calories: machine vs mfp

jessicarn76

So I counted the calories burned that MFP calculated when I entered my time with the elliptical. It was more than the machine. I'm assuming MFP is more accurate?

LisaMarieee

No, MFP wouldn't be more accurate. It over estimates often.

hush7hush

A machines likely uses your heartrate, which would make it much more accurate.

MFP assumes, I believe, that you are doing the exercise with maximum effort.

Pandorian

Both are an estimation. MFP's estimation at least seems to base on averages using your age/height/weight, where the machine if you didn't enter those things is for whatever they entered as an "average user"... best calorie burn estimate will be from a heart rate monitor...

it's "like" pants shopping, the 54's I had to buy back in December that helped my decision to start getting serious about losing some weight... they 'fit' around the waist but were so baggy in the thighs they looked like clown pants... there are assumptions made on the "average" wearer of clothes too... I didn't fall into those assumptions, I've got a BIG gut but my legs carry hardly anything extra on them...

Athena413

I use a HRM and MFP always underestimates mine. I personally don't trust machines because most of them can't take your height, weight, age, gender, etc... into consideration.

Jenncoc86

I've found the same thing but the higher mfp calorie count keeps me motivated and up beat.I make me feel good and helps keep me on track. As long as you are eating well and exercising I'm sure you'll reach your goal

Pandorian

I've found the same thing but the higher mfp calorie count keeps me motivated and up beat.I make me feel good and helps keep me on track. As long as you are eating well and exercising I'm sure you'll reach your goal

This does become a problem when you're eating your exercise calories back as intended. If you're overestimating what your burn is you may eat too many calories back. I still eat back my calories though, and still losing

aippolito1

No, MFP is not more accurate. Most machines have places for you to hold onto that will allow the machine to read your heart rate which is going to be a better estimation of calories burned. What it comes down to, though, is you need to invest in a heart rate monitor.

Pandorian

No, MFP is not more accurate. Most machines have places for you to hold onto that will allow the machine to read your heart rate which is going to be a better estimation of calories burned. What it comes down to, though, is you need to invest in a heart rate monitor.

I don't know about your machines but the ones at my gym just have a spot that you CAN hold onto to check your heart rate, that doesn't get factored in to the burn at all from what I can tell. Time and speed is the only thing that changes the burn (besides your own weight) I've done the same workout with weight entered as 330 and weight entered as 300 (both within 2 days not when I'd actually made the change and the "burn" shown from the machine was lower despite my heart-rate obviously being very nearly the same for the burn.

and the other fun one... When a user jumps off to grab a drink or go to the bathroom but leaves the belt running, the treadmill still counts the calories burned as if the person were still there.

jessicarn76

Hmm. I don't usually hold on to the area of the handles where it checks your heart rate, it doesn't change my calories, just tells me what zone I'm in regarding warm up, fat burning, etc. I am able to enter my weight and age though. Oh well. Until I get a HRM I'll just go with MFP. I don't use all my exercise calories anyway.

Thanks for the input!