Accuracy of MFP calories burned calculation?

KXanthos

I have an elliptical trainer in my garage that I have been using for 30 minutes of cardio every day. It’s nothing fancy. It’s a non computerized manual elliptical trainer that has 2 ramp positions and variable resistance. Based on my weight and height, MFP calculated a total of 474 calories burned doing 30 minutes of "Elliptical Trainer". This sounded too high to me, so I went to the gym today and used the elliptical trainer there. I entered my weight and my age and it calculated a total of 345 calories burned in 30 minutes. This is a huge difference!

I also walked on the gym treadmill today. For a 10 minute walk at 3 mph, MFP calculated 58 calories burned whereas the gym treadmill said that I had burned 80 calories. Not as big a difference as the elliptical machine, but a difference nonetheless.

Does anyone know how MFP is calculating calories burned? Is there a formula being used? Why would it differ so much from the gym equipment?

I much prefer using my elliptical trainer at home first thing in the morning while my kids are still sleeping, but I haven’t the faintest clue how many calories I’m actually burning on it. Maybe I’ll just overwrite the mfp calculation with 345 calories to be on the conservative side….

happyb3

I had the same issues so I finally gave in and bought a heart rate monitor.

taso42

I would use an HRM reading, if you have that.
Failing that, I would use the machine readout.
Failing that, I would use this calories burned calculator: http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php
Failing that, I would use the MFP number.

erinrose07

I believe MFP's calculations are based on a standard height/weight setting, not the height and weight you have in your profile. I always just enter the calories that the gym machines say I burned. You can enter whatever # you want when your logging your calories under an exercise on MFP.

sunnyzephyr

I noticed the same thing. When I workout at the gym, it tells me how many calories I have burned, and MFP often says I burned more, so I have to enter it manually.

Kickinkim418

I hated not knowing if the machines or MFP were accurate, so I broke down and bought a Polar F4 heart rate monitor. Best investment ever!

KXanthos

I believe MFP's calculations are based on a standard height/weight setting, not the height and weight you have in your profile. I always just enter the calories that the gym machines say I burned. You can enter whatever # you want when your logging your calories under an exercise on MFP.

.

They are actually based on your specific weight. I tested this by entering a different weight for myself and then entering the same 30 minute elliptical workout.

I would love to just override it with what the gym says, but I do most of my workouts at home on an elliptical trainer that doesn't calculate that.

Thanks for the suggestions!

KXanthos

I would use an HRM reading, if you have that.
Failing that, I would use the machine readout.
Failing that, I would use this calories burned calculator: http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php
Failing that, I would use the MFP number.

I have an HRM watch. I can use that to monitor my HR during a workout, but I havent discovered if it has a calories burned function. I'll have to check that out. If it doesnt, is there an HRM that you would reccomend that does?

Cakepiebeer

I would use an HRM reading, if you have that.
Failing that, I would use the machine readout.
Failing that, I would use this calories burned calculator: http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php
Failing that, I would use the MFP number.

I have an HRM watch. I can use that to monitor my HR during a workout, but I havent discovered if it has a calories burned function. I'll have to check that out. If it doesnt, is there an HRM that you would reccomend that does?

The Polar series are the most popular here. I just bought an FT4. Compared to my gps tracker I was using.. I was burning significantly more calories. Every upwards of 800 calories I burnt using my gps tracker, I was burning in the thousands.

I'm really happy with it

edit= My first HRM was an Ironman I bought in 2004. Doesnt do calories, which makes it obsolete

taso42

Yep. Polar is a safe choice. The most important thing is to make sure it has a chest strap.

See also http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

KXanthos

Awesome! Thanks for the tps everyone!

ElizabethRoad

I also walked on the gym treadmill today. For a 10 minute walk at 3 mph, MFP calculated 58 calories burned whereas the gym treadmill said that I had burned 80 calories. Not as big a difference as the elliptical machine, but a difference nonetheless.

Actually in both cases the gym says 73% of what MFP says. I don't know if that would apply to every exercise, but it's something to consider.

anulle2009

I have seen on some MFP is way over, and some exercises i have see MFP WAY under now that i have my heart rate monitor. The funny thing is too, the gym machines certain ones are way under compared to my heart rate monitor.

KXanthos

I also walked on the gym treadmill today. For a 10 minute walk at 3 mph, MFP calculated 58 calories burned whereas the gym treadmill said that I had burned 80 calories. Not as big a difference as the elliptical machine, but a difference nonetheless.

Actually in both cases the gym says 73% of what MFP says. I don't know if that would apply to every exercise, but it's something to consider.

The gym treadmill said that I burned more calories than MFP, but the gym elliptical trainer said that I burned less than MFP. I see how you got the 73%, but thew differences are going opposite directions. Anyway, I think I'm going to have to get an HRM so that on the days that I do eat my workout calories, I am not over eating....