difference in calories burned on machine versus site

cuddlyrunner

I have thought that MFP vastly overestimates the calories burned so have used the calories burned showing on the machines.
According to this site http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm the calories I've been using are approximately double the actual calories burned :-(

bjshooter

I find MFP pretty much spot on for me. The machines are always way too low. Think it varies greatly from person to person. HRM is the only way to be sure.

LuintoST

HRM is the only way to be sure.

I second. The only way to be 'quite' sure.

MandyCanDo

I find MFP pretty much spot on for me. The machines are always way too low. Think it varies greatly from person to person. HRM is the only way to be sure.

Absolutely!! My HRM has been a godsend!!! I only use that count, never go by MFP because of the discrepancy in numbers.

MelissaGraham7

Yeah - I find the machines are too low but MFP is way too high. I tend to average 3 sources: The Weight Watchers database, the machine figure, and MFP - so I get an average figure and that's what I use. Obviously, it is way better to underestimate the burn rather than to over estimate it.

beth40n2

MFP takes into concideration of your height and weight you have entered. The machines try to post what the average person would burn.

MelissaGraham7

anyone use a Garmin Forerunner HRM with foot pod for inside activity calculating? I have the Garmin for my running but am considering the foot pod for the gym...

nuttytart770223

I have a HRM, and only go by the figures it gives me as it is set up for me.

NancyAnne1960

The only thing I've noticed, is when I was heavier and out of shape (really out of shape), MFP was low on what I burned. Then, as I progressed to being healthier, MFP was pretty close (to my HRM). Today, after not exercising for a month, but still losing weight, MFP was way over what I actually burned. I think the healthier you get, the tougher it is to burn simple calories. I have to work harder now to get the results I did when I was out of shape.

bluefox9er

I have thought that MFP vastly overestimates the calories burned so have used the calories burned showing on the machines.
According to this site http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm the calories I've been using are approximately double the actual calories burned :-(

both are wildly inaccurate. I did a comparison with an hours walk using the machine's numbers. mfp's and a HRM strapped to me. the difference was well over 300 calories. an HRM is the only way to get an accurate answer to calories burnt...

NancyAnne1960

Yeah - I find the machines are too low but MFP is way too high. I tend to average 3 sources: The Weight Watchers database, the machine figure, and MFP - so I get an average figure and that's what I use. Obviously, it is way better to underestimate the burn rather than to over estimate it.

I agree with this as a good way to get an average, allowable figure for cals. burned.

LaMujerMasBonitaDelMundo

That's why I don't really want to buy that belief on eating back all the extra calories that I get from exercise (Sorry but I hate using the term "exercise calories", it sounds sooo stupid for me even if I'm not an english speaker) because frankly I don't fully trust MFP records. I did a dance aerobic workout 30 mins & MFP says I burned 220 cals although I did sweat a lot on my upper body but my heart rate didn't change as it was like I don't workout. On the other hand, my heart rate increases easily when I do boxing and actually sweat more not just my upper body but my entire body but MFP says that I only burn around 117 for 15 min boxing on punching bag.

BethanyCee

I can't really afford an HRM right now, so I generally just go with the lowest number. It's usually the machines. I'd rather underestimate how much I've burned rather than overestimate. That's also why I log all my (non-treadmill) walking as 2.5, even though I'm pretty sure I walk faster than that.

SkateboardFi

I have a HRM, and only go by the figures it gives me as it is set up for me.

this. because i thought that mfp was overestimating for my calories burned, but when i got my heart rate monitor it turned out even mfp was underestimating as well, so it really all depends, and if you're trying to calculate you may have to just bite the bullet and get an hrm

H_Factor

I started using a HRM this week and noticed big differences between the HRM and MFP. biking calories on MFP are much higher than on the HRM. however, the HRM showed that I burned more calories running and doing interval training than what MFP allotted for those tasks.

LaMujerMasBonitaDelMundo

MFP takes into concideration of your height and weight you have entered. The machines try to post what the average person would burn.

The same with the machines, you have to input your weight, height and gender in it.

AmandaCG

I have a Polar FT4 HRM & MFP either vastly OVER estimates or vastly UNDER estimates calories burned....its never even close for me. The site can only estimate based on the average person's fitness level.

tameko2

I started using a HRM this week and noticed big differences between the HRM and MFP. biking calories on MFP are much higher than on the HRM. however, the HRM showed that I burned more calories running and doing interval training than what MFP allotted for those tasks.

This is me too - it varies wildly depending on what I am doing. MFP gives me gigantic numbers for circuit training that are not at all accurate. I would say just don't be OVERLY concerned with it honestly - on a day you work out hard make sure you get the nutrients you need, if you are hungry beyond your calories go ahead and just eat an extra 200. That is NOT going to severely sabotage your weight loss if your calorie burns are inaccurate. But if it says you burned 1000 calories I wouldn't eat them all. Its not very likely unless you were going hard and strong for 2 hours+ and only very athletic people can manage that -- or if you are just very very big.

I got an HRM because I thought I needed to know my burns and really, I don't. I really love my HRM for monitoring my level of intensity and cardiovascular fitness (HR lower than I think it should be? Then I'd better turn up the speed/intensity.). I also like it as a motivational tool - when I see it say I burned 270 calories and I'm winding down my workout, sometmes I'll push through to 300.

But if you are not planning to eat EVERY exercise calorie you burn then I wouldn't worry about the accuracy of what you put in. Remember you have a 250-500-750-1000 calorie deficit built in by MFP every day. (250 for .5lb/week, 1000 for 2lb/week) So if you've been working hard and you feel like need to eat more, make some smart snacking choices and EAT. Even if you put in 500 calories of exercise and you really only burned 250, eating the whole 500 will at worst mean you ate maintenance that day (if ou are set to .5 lb/week). That's not a big deal.

IF you DO want to eat every calorie you burn then....HRM. And remember HRMs are ALSO just estimates - they are just slightly more accurate estimates. They are still not gospel truth.

martinh78

Just got a HRM and it is much higher than the machine, but lower than MFP. I always used the machines caluries burned so thankfully I was below.

Now I have the HRM I am "burning more" than I thought, so haven't actually been eating back my calories as I thought. I will see in the next few weeks how eating back my calories goes...as I am increasing my intake to match my hrm.

They are expenmsive though and I couldn't afford one whne I bought mine (shhh!), but I am glad I did as I have a set baseline to work from and I also think that it is helping my workouts. If I put weight on or stall because I'm eating back too many calories I'll aim to eat half, but at least half of my hrm will be a constant.