Gym Machine Calories Burned Vs. MFP Database

MrsChristinaG

Okay, so when I go to the gym (24 hour) my eliptical (i LOVE THIS MACHINE) says i burn roughly 280 calories (level 10, resistance 10) after 20 minutes, when i log it in MFP, MFP says i burned like 385 (something like that). So which one is more accurate? I would really hate to base my consumption off of inaccurate burning. please advise.

tonilizzy88

i g by what the machine says as it always differs to what speed i do and how hard i work! i fine MFP over estimates way to much

jrich1

Really both are guesses, I would say to be accurate to get a HRM.. I find my HRM isnt anywhere in the ball park of either what the machine says or what MFP says.

pandabear_

I always go by what the gym machines say rather than MFP. I guess because equipment varies and so does personal ability, etc. so I trust the gym machines a bit more.

bdur76

Neither number is likely to be correct, they are both just estimates. If the machine at the gym asked for your weight and gender it may be slightly more accurate, but really the best way to track calories is to get a hrm. It is definitely a worthwhile investment! I feel more confident logging my calories knowing they are best on my gender, height, weight, resting heart rate, and my actual level of exertion. Good luck, and great job getting to the gym to work out!

ShannonMpls

Really both are guesses, I would say to be accurate to get a HRM.. I find my HRM isnt anywhere in the ball park of either what the machine says or what MFP says.

This is my experience too. The ellipticals at my gym give me far more calories than my HRM, and MFP nearly doubles my HRM burn.

Licacorona

When I used to go to the gym I'd get a different reading from my heart rate monitor compared to the elliptical. Not much of a difference sometimes but sometimes it would be a difference of 100 calories or more. On good days it was only a difference of 30 or 40 calories. MFP's calculations were way off. I would recommend you get a heart rate monitor. Some can be really expensive but I believe polar has a HRM for about 70 bux. That is your best bet.

Ifican

MFP is probably more correct as the algorithm used is based on all the data you have input. If you also input all your data into the elliptical then i would say use the more conservative of the two. Though always remember that these are number for guidance only. Continue monitoring yourself and program and base your consumption accordingly.

JeffGDDG

I just go with one or the other. Monitor your progress and then do what works best for you. Good luck!

papastu

Neither number is likely to be correct, they are both just estimates. If the machine at the gym asked for your weight and gender it may be slightly more accurate, but really the best way to track calories is to get a hrm. It is definitely a worthwhile investment! I feel more confident logging my calories knowing they are best on my gender, height, weight, resting heart rate, and my actual level of exertion.

100% agree

best thing I ever bought too

Driagnor

The MFP calories are usually over - the gym machines are most likely going to actually be monitoring your heart rate, and so will give you a more accurate estimation of calories burned.

chicago_dad

Check out Polar and Garmin-- both make reliable HRM / watch combos. I'm a fan of the Garmin 305.

Julijulz

I wear my customized heart rate monitor and found that the machines are usually wrong. Mine has been off by as much as 200 calories once. And they are brand new machines specifically designed for the Navy. The only full proof way to know how many calories you are actually burning would be to get a heart rate monitor with a chest strap.

♥xenawarriorprincess♥

i would have to say use the one that is getting you the best results..just sayin'

Shawn_Marie

Does anyone have a "BodyBugg" ? Like they use on biggest loser. I am thinking about investing in one but they cost approximately $200 and to use a logging website there is an additional monthly fee. Thoughts?

deadstarsunburn

Check out Polar and Garmin-- both make reliable HRM / watch combos. I'm a fan of the Garmin 305.

I adore my polar ft4 =]] very nice and got it from amazon for $63 originally $90.

tigersword

They are all estimates, for me, MFP's number is usually lower.

Nothing is 100% accurate, but I'd trust the machine over MFP. HRM's are a crap shoot anyway. Calculating calories burned is basically effort * weight (in kg) = calories burned.

The machine uses resistance settings + speed to determine effort (very accurate as long as the machine is calibrated properly). An HRM uses your heart rate to estimate effort (which can be more or less accurate, as there are a million things that can arbitrarily raise or lower your heart rate, giving a false reading) and MFP uses the standard MET ratings to estimate effort.

According to the treadmill at the gym today I burned 355 calories. According to the MET formula, it's 309. MFP was 324. I'd say it's all close enough to not really make a difference.

Heart rate does not equal effort. If that were true, than most professional athletes, with very low resting heart rates, must have a horrible time burning any calories. You burn less calories when you weigh less, and when your body becomes more efficient and used to an activity, it doesn't directly correlate with your heart rate. I think HRM's have an excellent marketing campaign going, but I wouldn't trust their accuracy over any other calculator or estimate.