Significant Difference between MPF and Machine (calorie count)

hoffman2300

Just got back from the gym. According to the elliptical machine, I burned 327 calories in 35 minutes. When I logged my time on the machine in MFP, it gave me 475. That's a significant difference! It's mainly an issue of my calorie count so I'm curious - Do I adjust my time so MFP records the machine number? Go with the MFP higher number? Something else?

Thanks.

SafioraLinnea

Technically both may be off. MFP database is notorious for overestimating calorie burn but machines can be wildly wrong too.

I personally would log the amount of calories the machine suggests. I eat back all of what I log so I try to keep the logged amount more realistic. You could split the difference if you want to as well.

cmriverside

When I first started MFP I had the same questions. I even bought a heart rate monitor - which is a waste of money in my experience.

In the end I ended up taking the numbers from 5 different sources and averaging them. Then I just used that number for all my exercises - because I used about the same intensity with each of them. I still do that, ten years later. I've logged food for long enough to know it works for me. I just use 300-400 calories per hour, for moderate purposeful exercise. That has always worked for me.

Azdak

Because of their design, elliptical calorie counts are the least accurate and will show the most variability between sources.

sijomial

hoffman2300 wrote: »

Do I adjust my time so MFP records the machine number? Go with the MFP higher number? Something else?

Thanks.

I would enter the right duration but manually over-write the calorie suggestion from MFP with what the machine tells you.
It may not be accurate of course but there's at least a chance it knows your weight and power output - not the whole picture but two important parts.

For a rough idea of what you are capable of then running, rowing or using a power meter equipped indoor bike may well give you a better estimate of your capabilities so that you can exclude numbers you obviously can't attain.

475 net cals in 32 minutes would be a remarkable fitness achievement.

VeronicaA76

On the gym elliptical, did you enter your age, weight, and gender? If not, how could it possibly be accurate for you.... Think about it, a 120lb person moving 1 mile uses less energy (calories) than a 200lb person in the same time, simply because of the difference in mass. Yet, on MFP, there's no variable to know your effort (how much resistance and so forth). Personally, I would split the difference. But then that's just my opinion.

On my home treadmill I can enter my stats (age, weight, gender) and it's pretty close to MFP, still off a little, but not as much as yours was. My home elliptical, WAY off - I just adjust the time so that the numbers match (I also enter my stats into my elliptical).

robertw486

The MFP databases have no idea of the cadence, resistance, or ramp angles of the machine. As such, they have no measure of power at all. The machines do, and if you can program any of your information (the most important being weight) then they have a better chance of giving a reasonably accurate calorie calculation.

If the machine number is lower, I would go with that every time. The machine has more inputs. And in most cases machines are consistent, so any error can be somewhat adjusted for if you find the machine number is still high.

Depending on the brand and type of machine, some are accurate enough to not adjust as well. I ate back 100% of the calories that our Precor machine reported, and it didn't impact my weight loss. I still accept that the machine wasn't exact, but it was close enough for my purposes.

VeronicaA76 wrote: »

On the gym elliptical, did you enter your age, weight, and gender? If not, how could it possibly be accurate for you.... Think about it, a 120lb person moving 1 mile uses less energy (calories) than a 200lb person in the same time, simply because of the difference in mass. Yet, on MFP, there's no variable to know your effort (how much resistance and so forth). Personally, I would split the difference. But then that's just my opinion.

On my home treadmill I can enter my stats (age, weight, gender) and it's pretty close to MFP, still off a little, but not as much as yours was. My home elliptical, WAY off - I just adjust the time so that the numbers match (I also enter my stats into my elliptical).

I really wish more machines just spit out absolute power rather than trying to calculate. But the inputs are an attempt to get it right. I don't think I've seen a machine that inputs gender, but it makes sense.

deputy_randolph

Use the lower calorie burn...and then adjust if needed if you start to lose too much too quickly. You can also adjust calorie intake as necessary.

If "weight loss" is your goal, it is better to underestimate calories burn than OVERestimate.