how accurate are the exercises?

katie041085

I am getting a bit confused with the accuracy of the calorie count on the exercises.

At the moment I am changing the weight on the machines at the gym to fit me and then go by those calories burnt.

When I look at the calories burnt for me walking or cycling on the MFP tracker and on the gym machines there is a drastic difference and I really don't know which to follow.

Does anyone have any idea which is best to do? I would rather under estimate with calories burnt obviously but would just like to have a better idea of what I am doing.

Babrao

I feel the same way, I've been wondering this as well. For those of us who don't have a HRM, what should we do?

amberlee2011

I currently underestimate. When I see people burning over 1000 calories in one work out - that just doesn't seem right to me. I want to get a body bug. I hear that's the best way to go about it.

TIFFYBABY83

bump, I have been wondering about this also

Abrasue

today I was on the eliptical for 15 min. MFP said I burned 135 calories but I really burned 155 (or so says the machine). I think MFP has an average pace that they use to determine the calories burned. I just put what I KNOW I burned vs. what the side suggests.

kellyscomeback

IMO, the MFP exercises are based on the average amount of calories burned in that time. I got a HRM so that I know within a small percentage of inaccuracy of what I am burning.

For example I went to a 90 minute and fast paced walk/jog in 95 degree dry heat yesterday, MFP said it was about 450 calories for me and my husband (who has 9 inches and 70 lbs more than me) and my HRM said 800. Based on how hard I know I pushed myself, how winded I was, the heat which I'm not use to and how satisfied I felt I trusted my HRM more.

eillamarie

Input your weight into the machines @ the gym. It's not 100% accurate but it's the closest you'll get unless you buy a really good HRM. I don't own an accurate HRM when it comes to calories burnt, so when I do things like cleaning I use the MFP calories burnt but I just take off a few.

DarkAngel864

I was just using MFP at first, and then got an HRM. What I found was that I was underestimating my speed and such.

Like, for instance, I'd put that I did 40 minutes of walking 3.0 mph and it would give me a total of 300 cals.

My HRM doing that same trail for 40 minutes burned about 470, which was actually the walking, 3.5 uphill speed.

Make sense?

eillamarie

I currently underestimate. When I see people burning over 1000 calories in one work out - that just doesn't seem right to me. I want to get a body bug. I hear that's the best way to go about it.

I used to routinely burn anywhere from 1,000-2,000 calories a workout when I was a competitive swimmer. You work hard enough & long enough and you CAN burn that many.

katie041085

At least I'm not the only one thinking it.
What is a HRM? is it something from the USA?
I have looked into a Bodybug after watching Biggest Loser but it is just something that I cant afford at the moment.

lilRicki

I go with MFP...my HRM sabotaged all my efforts because it was grossly over estimated...and I find that the machines at the gym are relatively close to MFP so I just go with the site.

TrainingWithTonya

MFP uses METs, aka metabolic equivalents. METs are basically the average burn as estimated in a lab setting based on the individual in that it is estimated that we burn 1 MET per hour. 1 MET is equal to 1 kilocalorie (what we all call calories) per kilogram of body weight per hour or 3.5 ml of oxygen per kilogram per minute if you are using it for VO2 calculations. So, if you are going by VO2 while exercising you are also sort of going by METs. But most people don't have access to metabolic cart equipment to go by VO2. If it has been found that an exercise burns 7 METs then it burns approximately 7 kilocalories per kilogram of body weight per hour. So a lot of calorie calculators just multiply the MET level by your weight in kilograms to get your calories per hour and then divide by 60 to get calories per minute and multiply by the minutes you did the exercise to get your calories for that time. When doing this calculation, you should subtract out the 1 MET you would have burned without doing the exercise and I'm not sure if that is done on MFP or not.

The calculators on machines use any number of formulas for determining their calorie burns. Some just do an average of what they have found people burn on their equipment, others base their calorie burn formulas on a 150 pound man (this use to be the standard so if you have an older piece of equipment, its only accurate if you are a 150 pound man), and still others actually use the information you program in and in combination with your heart rate come up with an estimate of calorie burns. So the accuracy of your calorie estimate from a piece of equipment is only as good as the piece of equipment. Also, if it uses the heart rate or if you use a heart rate monitor, they can be thrown off by consumption of caffeine or medications that you may be taking because they effect the heart rate. I don't burn the same amount of calories while I'm on the treadmill and have a heart rate of 130 as I do while I'm sitting on my couch and have a heart rate of 130 from my asthma medication, but the HR monitors see it as the same.

Basically, what I'm saying is that none of the methods are 100% accurate, so just take the one you like best or is most accurate for you (IE: not a heart rate based one if you are on asthma, allergy, blood pressure, or other cardiac meds) and use it as a guide. Or you can contact your local university and see if they have a human calorimeter you can go live in, but since everything that goes into and comes out of the body has to be measured, I don't recommend that. It's kind of a gross process.

thkelly

awesome answer Tony

that last line cracked me up :laugh: