I have a question about the accuracy of the "calories burned

Options
keatonjazz
keatonjazz Posts: 8
in Health and Weight Loss
I have a treadmill in my house (thank goodness) and it's my favorite way to exercise that I've found... besides maybe swimming by the beach! Anyhow, if I work out for any length of time and then try to enter that information in here on MFP, the estimate for calories from my machine is always WAY lower than what appears here. For instance, on a day when I walked for an hour at a quick pace (3-4 mph for me) at the highest incline possible for the machine, this site would guess I've burned about 463 calories. The treadmill says it's more like 400. Today when I did intervals of walking/running for 30 minutes (c25k), I felt like I must have burned off more than the 200 calories the machine professed. I tend to record the lower number, though.

SO: Is the treadmill I own inaccurate, or is this site just really generous with it's calorie estimations?
«1

Replies

  • sadielane
    sadielane Posts: 83 Member
    Options
    I find mine to be the opposite. I'll be interested to hear everyone else's thoughts.
  • AHealthierRhonda
    AHealthierRhonda Posts: 881 Member
    Options
    My elliptical was the complete opposite. It more than doubled the number of cals I actually burn! Most would say to err on the side of caution and input the lower cals. I agree with that. IF you really burned more, you just gave yourself a larger cushion!!
  • Andybeth
    Andybeth Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    I think the site must be very generous. I use a Polar HRM and the calories are always much lower that what the site offers. I use the HRM value.
  • Mrs_TrimWaistFatWallet
    Mrs_TrimWaistFatWallet Posts: 486
    Options
    Both are inaccurate probably. I use a BodyMedia, which will usually quotes half of what MFP says and is way more reasonable for me..
  • Des92
    Des92 Posts: 309 Member
    Options
    mine's the opposite! If my treadmill says i burned 400-500, MFP says 190! HUGE difference. I just do the same, record the lower number.
  • iamjustcindy
    iamjustcindy Posts: 13
    Options
    http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_net.php
  • bethdris
    bethdris Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    The site numbers as I have learned are "estimates". I also go by what the machine says. (I have a treadmill and used to have an elliptical). I'd like to get an HRM and see what that says when I walk outside. For an example:

    I mow our grass. It s .25 acres and I use a push mower. It takes between 30 and 35 mins. MFP says I burn 232 cals during that time. I just cut it in half and take that. Since I workout on top of that, even if its still not right, its' never hurt my weight loss.
  • sarahsmom1
    sarahsmom1 Posts: 1,501 Member
    Options
    I have a treadmill in my house (thank goodness) and it's my favorite way to exercise that I've found... besides maybe swimming by the beach! Anyhow, if I work out for any length of time and then try to enter that information in here on MFP, the estimate for calories from my machine is always WAY lower than what appears here. For instance, on a day when I walked for an hour at a quick pace (3-4 mph for me) at the highest incline possible for the machine, this site would guess I've burned about 463 calories. The treadmill says it's more like 400. Today when I did intervals of walking/running for 30 minutes (c25k), I felt like I must have burned off more than the 200 calories the machine professed. I tend to record the lower number, though.

    SO: Is the treadmill I own inaccurate, or is this site just really generous with it's calorie estimations?
    Does you treadmill let you enter your weight? I find MFP is higher I would use the lower amount
  • tammykoon
    tammykoon Posts: 303 Member
    Options
    I never count my whole workout. If I do cardio for say 40 minutes, then I will log it at 30. I figure I'd rather guess wrong lower. This is really imporatant if you eat back your exercise calories. (Not to start a debate) If you over estimate then eat it all back... well that wouldn't be very smart.
  • nancydrew8
    nancydrew8 Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    NM
  • findingfit23
    findingfit23 Posts: 846 Member
    Options
    The treadmill I use is always a lot lower than my HRM, it seems to only account for speed and not the incline. Since I walk slow at a very high incline, it is never right for me.
  • findingfit23
    findingfit23 Posts: 846 Member
    Options
    I'm quite confused about this as well. My friend and I are the same size, and we are doing the same workouts. She uses a heart rate monitor, and I don't. Her HRM says she is burning 2x as many calorie as MFP says I am burning. Yet many of you are claiming to see the opposite. I have to wonder which is accurate, and how it would be possible to prove accuracy?

    Just because you are the same size does not mean you are in the same cardiovascular shape.
  • auntiebabs
    auntiebabs Posts: 1,754 Member
    Options
    I've heard both that the burn calories are way too high and way too low.

    The machines at the gym make me input my weight and age and usually come out much lower than MFP. So use those numbers.

    I don't think MFP burn calories account for age & weight.
    Do they? (they've got our info, but my guess is that'd be some pretty challenging programming work.)

    Someone 300 lbs walking 3 miles is expending more energy and is going to burn a lot more than, someone 130 walking 3 miles.

    So the calories are probably way high for the skinny-minis here to firm up or to lose a few vanity pounds.
    While, as one friend of my calls himself, the super-economy size folks the calories are probably on the low side. I wonder what the magic in between number is that the calorie burns are based on?
  • Mommawarrior
    Mommawarrior Posts: 897 Member
    Options
    I find that the site is GENEROUS compared to my treadmill or the gyms fancy treadmill.
  • Kristina0202
    Kristina0202 Posts: 188 Member
    Options
    My elliptical always says I burned like 100 calories less than MFP. It doesn't let me enter my weight though, so it would say the same thing for a 130 lb girl. I know it's probably not the right thing to do, but I just average the two numbers out. I rarely eat my calories back anyway.
  • chardcastle2011
    chardcastle2011 Posts: 1
    Options
    My elliptical is pretty close to MFP, but my elliptical doesn't take in consideration of age and weight either, so maybe that's is the reason for the ones that differ
  • perne11
    perne11 Posts: 46 Member
    Options
    I've heard both that the burn calories are way too high and way too low.

    The machines at the gym make me input my weight and age and usually come out much lower than MFP. So use those numbers.

    I don't think MFP burn calories account for age & weight.
    Do they? (they've got our info, but my guess is that'd be some pretty challenging programming work.)

    Someone 300 lbs walking 3 miles is expending more energy and is going to burn a lot more than, someone 130 walking 3 miles.

    So the calories are probably way high for the skinny-minis here to firm up or to lose a few vanity pounds.
    While, as one friend of my calls himself, the super-economy size folks the calories are probably on the low side. I wonder what the
    magic in between number is that the calorie burns are based on?

    MFP takes into account your weight and age when it assigns calorie burn. My daughter and I are doing this together and even if we do the same exercise for the same amount of time MFP gives us different calorie burn.
  • keatonjazz
    keatonjazz Posts: 8
    Options
    Wow, already a lot of replies, thank you! Ummm I do wonder if my treadmill can let you put in your age and weight- if I remember correctly you can, I just don't remember ever doing it. It sounds like I would really benefit from a heart rate monitor. Are those fairly accurate? I don't know how they work other than... obviously to monitor your heart rate. :P One of the things I REALLY like about this site is the community and the therefore the large amount of food data already in the system so I can be as accurate as possible.
  • mamagooskie
    mamagooskie Posts: 2,964 Member
    Options
    I found the site to be more accurate than the machines.
  • k2quiere
    k2quiere Posts: 4,151 Member
    Options
    Wow...I've had this question going on in my head too. Thank you all for the reminder that MFP does put all of our personal information into the equation. I know the machines at my gym have the capability to be programmed for that info, but I'm not sure how to do it, so I don't bother. The discrepancy, however, between the machine and MFP is astronomical. I just try not to eat back all of my exercise calories just in case :smile:

Categories