Question about calories burned

Options
lisahulsizer
lisahulsizer Posts: 31 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi everyone! I joined the YMCA yesterday, and have noticed a significant difference between the calories the machine says I burned vs what MFP says I burned. I entered my height/weight into the machine, and today it said I burned a total of 640 calories, while MFP says I burned 896. Which one should I use?

Thanks in advance! :smiley:

Replies

  • November_Fire
    November_Fire Posts: 165 Member
    Options
    To be honest, neither sound particularly accurate if that's your first time on a machine - what sort of machine? Treadmill? Weights? One of those vibration plates? And then what did you select on MFP - don't choose 'advanced calisthenics' if you did a gentle aerobics session, for example.

    The machine estimates, as does MFP. Some consider machines inaccurate and some say they're better now than they used to be, others say MFP's estimates are bad and others say they're rather good. But they're estimates.

    Running/cycling/steady-state cardio - a heart rate monitor with a chest strap can give you a good estimate based upon your heart rate.

    Strength-training - difficult for gadgets to assess as calorie burn is over a longer period and isn't as related to speed of heart rate. I just estimate 100 cals and if I lose weight too fast, I increase the estimate by 50-100 until it seems about right.
  • lisahulsizer
    lisahulsizer Posts: 31 Member
    Options
    It was an elliptical and I had it on the heart rate aerobics setting for 45minutes. I selected the elliptical setting in MFP. :)
  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,573 Member
    Options
    lisaloseke wrote: »
    It was an elliptical and I had it on the heart rate aerobics setting for 45minutes. I selected the elliptical setting in MFP. :)

    It was even less than 640 calories.
  • lauracups
    lauracups Posts: 533 Member
    Options
    The mfp estimate is high, based on other tracking and machines I take the number it says I burned and cut it in half before logging. I'm still searching for a heart rate monitor that I like, those are a better number to go by for the actual burn.

  • Iamkevin7
    Iamkevin7 Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    I notice that on days I tread (sans Activity tracker or iPhone) I get very little credit for my steps for that day.
    Example yesterday I did not tread and walked 5274 steps and My Fitness Pal suggested that I burned 133 calories. Today I treaded for an hour and walked an additional 5226 steps and MFP suggested that my step activity only burned 44 calories. It seems that MFP assumes I'm carrying my iPhone on the treadmill (which is incorrect) and subtracts steps it attributes to my treadmill activity.

    Has anyone experienced this issue? Is this a known bug?

    Thanks in advance. Kevin.
  • Asher_Ethan
    Asher_Ethan Posts: 2,430 Member
    Options
    Go with the smaller one and only eat half of those calories.
  • Iamkevin7
    Iamkevin7 Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    Actually. I treated with my iPhone and as I guessed it gave 0 calorie credit. So my guess was correct.
  • dcresider
    dcresider Posts: 1,272 Member
    Options
    I agree with everyone above. The machines are way off and don't take into account someone's height, body type, etc. Someone who weighs more will likely burn more calories rather than someone who weighs less using the same machine and same time. I'd suggest getting a heart rate monitor which will give you a more accurate number on number of calories burned.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    nobody is burning 800+ calories in 45 minutes...or 600+ calories for that matter. MFP tends to substantially overestimate on these kinds of things and who knows when the last time that machine was calibrated and how many 1000s of people have used it since.

    You also need to take into account the you and most people are doing at most, "moderate" effort...this is where people get themselves in some trouble...they tend to think they are working harder than they are so they put "vigorous" and this substantially inflates the calorie burn.

    For myself...186 Lb 5'10" male...I'd burn maybe 350 calories in 45 minutes on the elliptical...about 8 calories per minute above and beyond my basal calories. Keep in mind that it's pretty hard to burn more than about 10 calories per minute above your basal burn...10 calories per minute is working extremely hard and most people cannot sustain that level of effort for very long...most general cardio is going to be moderate effort and be in the neighborhood of 8 calories per minute.

    I've used these factors for more than 2.5 years and they've worked fairly well for me...but keep in mind that all of this is an estimate...that is one of the downsides to the MFP method...but when using the MFP method you want to be conservative in your burn estimates. And really, just do some research...people simply don't burn as many calories as they think with exercise...it's actually rather insignificant outside of being an athlete or training for things like marathons, triathlons, centuries, etc.

Categories