MFP or cardio machine calorie counter...which is more relian

SuzyT01

So I have noticed that when I use the elliptical machine at the gym, it will tell me I burned (alot) less calories than when I log it into MFP. The machine does say that the calorie countere is based on a 150 lb person, but why would it ask me my weight if it wasn't counting them correctly? Does anyone know which is more reliable?

ropsnik

I have been using a heart rate monitor for months and have found that the HRM is much closer to the results on MFP than on the machines at the gym. I would recommend that your get a HRM.

TrainingWithTonya

If you don't have a heart rate monitor, I'd use MFP. MFP uses METs (Metabolic Equivalents of exercise) and your actual weight, whereas the machines use METs and 70kg (154 pounds). Thats because the machines use a simple counter and are unable to calculate calories with inputted data. Basically, there is a chart of the equivalent units of metabolism for each type of exercise based on lots of scientific studies and they use them multiplied by weight in kilograms to determine how many calories are being burned. The more you weigh the more you burn to move it, so anyone over 70kg will burn more then what the machines at the gym say. If your equipment says what the METs level is of your workout, you can then multiply it by your weight in kg to get your calories per hour to double check MFP.

stormieweather

I use about 75% of the average of the two (25% for calculation errors/overestimation of intensity/normal calorie burn). Ie: If the machine says I burned 246 and MFP says I burned 276, I'll use 195.