial/cardio/ellipticalcrosstrainers/integrity-series/integrity-series-elliptical-crosstrainer-clsxh.html except that it's all silver)
The elevation ellipticals and the later 95X models were extensively tested in the biomechanical lab at Life Fitness and have algorithms for estimating calories they were specifically developed for those machines and validated using 80-100 test subjects. If you can find one of those, then the calorie estimates will be quite accurate--much more accurate than an HRM.
The bad: the most common model of LF cross trainer sold to health clubs in the US is the older CT9500HRR style (later rebranded to "91X", then as the "Classic" , and now sold as model CLSX in the "Integrity" line.)
It looks like this: http://www.lifefitness.com/commercial/cardio/ellipticalcrosstrainers/integrity-series/integrity-series-elliptical-crosstrainer-clsx.html (the shape--you will find a variety of shroud colors out there).
This model was developed around 2000, when LF did not have the testing capabilities it has today, and so the calorie counts are overestimated by a good 25%-30%. They tried to retire the model in 2004-5, but clubs hated the new replacement and so they had to bring it back. To my knowledge, they have not updated the calorie estimating algorithms in the software (unless they have done it in the last 3 years). Doing those tests is pretty expensive. Given the nature of the economy the last few years, and the need to test new products, I highly doubt they could have taken the time or $$ to go back and "redo" an existing product.
So that's probably a lot more detail than you wanted, but that's the only accurate way I can answer your question. At the park district where I work out, they have 3 of the 95X models. Two have the newer software (the accurate one) and 1 has the old version. I know which is which, so I make sure I get the one I want. For those models, I can tell you that the calorie counts are very accurate. In fact, comparing the calorie numbers on the LF elliptical with the results from my HRM has given me a lot of insights about the inaccuracies of HRMs.0 -
Wow! Thanks Azdak for such an extensive answer! Your knowledge about these things is unbelievable.
Unfortunately, the one I have at home (X9i) is the older model.
Do you have any suggestions? Can they somehow upgrade the software? Or should I just multiply the calories burned by 0.7?
Thanks!0 -
bump0
-
I always subtract 20 percent from the cardio machine read outs...its a good bit more accurate. Either way if youre drenched in sweat afterward, youre doing it right.0
-
Bumping this
So many posts here instruct us to go to our HRM for calculating calories. When I use the numbers from my HRM, usually the calorie counter reports MORE calories burned than the LifeFitness Integrity Series Elliptical Cross-Trainer (CLSX). MFP counts fewer than the LifeFitness elliptical. I enter the MFP exercise and go by that. Sometimes the differences are as much as 50-100 calories off for a one hour workout.
HRM: 736 calories / 65 min
elliptical: 692
MFP: 681
I wear the HRM while on the elliptical and use random programs or enter my own. The elliptical reflects my heart rate on the machine regardless what program I am doing - I wear an Omron HR-100C Heart Rate Monitor chest strap and do NOT use the machine's hand grips for HRM at all. I don't hold on to the hand rail or touch the machine at all if I don't have to. Most of my time is spent on level #25. I hate that the heart rate is reflected on the machine so it "knows" that I am working out but it still gives me the PAUSE error when I drop below 2.5 in speed. This happens pretty often when I switch between reverse pedaling to forward pedaling and I am working on getting my momentum back up.
However, the numbers that I present argue that people who say, "the machines always give numbers way too high. Use a HRM instead" might not be entirely correct. Also, people say blanket statements that MFP uses numbers too high for calorie burn. So if the machine calorie burn is too high (blanket responses in many threads), and MFP calorie burn is too high (also blanket responses in many threads), how in the heck can the HRM calculation for calorie burn be correct?
I know, I know.... All are estimates. lol.0 -
Bumping this
So many posts here instruct us to go to our HRM for calculating calories. When I use the numbers from my HRM, usually the calorie counter reports MORE calories burned than the LifeFitness Integrity Series Elliptical Cross-Trainer (CLSX). MFP counts fewer than the LifeFitness elliptical. I enter the MFP exercise and go by that. Sometimes the differences are as much as 50-100 calories off for a one hour workout.
HRM: 736 calories / 65 min
elliptical: 692
MFP: 681
I wear the HRM while on the elliptical and use random programs or enter my own. The elliptical reflects my heart rate on the machine regardless what program I am doing - I wear an Omron HR-100C Heart Rate Monitor chest strap and do NOT use the machine's hand grips for HRM at all. I don't hold on to the hand rail or touch the machine at all if I don't have to. Most of my time is spent on level #25. I hate that the heart rate is reflected on the machine so it "knows" that I am working out but it still gives me the PAUSE error when I drop below 2.5 in speed. This happens pretty often when I switch between reverse pedaling to forward pedaling and I am working on getting my momentum back up.
However, the numbers that I present argue that people who say, "the machines always give numbers way too high. Use a HRM instead" might not be entirely correct. Also, people say blanket statements that MFP uses numbers too high for calorie burn. So if the machine calorie burn is too high (blanket responses in many threads), and MFP calorie burn is too high (also blanket responses in many threads), how in the heck can the HRM calculation for calorie burn be correct?
I know, I know.... All are estimates. lol.
On the one hand, those differences are not that great. OTOH, they are like all significant overestimates.
The HRM estimates both your max HR and your aerobic max. If then uses that "scale" to estimate calories burned. If your actual max HR is significantly higher than the HRM estimate (very likely in your case), the HRM thinks you are working at a higher percentage of your aerobic max than you actually are and will overestimate calories.
