Calories Burned: Gym Equipment v. MFP

missmeganmack

Today I was at the gym on an elliptical machine where it said after 40 minutes that I had burned around 510 calories, when I went to input it into MFP it said 730 or so. I am wondering if anyone knows which number to trust. I have always gone by what the machine says since it knows exactly how fast I went and how much resistance there was etc. Does anyone know why there is such a large difference??? Any help would be great!!

Bunnyboo82

I also go by what the machine says. i believe MFP is estimating from what people have already entered on to the website and the suggesting the calories burned. Most accurate way to determine calories burned is to wear a heart monitor.

ttrotter1960

I typically go with the machine because I always try to use the same machine so I have consistent results. I think there are people out here who may be a little over optimistic in how many calories they are burning and also different machines may be calibrated differently.

Hanna82

usually mfp and the machine aren't that far off for me. I go by what the machine says but usually deduct 10% from that number because machines do most of the work for you and I read someplace that deducting 10 to 15% is a more accurate number. Usually mfp gives me a number lower than what the machine says though

JustBill

Both are wrong. If you really want to get an accurate assessment of your calorie burn, you need to get a heart rate monitor. I used to split the difference between the two of them and after getting my HRM I found out we were ALL off base!

DiWood42010

I always go with the machine. It can tell how fast you went, what your heart rate was, everything like that. I'm usually changing it around on the website as well.

Buckeyt

If you put in personal data like age, sex, and weight, I'd go with the machine.

If you didn't put in any personal data, then it isn't likely to be to accurate, but use the smaller of the two numbers would be my suggestion.

ttrotter1960

There is no external device that can be worn that will tell you with certainty how many calories you have burned during an exercise session. Any measurement you use is going to be an estimate so just use the same estimate device each everytime that you can so at least you are getting a "consistant" estimate. Sorta like always using the same weight scale to measure weight loss.

brianna626

You need to get a heart rate monitor, this will be the most accurate way to monitor calories burned.

mleipe

Hmmm... I've noticed the same thing and wonder about it myself.

I generally believe the machine for a couple of reasons:

1) Most of the machines I use ask my age and weight and measure my heart rate while I'm exercising. To my way of thinking a machine that's keeping track of all that stuff is going to be able to better estimate how many calories I've burned than a website that doesn't appear to take this extremely relevant information into account.

2) The machines - and even my Garmin heart-rate-measuring bike computer - always tell me I've burned fewer calories than MFP does. I'm inclined to use this lower number from a sort of "erring on the side of caution" perspective - I think that underestimating the calories I burn and overestimating the calories I consume is more likely get my weight down than the other way around.

EDesq

Today I was at the gym on an elliptical machine where it said after 40 minutes that I had burned around 510 calories, when I went to input it into MFP it said 730 or so. I am wondering if anyone knows which number to trust. I have always gone by what the machine says since it knows exactly how fast I went and how much resistance there was etc. Does anyone know why there is such a large difference??? Any help would be great!!

Does the machine also know how much you weigh because that is also a Major component; working out carrying 250 lbs is VASTLY different than if someone is 140 lbs. Frankly, I never eat more than 200 calories back each time I work out, unless I do something extreme and burn over over 1000 calories per MFP.

rob524teach

How much are heart rate monitors...I have a birthday coming up

rob524teach

Also would a fit bit do the same thing? Not sure what the advantages are of owning one of those?

rankinsect

JustBill wrote: »

Both are wrong. If you really want to get an accurate assessment of your calorie burn, you need to get a heart rate monitor. I used to split the difference between the two of them and after getting my HRM I found out we were ALL off base!

Even HRMs are only reasonably accurate for steady-state cardio. True accuracy would require measuring oxygen consumption, and even THAT isn't entirely accurate unless you measure that for the entire period of any "afterburn".

sarabushby

From my own personal experience the gym machines noticeably overestimate my calorie burn compared to what my HRM records even though I enter my weight into them. I log my exercise in MapMyFitness which exports to MFP, it's usually roughly right for things like swimming, spin classes, cycling and running compared to my HRM values.

torizia

My heart rate monitor is normally around 1/3 of the figures which the machines say - which is quite scary considering I could have trusted them if I didn't know better!

sijomial

Basic HRMs really are not that accurate unless you get really lucky and are average fitness with an average exercise HR.
The willingness of people to discount possibly multi thousand dollar machines and trust a $30 watch designed to tell your HR, not calories, never ceases to amaze!

Without knowing the elliptical and how it is estimating impossible to know the accuracy - they are all different. Some will be very accurate, some won't.

510 in 40 minutes would require a pretty good level of fitness but only the OP knows their weight and fitness levels.