Calories Burned - Who to believe?

bdgfn

How do you log your calories burned during exercise? I have noticed a huge difference between what MFP defaults to with calories burned versus what a cardio machine indicates. For example, according to MFP, 30 minutes on the elliptical will burn 581 calories, and does not take into account my weight, level of effort, etc, while the elliptical itself showed that I burned 342 calories during that 30 minute time frame based on the weight I entered, and I assume takes into consideration the level of effort I am putting in, i.e. the RPMs and the Level I enter. I have been using this number as opposed to what MFP shows. Yes, it is a smaller number, but I feel it may be more accurate. Thanks for your input.

__Wolf__

Neither is going to be entirely accurate since ellipticals aren't all too accurate either. I agree with your approach of erroring on the side of the lower number. Just remember that the goal is not to be exact but directionally correct.

AdrianChr92

I do not trust them. Strava tells me a 6k run burns 700 cals, the treadmill tells me 400 cals and I settle for about 200 cals that I can eat

malcolmjcooper

Get yourself a heart rate monitor like a polar watch or something way more accurate

robertw486

MFP estimates are all over the place. As for the machines, it depends on the machine. Many of them will give you gross calorie burn even if the inputs and algorithms are solid, so that is a factor as well.

Some machines will give MET values, mile equivalents, or other values you can use to check calorie burns.

But for reference on the elliptical we own, to burn 1100+ per hour would be in the range of 8-9 mile equivalent in an hour, if not a little more. That's based on my current size of 180 lbs.

bdgfn

Thanks, guys. Much appreciated.

WrenTheCoffeeAddict

The only way I log my exercise is through my heart rate monitor. I actually realised I was eating too little, because the machines at the gym had me at, lets say, a 200 calorie burn on the bike, when in fact, it was 400. At the end the gym session, Id think I'd burnt 400, when in fact it was 800, and my body wasn't being supplied with enough energy to keep up.

Lobezno4

Not really weighing in on your question exactly, but MFP does take into consideration your weight - it just doesn't require you to input it each time, but you've already told MFP how much you weigh.

Arsenal1919

MFP _does_, for most categories of exercise, consider your most recent check-in weight/mass as a determinant of exercise calories burned.

bdgfn

Lobezno4 wrote: »

Not really weighing in on your question exactly, but MFP does take into consideration your weight - it just doesn't require you to input it each time, but you've already told MFP how much you weigh.

Arsenal1919 wrote: »

MFP _does_, for most categories of exercise, consider your most recent check-in weight/mass as a determinant of exercise calories burned.

Thank you both. I should have realized that. Still, MFP can't have any idea how much effort is being put in. If I am only doing, say 40RPM on Level 1, I won't be working as hard as if I were doing 60RPM on Level 10.

bdgfn

ZombieLauren wrote: »

The only way I log my exercise is through my heart rate monitor. I actually realised I was eating too little, because the machines at the gym had me at, lets say, a 200 calorie burn on the bike, when in fact, it was 400. At the end the gym session, Id think I'd burnt 400, when in fact it was 800, and my body wasn't being supplied with enough energy to keep up.

So I guess I will be getting a heart rate monitor soon.

cw106

the compendium for physical activities is the main base from which most exercise cals burned are tabulated from.
gym machines only as accurate as data inputted.
mfp estimates fairly good overall imo.
runners use a cal calculator from runners world etc.
swimmers use swimcalculator.com.
rowers use conceptc2.com for very specific info.
HRM will be a useful tool on your journey,but its widely accepted that it work best for steady state cardio only.
a higher end polar/garmin watch with chest strap might be a wise investment too,especially if you start swimming/triathlon.
dcrainmaker has loads of evaluations/reviews to choose from.
happy googling!

HollyRae

I have has this question as well. My treadmill tells me when i run 2 miles (at 4.4mph, sweating, breathing hard, much effort) I've burned 400 cal. When I put that into MFP, it's only about 160 cal. But it also only gives the option of walking at a very very brisk pace at 4.5 mph, when i was actually jogging/running at that speed.

betsy329

bdgfn wrote: »

ZombieLauren wrote: »

The only way I log my exercise is through my heart rate monitor. I actually realised I was eating too little, because the machines at the gym had me at, lets say, a 200 calorie burn on the bike, when in fact, it was 400. At the end the gym session, Id think I'd burnt 400, when in fact it was 800, and my body wasn't being supplied with enough energy to keep up.

