Which is correct? My treadmill or mfp?

Oo_BrookeNicole_oO

I usually walk at 3.2 mph for 20 mins at night and my treadmill tells me I burn 100 calories. However, MFP tells me I only burn about 65 calories. In the mornings I alternate between running and walking and the calories for that are way less on MFP also.

I've been pretty hungry and crabby all day because I'm not eating as many exercise calories today (changed my settings) and saving for eating out tonight.

So should I change my settings back to what my treadmill is telling me, or keep with what MFP tells me?

KareninCanada

Our trainer warned us that equipment always tends to over-estimate calorie burn... so I'd probably go with the calculator.

ladyraven68

Don't measure by time, measure by distance - a mile = 100 calories.

Erica002

For now, i'd use MFP, but I'd go buy yourself a HRM and go off of that. I noticed the MFP has been way off for what I burn. And my trainer has also told me not to go off of what the equipment says.

melaniecheeks

The difference really isnt that huge - everything you eat and everything you burn is a guesstimate.

MaggieMae1214

From what I understand, unless a machine asks you for your weight prior to the workout they are calibrated to show calories burned for an individual that is in a healthy weight range and who burn calories more easily. I'm not sure if MFP takes into consideration your measurements when they are giving you the calories burned numbers or not. That may or may not make up for the difference? Just a thought.

lisapr123

I would say that they're probably both wrong. I spin, a lot. MFP says my 40 minute spin burns 425 calories. My bike says I burn 500 calories. Truth be told...I've been spinning for a long time and am very efficient at it. I doubt I burn that much. I've read time and time again about how our bodies are naturally lazy...after we do something awhile they learn the most efficient way to get it done. So when I first started I'd take an hour spin class and think I was going to DIE! I was probably burning 600 calories back then. Now I can ride my bike for 60 miles and barely feel it.

On the flip side I am quite possibly the worlds slowest runner. The effort I put into a 5k is huge. It says I burn like 350 calories. I KNOW it's more than that, because I am physically drained when it's done, and starving the next day.

Work in intervals, mix up the elevation, keep hydrated... and if you're hungry EAT!

As for tracking, I take what they give me in terms of calories "earned" and just make sure not to eat all of them.

Oo_BrookeNicole_oO

Thank you everyone for the replies. I guess for now I'll just stick with MFP estimation. I'll look into buying a HRM. I'm not even quite sure what that is!

psmd

Don't measure by time, measure by distance - a mile = 100 calories.

This is what I go by. Doesn't matter your speed. But just got a HRM so I'm curious to compare this week.

supershiny

From what I understand, unless a machine asks you for your weight prior to the workout they are calibrated to show calories burned for an individual that is in a healthy weight range and who burn calories more easily. I'm not sure if MFP takes into consideration your measurements when they are giving you the calories burned numbers or not. That may or may not make up for the difference? Just a thought.

People who are heavier burn more calories, as they have more mass. And OP, go with the lower number and eat your exercise calories

ohrebecca

Don't measure by time, measure by distance - a mile = 100 calories.

This is what I go by. Doesn't matter your speed. But just got a HRM so I'm curious to compare this week.

I don't think *that's* true.

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

gatecityradio

If the machine asks for weight and age I usually go with the machine. I ride the stationary bike at my gym for 30 minutes everyday and I enter my weight and age every time. The machine uses the speed, resistance, weight, and age to determine calories burned. It says I burn around 200 calories where MFP says I burn around 400...my body and mind knows that it's probably closer to what the machine is telling me. MFP's estimate is based on the time and a rough guestimate of intensity, nothing more. When I ride my bike I use endomondo on my phone to track my ride. It uses type of biking (mountain, commute, road), speed, distance, elevation, age and weight to tell how many calories are burned and it's usually higher than what MFP says. Again I'm going with endomondo because it's using more variables, where MFP is only using time and a rough guestimate of intensity. The only way you can get more accurate is with a heart rate monitor, which I plan on getting for my bike rides because endomondo supports bluetooth HRM's.

Just use your head and go with which one feels right and makes more sense.