The machine bases calorie estimate on the actual work you are doing. It does not use HR at all (it doesn't have to). The problem with ellipticals (and the Life Fitness Integrity machine) is that the equations they use for translating workload into calories are not very accurate--the LF machine is off by 25%-30% last I checked. MFP elliptical estimates come from god knows where, but are not based on heart rate or workload.
The cross trainer is going into pause mode because you have to pedal at 2.5 or higher in order for the alternator to generate enough power to run the machine. Unless you are using a HR interactive program, there is no connection between the HR display and ya he work you are doing. The machine doesn't "know" anything--it is programmed to respond to various impulses.0 -
I have no technical knowledge on this subject… but I have always based my calorie burn off of the reading I'm getting off the treadmill (it allows me to input my weight).
Understanding that MFP uses "net calories", the app will give you reports of how many calories under your goal you were that week. Since calorie deficit is built in and you're "supposed" to eat back exercise calories… theoretically, you would still lose at your desired rate if you were right on with your calorie goal. So, with the understanding that 3500 calories equals one pound… if my goal is set to lose 2 pounds a week, and yet I'm 3500 calories below my MFP goal in a given week… then theoretically, I should lose 3 pounds that week. (However, as gets mentioned often… weight loss can vary due to a number of factors… that's why I use the word "theoretically")
This assumes that you are accurate in your logging of food, as well as accurate in determining the calories burned.
Like I said, I have no technical knowledge of how treadmills work when determining calories (or how HRMs work either). But, I can say that my weight loss has been consistent with the amount of deficit MFP shows for my week… based on my logging of food and exercise, using calorie burn from the machine. So, for my purposes… it's accurate enough!0 -
My HRM itself does not report calories. I plug my average heart rate from the Omron HR-100C Heart Rate Monitor into http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/. That is how I arrive at the calories burned. I realize this is an estimate at best.The HRM estimates both your max HR and your aerobic max. If then uses that "scale" to estimate calories burned. If your actual max HR is significantly higher than the HRM estimate (very likely in your case), the HRM thinks you are working at a higher percentage of your aerobic max than you actually are and will overestimate calories.
So I should be able to deduct 30% from the elliptical calories and arrive at a more accurate calorie burn. That is pretty much what I am hearing.The problem with ellipticals (and the Life Fitness Integrity machine) is that the equations they use for translating workload into calories are not very accurate--the LF machine is off by 25%-30% last I checked.
Exactly my point. Why display the HR on the machine if it is not a variable in the program that I am working on. My comment about the HR being displayed and the machine going on pause was a gripe about how the machine functions. If the HR is moot in the program I am working on, why display it?The machine doesn't "know" anything--it is programmed to respond to various impulses.
Sooooooooooooo 692 - 30% = 484.40. That is what I am really getting out of my 65 minute elliptical workout and I can leave my HRM at the house.0 -
The HRM estimates both your max HR and your aerobic max. If then uses that "scale" to estimate calories burned. If your actual max HR is significantly higher than the HRM estimate (very likely in your case), the HRM thinks you are working at a higher percentage of your aerobic max than you actually are and will overestimate calories.
My HRM itself does not report calories. I plug my average heart rate from the Omron HR-100C Heart Rate Monitor into http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/. That is how I arrive at the calories burned. I realize this is an estimate at best.The problem with ellipticals (and the Life Fitness Integrity machine) is that the equations they use for translating workload into calories are not very accurate--the LF machine is off by 25%-30% last I checked.
So I should be able to deduct 30% from the elliptical calories and arrive at a more accurate calorie burn. That is pretty much what I am hearing.The machine doesn't "know" anything--it is programmed to respond to various impulses.
Exactly my point. Why display the HR on the machine if it is not a variable in the program that I am working on. My comment about the HR being displayed and the machine going on pause was a gripe about how the machine functions. If the HR is moot in the program I am working on, why display it?
Sooooooooooooo 692 - 30% = 484.40. That is what I am really getting out of my 65 minute elliptical workout and I can leave my HRM at the house.
People find this hard to believe, but the original and primary reason why HR is displayed on exercise machines is to:
Monitor heart rate during exercise.
It can be a valuable tool for monitoring performance, training effect recovery from intervals, etc. The current preoccupation with using HR to estimate calories burned is a more recent trend (and a stroke of marketing genius by Polar to make people think that a feature that is essentially a gimmick is the "gold standard" for estimating calories).0 -
Ha! I don't even use a Polar heart rate monitor. I use a heart rate monitor that only reports my heart rate, which is what I assumed heart rate monitors were supposed to do. lol
Okay, I'll still wear the chest band. My workouts are at level 25 on the elliptical machine, which means all of my workouts are on the highest intensity on this machine. I get to the high end of my target heart rate pretty quickly and maintain it throughout the workout. The majority of my workout is at 165 BPM during the 65 minutes, so 165 is my average HR. I am a 38 year old female who currently weighs 155 lbs.
I'll keep up the intensity and length of the workout. It is a little disappointing that these high level intensity workouts equal a 484 calorie burn, but such is life.
I left a feedback card for my gym saying that I would like to see a LF 95x Inspire in the gym. We'll see if that ever happens. Thanks for dispelling all the hype around here that HRMs are essential for determining calorie burn. I had never used one to calculate calorie burn up until joining this forum even though I have used a HRM for years.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions