MFP calories vs machines

Options
superbeffie
superbeffie Posts: 93 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Which is more accurate for calories burned, what the equipment at the gym says or the calculations on this website. They are so wildly different it seems odd to me like maybe they are both wrong. Is there any better way to figure out calories burned?

Replies

  • nikki3337
    nikki3337 Posts: 19
    Options
    I tend to go by what the machines say. But it drives me nuts that I cant figure out how many calories I burned doing ab work or lifting weights.
  • bmmadden
    bmmadden Posts: 499 Member
    Options
    A Heart Rate monitor would be the closest most accurate but if your like me you probably don't have one (on my wish list) but I personally think the exercise machines are closer but Im going to see what others posts to see what they say and I'm sure most people will say invest in a good HRM
  • areittinger
    areittinger Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    In my experience the machine is closer if you dont have a HRM. MFP is very giving in calories burned. I purchased a Polar FT4 its a chest strap and watch. 87 bucks at sears. It works great and my burn with that is more accurate to the machines than MFP
  • Athena413
    Athena413 Posts: 1,709 Member
    Options
    A lot of machines are programmed to calculate calories burned for a 150lb person...so if you don't weigh 150, chances are the machine is wrong. MFP at least takes your weight, height, gender, etc... into consideration when doing their calculation. I agree with the HRM comment, though...that's the best way to go...but if you get one, be sure it has a chest strap or it's not accurate either.
  • CommandaPanda
    CommandaPanda Posts: 451 Member
    Options
    I often compare my HRM to the machines.. well I only use the treadmill but still.

    Anyways, the treadmill is usually only 30 - 70 calories off depending on how long I go. The longer I go, the more inaccurate it gets obviously. It's usually when I go for anywhere above 40 minutes where it starts getting inaccurate.

    Knowing what I do with my new HRM, if I had ever lost my HRM I would go with what the machine says. I'm always impressed when I look down at my HRM and then the machine and find that they are fairly consistent
  • abbie017
    abbie017 Posts: 410
    Options
    Use a heartrate monitor - for MFP and the machines are wildly off!
  • bmmadden
    bmmadden Posts: 499 Member
    Options
    At the gym I go to it asks for my weight and age on the elliptical and treadmill so that is another reason I go by that since I don't have my HRM yet but when I do the shred at home and stuff of course I have no way of telling
  • aimeeturner
    aimeeturner Posts: 225 Member
    Options
    I always thought the machines were fairly accurate until I purchased a Polar (chest strap) FT7 HRM. I have worked out for years and always used the machine total for caloric burn. I was shocked the first time I used my HRM and compared it to the machine's number. In the 30 minutes of my normal cardio, the machine gave me an extra 100 calories than what the HRM showed!
  • Womona
    Womona Posts: 1,629 Member
    Options
    I only trust my heart rate monitor. I think the machines say you burn more cals than you actually do. Plus, you can use it for every other sport. Get the Polar, and a model that lets you see how many cals burned, not just what your HR is.
  • JannineOwen
    JannineOwen Posts: 92 Member
    Options
    a HRM is invaluable in my opinion, MFP is way out on it's calorie burn, some of the machines at the gym are not too far out but out all the same, some are massively out which can cause problems if you are eating all your exercise calories.
    for example this week i spent 20 minutes on the treadmill and according to my HRM i burned 136 calories, the actual treadmill said i had burned 211, on the rowing machine HRM burn was 51 for 10 minutes, the rower said 58, i can't remember what MFP said but it was over 100, thats a big difference. today i walked for 2 hours my HRM said i burned 371, MFP would have had me at over 700, i am so glad i bought my HRM and have had much better weight loss results since.
  • dolphin21
    dolphin21 Posts: 301 Member
    Options
    In my experience the machine is closer if you dont have a HRM. MFP is very giving in calories burned. I purchased a Polar FT4 its a chest strap and watch. 87 bucks at sears. It works great and my burn with that is more accurate to the machines than MFP

    Hi, this is a good question, I always wanted a calorie counter and I got a stupid pedometer! !! Which I don't like and taken back!!! How long did u purchase your polar F14 at Sears? I'll like 2 get one everyone is saying its a good one!
  • ShannonMpls
    ShannonMpls Posts: 1,936 Member
    Options
    In my experience the machine is closer if you dont have a HRM. MFP is very giving in calories burned. I purchased a Polar FT4 its a chest strap and watch. 87 bucks at sears. It works great and my burn with that is more accurate to the machines than MFP

    Hi, this is a good question, I always wanted a calorie counter and I got a stupid pedometer! !! Which I don't like and taken back!!! How long did u purchase your polar F14 at Sears? I'll like 2 get one everyone is saying its a good one!

    Amazon has the FT4 for $68 with free shipping.

    I have the FT7, which is $79 on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Heart-Monitor-Watch-Silver/dp/B001U0OFDC/ref=sr_1_1?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1312390721&sr=1-1

Categories