which burn is real?

MyaNo

Should I be logging my burned exercise calories by what the machine says or by what MFP says? According to MFP 40 minutes on the elliptical for me would burn 700 calories, the machine I was on last night said I burned 436 calories in 40 minutes. Which is more accurate?

shadowofender

I ignore both and use an estimate. I know if I've got my heart rate in a certain range I burn between 8-10 calories a minute so if I work out thirty minutes I would burn about 300...
To take care of margin of error, if I don't know my heart rate, I use whatever estimate is lower to be on the safe side.

BrianSharpe

Should I be logging my burned exercise calories by what the machine says or by what MFP says? According to MFP 40 minutes on the elliptical for me would burn 700 calories, the machine I was on last night said I burned 436 calories in 40 minutes. Which is more accurate?

Probably neither but I'd go with the lower number just to be conservative.

Did the machine require you to input any personal data (height, weight, age etc)? If not it's probably optimistic too but burning 10 cal/min is attainable if you're working out intensely.

While I wouldn't suggest that a HRM is going to be the gospel a good one should give you a fairly reasonable estimate of your caloric expenditure.

MyaNo

Yes the machine asked.me for my age and weight.

the__great__beyond

Cardio machines and MFP's calorie numbers are just estimates. Optimizing based on those is probably not a great idea.

As was said, pick the lower number but I would probably estimate your calories based on your general activity level (i.e. how often and how intensely you work out) and your height/weight/body fat % stats.

dbmata

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRH5wGrcxok

hill8570

I'd go with the lower number. It takes an awful lot of effort to burn more than 10 calories a minute. Unless I had data from an HRM to back it up, I wouldn't trust a 17+ cal/min burn.

MinnieInMaine

It's pretty rare for women to get burns much more than 10 cal per minute so I'd definitely go with the lower number - maybe even reduce it a bit more and go with 350 just to be on the safe side.

Another thing you can do, if your elliptical provides distance, is to multiply the miles by 100. So if you go 2.5 miles, that's 250 calories. It's a similar estimate to walking calories.

lemurcat12

I'd go with the lower number. It takes an awful lot of effort to burn more than 10 calories a minute. Unless I had data from an HRM to back it up, I wouldn't trust a 17+ cal/min burn.

This. MFP is really high on some things, and the elliptical is a good example. If you were really working 10 calories/minute for an elliptical seems plausible, although I always try to leave some room with exercise calories unless I'm expecting them to even out over the week.

acpgee

I would pick the lower number. In my opinion MFP gives ridiculously inflated numbers for the elliptical. My typical workout is 65 minutes targeting a heart rate of 140. My HRM says i burn around 500. The machine says around 750. MFP says 882.

MyaNo

My heart rate the whole time was on the high side the machine kept telling me to slow down most of my workout my heartrate was around 160.

All4Me2014xx

I generally stick with 10 calories a minute. If I push real hard, then I've burned more than calculated and I just ignore them. If I have an easy day where I just want to move but not go all out, then I log about 5 calories a minute. In the end, whatever calorie amount I get, I usually don't eat them back.

Mr_Knight

Should I be logging my burned exercise calories by what the machine says or by what MFP says?

They both over-estimate. Take the lower one and cut it in half.

No, I'm not kidding.

For most people, a high heart rate doesn't mean they're burning lots of calories, it means they're out of shape.

PS As a frame of reference, a 150 lb person would have to run 6 miles in one hour to hit 10 calories/minute over that hour. If you can't do that, you're not burning that much.

cwolfman13

Well, there's pretty much no way in hell you're burning 700 calories in 40 minutes of anything, let alone elliptical. It's really hard to sustain a level of effort that would allow for more than about 10 calories per minute beyond your basal rate. I always used that as a guide...basically, I never logged anything more than 10 calories per minute, and that was for a sustained activity for which I could not hold a conversation or do anything besides bust my *kitten*...most workouts clocked in closer to 8ish calories per minute.

You want to be as conservative as possible when you're doing the MFP method. Also keep in mind that if you're out of shape, your HR is going to be higher than the average relatively in shape person...this will further inflate your calorie burn. Your HR is not directly correlated to calorie burn...if it was I would just have someone give me a good scare every 5 minutes or so and call it a day. A HRM and machines assume all kinds of things for estimating calorie burn...everything is an estimate and ultimately, we simply do not burn as much as we think we would with exercise. Like I said...10 calories per minute is a tall order...most workouts are going to be somewhere between 5-10.

