Elliptical says one thing, MFP another..

Shellinabobina
Shellinabobina Posts: 22 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
After a 35 minute workout on my elliptical (speed 50, whatever that means) it says I burned 305 calories, but MFP says 412. Though my elliptical doesn't put my current weight and height into consideration. I know MFP may over compensate, but that seems drastic. If this is the case then i'm afraid I will over eat calories earned by exercise. Is there a way to calculate or some guideline I can go by?

Replies

  • dshalbert
    dshalbert Posts: 677 Member
    After a 35 minute workout on my elliptical (speed 50, whatever that means) it says I burned 305 calories, but MFP says 412. Though my elliptical doesn't put my current weight and height into consideration. I know MFP may over compensate, but that seems drastic. If this is the case then i'm afraid I will over eat calories earned by exercise. Is there a way to calculate or some guideline I can go by?

    I'd rather err on the side of burining less calories and just make sure I'm eating at least 1200 calories a day. A heart rate monitor is also a good way to get an more accurate reading. I like the Polar brands.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    You're best to compare your burn to a few different sources. Bottom line, you aren't burning as much as you think you are with all that sweat. That is why trying to create an energy deficit with exercise is far less efficient than just using your diet.

    Data bases are notoriously inaccurate because there are just a ton of variables that go unaccounted for...machines are a bit more accurate and HRMs are a bit more accurate than that...it's really all an estimation. What I usually do is compare my HRM to the machine and then to the old stand by of roughly 100 calories per mile and go with the lowest when I was doing MFP and eating back exercise calories.

    Like I said, people just don't burn what they think they're burning...people log ungodly calorie burns on here and I just shake my head...'cuz no way you burned 1300 calories doing an hour of leisurely swimming or other such nonsense. If it's too good to be true, then it probably is.

    Also, another sorta reasonable rule of thumb is about 10 calories per minute if you're really, really working it...it's hard to sustain much more than that level of effort for any lengthy period of time...35 minutes of any aerobic activity is going to get me about a 200 - 300 calorie burn depending on what the exercise was...cycling for example at about a 15 MPH pace non-stop would get me about 250ish calories in 30 minutes or so.
  • Phoenix_Warrior
    Phoenix_Warrior Posts: 1,633 Member
    What if I told you. ..both were wrong? :P I say eat half of one of those estimations back and see how you fare. Netting 1200 is important but you don't want to overeat either. I agree with pp on a hrm.
  • 87monkey
    87monkey Posts: 83 Member
    I agree a hrm would be a great tool for reassurance...
  • Shellinabobina
    Shellinabobina Posts: 22 Member
    I actually just visited several websites that ask your weight, minutes worked out and how hard you worked. I got from 240 all the way to over 500! Crazy. Will be looking into a HRM. Thanks to all for the advice!
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    I actually just visited several websites that ask your weight, minutes worked out and how hard you worked. I got from 240 all the way to over 500! Crazy. Will be looking into a HRM. Thanks to all for the advice!

    Go with the lowest...it is important to net to your calorie goal and fuel your body...but you don't want to overestimate either. It's probably the number one reason why "it just doesn't work" for so many people...they're overestimating their burn and probably underestimating their intake as well. Calorie counting is a game of precision.

    HRMs do offer up some reassurance, but keep in mind they are also just an estimate...and the further you get from an aerobic event, the less accurate it's going to be for burn. I usually took about 80% of what my HRM and would compare that value to 100 calories per mile and whatever my perceived level of effort was (10 being the highest...a 6 being basically a walk in the park) multiplied by minutes...that way I had three relatively good estimates to work with.

    Just play with it and be patient...nothing about this is etched in stone...you will have to make adjustments as per real world results.
  • anaconda469
    anaconda469 Posts: 3,477 Member
    After a 35 minute workout on my elliptical (speed 50, whatever that means) it says I burned 305 calories, but MFP says 412. Though my elliptical doesn't put my current weight and height into consideration. I know MFP may over compensate, but that seems drastic. If this is the case then i'm afraid I will over eat calories earned by exercise. Is there a way to calculate or some guideline I can go by?

    I'd rather err on the side of burining less calories and just make sure I'm eating at least 1200 calories a day. A heart rate monitor is also a good way to get an more accurate reading. I like the Polar brands.

    I have a Polar FT4, and I use that calorie burn on that before I will use MFP, it overestimates too much.
  • somerisagirlsname
    somerisagirlsname Posts: 467 Member
    Yeah. MFP overestimated my elliptical burn by like 600 cals, so...

Categories