Machine or MFP?

Dreamcyn

What do you do when the exercise machine tells you that you've burnt a certain number of calories, but MFP tells you that that kind of exercise for that long should have been MUCH less. Which do you go with?
I used a spin machine for 15 minutes, and it told me I burnt 600 calories (which does seem like a lot) but MFP labels 15 minutes cycling as only 88 calories.
?

tcdawley78

I just put the lowest... But spinning and cycling are two different things... :-)

mrsfoose

The machines tend to lie. A lot. Make sure when you enter something like biking though you use the correct mph on here!

cheetahcub2010

Before I got my HRM I always averaged what MFP said and what the machine said, but they were usually closer than the two numbers you got.

MikeInAZ

Get a Heart Rate Monitor with a chest strap. Know exactly how many calories your burn. I have a Polar FT7, but the FT4 would be more than adequate for most! The machines and the website are both wrong

Dreamcyn

I checked Spinning and it gave me the same number.

tcdawley78

What do you do when the exercise machine tells you that you've burnt a certain number of calories, but MFP tells you that that kind of exercise for that long should have been MUCH less. Which do you go with?
I used a spin machine for 15 minutes, and it told me I burnt 600 calories (which does seem like a lot) but MFP labels 15 minutes cycling as only 88 calories.
?

Also, check the weight setting on the machine if you didn't reset it when you got on.. 600+ calories is off for anything

arc918

both are wrong

FWIW - I do find MFP to be accurate in terms of calories burned running - matches my Garmin and other calculators

channa007

Put down the lowest. You don't want to over estimate your burn and end up eating over your deficit. Your body will know what you actually burned.

HolleeERL

600 calories for only 15 minutes seems way too high. I have to run at least 40 mins on incline to burn close to that much.

Dreamcyn

Put down the lowest. You don't want to over estimate your burn and end up eating over your deficit. Your body will know what you actually burned.

that's a really good point, thank you. Definitely better to be under than over.

LorinaLynn

Just judging by the fact that you look pretty small (really scientific, I know!) and don't have much to lose, I'd say that MFP is closer in this instance. I typically burn about 200 calories in a half hour on the bike averaging about 15 mph, maybe 90rpm? If you're going way faster, you'd probably burn more, but I don't know if 600 calories in 15 minutes is anywhere near humanly possible.

channa007

Then again... if you don't want to be guessing get a HRM with chest strap.

wolfchild59

Neither, but MFP is usually at least closer.

I'm female, 32, 146, 5'5" and even when entering my age and weight, every machine grossly overestimates my calories burned. MFP is also always higher than my HRM, but it's closer.

The most recent machine laugh was last night on an ARC trainer. The last time I'd looked at the calories it said 526 and that was with about 10 min left of a 40 min session. My HRM gave me 390. (MFP doesnt have an entry so I use an entered one)

My treadmill usually overestimates by about 150-200 calories and MFP usually overestimates runs by about 50-100 calories.

Elliptical is usually about 200-300 higher on the machine about 100 higher in MFP. (though I had one elliptical actually give me over a 1000 cal burn for a 40 min session. Bwahahaha!!)

And stationary bike actually has a lot of entries based on level of activity so I usually just pick the one that gives me the closest number and adjust that to my HRM number.