For elliptical I wouldn't log anything more than 7-8 calories per minute tops.

JTick

I agree that the 700 is too high, but I also disagree with cutting the lower number in half. OP is (according to ticker) 90 lbs overweight, so of course she's going to burn more than a 150 lbs person.

OP: Take the lower number. Track your results. If you're not losing at the expected pace, make adjustments.

DavPul

just use 10 cals per minute and move on

Shropshire1959

Which is real? - None of them.


Personally, I use my Garmin with HRM for ALL activities - I know it's only an estimate BUT it's an estimate based upon the same algorithm every time - so it's an estimate in a consistent range.


Even with a HRM the figure is just a Guess ... so as everyone else says use the lowest number.

ahoier

To be honest......I've been taking an average of 3 "calories burned" measurements.......I typically wear a HRM strap at the gym....when I'm on the elliptical, at the end of my session, I take the average of MFP, the machine readout, and the HRM watch (a cheapy CRANE brand HRM I picked up from ALDI for 9 bucks lol).

The biggest thing, make sure MFP, the HRM, and the machine are all set to your same weight measurement


Now for "strength training" - I'll take an average/mean of the MFP readout (it's listed in cardio) and the HRM readout.....note: the MFP readout is always WAAAAAAAYYY higher than my HRM......


Note: I do NOT "eat back" my burned calories......there's just too many variables IMHO, and would require me eating way too much food lol......


I will say, back when I first started MFP (my weigt was almost 300......) I was busting about 700 calories on a 30 minute elliptical session (well, 30 min + 5 minute cool down).......obviously, as my weight has dropped, so has my calories burned It's all equatable Less weight, less burned.......lately though I've really had to really book it lol, to get the 500+ mark

centexhusker

I would pick the lower number. In my opinion MFP gives ridiculously inflated numbers for the elliptical. My typical workout is 65 minutes targeting a heart rate of 140. My HRM says i burn around 500. The machine says around 750. MFP says 882.

To the OP: This member's experience is very similar to what I get using the different methods of measurement with the same type workout. The HRM measurement is probably the most accurate. jmho

MyaNo

Thank you all for the feedback, I will use the lower number to calculate my calories burned. I am out of shape that's why I am doing this in the first place, I am tired of being out of shape. I also have a low thyroid just started taking medication for it 30 days ago when I started tracking my calories. Yesterday was the first time back at the gym in about a yr and I noticed just how out of shape I have got.

heybales

While MFP and machines that have no good studies for calorie burn, or worse, no description of the workload (MPH) can indeed inflate, I see a extreme trend the other direction for people that have no idea of what the body can indeed burn in exercise exaggerating too low of burns.

If a heavier person (220) can get moving (4mph) they can almost burn 10 cal/min. So cutting in half isn't realistic either.

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

And after a month of exercise, your cardio improvements are usually going to be the normal slow process, but still usually faster than the weight lost.

With treadmill and HRM, get your best method available - personal formula. While treadmill won't equate to elliptical perfectly since no use of arms, it'll still be closer than anything else.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/getting-your-personalized-calorie-burn-formula-663625

JTick

Thank you all for the feedback, I will use the lower number to calculate my calories burned. I am out of shape that's why I am doing this in the first place, I am tired of being out of shape. I also have a low thyroid just started taking medication for it 30 days ago when I started tracking my calories. Yesterday was the first time back at the gym in about a yr and I noticed just how out of shape I have got.

Since you have a thyroid problem, it will be important to keep track of which numbers you use. Try to be consistent...that way, if you're not losing weight at the pace you expected, you will know where your data is coming from and be able to more easily make adjustments. I would just try to always use the lower number.

jenbikeswim

I use a good heart rate monitor, like Polar, with a calorie count feature. I have found that to be the most accurate. Sometimes mfp is dead on for calorie count, sometimes it's too high. If the hrm and mfp are the same, I go with mfp. If the difference is significant, I go with the HRM. And I'm losing weight, so my system is working for me.