So I guess I will be getting a heart rate monitor soon.

Yeah, go get a HRM with a Chest Strap. I have both that and a FitBit Surge, and the Fitbit Surge isn't always that accurate either. Also, be prepared for a bit of sticker shock on the results. I always wish I burned what MFP told me I should....It's always overly high

jodidari

HollyRae wrote: »

I have has this question as well. My treadmill tells me when i run 2 miles (at 4.4mph, sweating, breathing hard, much effort) I've burned 400 cal. When I put that into MFP, it's only about 160 cal. But it also only gives the option of walking at a very very brisk pace at 4.5 mph, when i was actually jogging/running at that speed.

You can check the mph by how long it took, did you run for about 22-28 minutes? Also walking at a high speed and running should be calculated differently. I think if i run 4.5mph for 25 minutes it's about 182 calories for me (5 ft 4 and 158 lbs) but when i put walking at 4 mph i get 138

jodidari

If you can't get a hrm immediately a good pedometer might temporarily work or even your phone to give you an idea. There's an app called runtastic that really helped me to have a good idea of my calorie burn when i walked, jogged or used a treadmill. I just had to figure out to determine the sensitivity it should respond to first, so i'd strap my phone to my ankle then jog while counting my steps, if it counted right i knew that sensitivity was okay, if not i adjusted. The strap things are also relatively inexpensive. I would use it for certain exercises though

sijomial

Elliptical is a tough one. MFP can take your weight into account but not your fitness level.
I really doubt you can burn 581 in half an hour - that would take an elite level of fitness as well as being heavy.

Go with the elliptical, it may not be accurate (accuracy isn't really as important as consistency...) but at least the numbers will be in proportion to your effort.

BrianSharpe

malcolmjcooper wrote: »

Get yourself a heart rate monitor like a polar watch or something way more accurate

Not necessarily......many HRMs correlate heart rate & caloric expenditure when a linear correlation does not exist.

OP, you're right to be skeptical about burning 581 cal in half an hour. I'm not sure how this would translate to an elliptical but Runners World offers the following formulae for net calories expended walking and running:

Walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

Running .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

MeanderingMammal

HollyRae wrote: »

I have has this question as well. My treadmill tells me when i run 2 miles (at 4.4mph, sweating, breathing hard, much effort) I've burned 400 cal. When I put that into MFP, it's only about 160 cal. But it also only gives the option of walking at a very very brisk pace at 4.5 mph, when i was actually jogging/running at that speed.

I'm about 160lbs and with both running and walking distance and bodyweight are the big determinants, not pace. For me I'll burn about 50-60 cals per mile walking and about 100 cals per mile running.

Having glanced at our profile you're probably about 300-350 for2 miles of running.

Azdak

bdgfn wrote: »

ZombieLauren wrote: »

The only way I log my exercise is through my heart rate monitor. I actually realised I was eating too little, because the machines at the gym had me at, lets say, a 200 calorie burn on the bike, when in fact, it was 400. At the end the gym session, Id think I'd burnt 400, when in fact it was 800, and my body wasn't being supplied with enough energy to keep up.

So I guess I will be getting a heart rate monitor soon.

HRMs have only limited accuracy, so I would make sure you have the right expectations.

bdgfn

BrianSharpe wrote: »

malcolmjcooper wrote: »

Get yourself a heart rate monitor like a polar watch or something way more accurate

...Runners World offers the following formulae for net calories expended walking and running:

Walking .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

Running .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

Excellent, thank you! I'm not a runner, but I will start using the Walking formula!

AnnElizabethKate

I use my heart rate monitor, closest ive gotten since there is a huge jump between calorie burns on different machines and apps I use, so i just go off that

nch1993x

I use a heart rate monitor, and I round the calories it gives me down by 20% to be on the safe side... I don't know how accurate the numbers are, but they're at least more self-consistent than the numbers from MFP / machines seem to be... and it seems to be working alright for me, at any rate...

emilycat214

I had this question about my treadmill sessions. I do about 30 minutes at 2.7 mph (which feels brisk to me) but I vary the incline with a "hills" routine, and sometimes I do bursts of greater speed when escaping zombies. I use the treadmill estimate of calories, and have created an exercise called "treadmill" on MFP to record it. I do the same with the recumbent bike. Both figures are always lower than the MFP estimate, and I like to err on the conservative side, especially since I do eat back some of my calories.

Yi5hedr3

Don't log them, and don't worry about it.