MAJOR CONFUSED!!

happystars82

Please can someone advise?

i've just been to gym and did 30 mins 6MH walking, 20 minute rowing machine. The machines told me i'd burnt 100 cals on each however when i put it on here it says alot more... so i'm confused who do i go with?

Have a good day!...:O)

hbrittingham

6 MPH walking? That's super fast, you must have very long legs. I jog at 5 MPH. I would take what the machines said and what MFP says and average them, personally.

missikay1970

i agree that 6 MPH seems really fast for walking, i'm jogging at 5.8, no way i could walk, but anyway, i would use MFP calories b/c it calculates your weight and age, etc. when factoring in calories burned. the machines i have found aren't that accurate.

happystars82

Ah right maybe it wasn;t 6 mph it just said in the speed bit that i was doing 6?? so not sure what that was...

ok so i should go by what MFP says then but maybe cut 100 off to adverage out what the machine says?

sorry to sound thick but i'm new to all this..

many thanks

fitnessbugg

Your best bet is to get a personal device to measure your calorie consumption, i.e., a heart rate monitor, a Bodybugg, a Fitbit, etc., etc., etc. Then you will know precisely what you are burning. Try a search on the topic!

happystars82

ok, well for instant what do you do? i see on your diary you do execise but do you go by what MFP says?

Di3012

Ah right maybe it wasn;t 6 mph it just said in the speed bit that i was doing 6?? so not sure what that was...

ok so i should go by what MFP says then but maybe cut 100 off to adverage out what the machine says?

sorry to sound thick but i'm new to all this..

many thanks

It may have been 6 kilometres per hour with is 3.75 miles per hour. However, if you were walking at 6mph, WTG!!

Take the lower figure with regards to the calories burned, that way, if you eat those back, you won't be eating more than you actually burned, whereas, if you take the higher figure and eat those back, you could be eating more than you burned, which would be a shame.

happystars82

Ah thank you December thats really helpful thank you.. but do u think its likley that i burnt 538 doing 30 mins of breast stroke in the swimming pool?

lol think i need a personal trainer!!

jrich1

Both are just estimates, oddly enough both are probably way off.

sweetNsassy2584

Invest in a HRM..

robynluvsjesus

I found the machines to be way more accurate than MFP. Error on the cautious side and go with the lesser count. Overestimating could lead to a lack of weight loss or a gain if you're eating your activity calories.

Pocket_Pixi

You do not need a personal trainer, get yourself a heart rate monitor, they aren't that expensive and they will give you a more accurate number on calories burned. 538 doing breast stroke sounds a bit high for 30 min - unless you are super fast. I don't even burn 538 in 30 mins doing front crawl and I am not THAT slow when I do it.

MaximalLife

Please can someone advise?

i've just been to gym and did 30 mins 6MH walking, 20 minute rowing machine. The machines told me i'd burnt 100 cals on each however when i put it on here it says alot more... so i'm confused who do i go with?

Have a good day!...:O)

I'd guess you burned about 180 at least.
And that's all any of this is - a guess.

I needed to tweak the numbers, because MFP was way too high.
And some say it's too low, so again, make a ruling, then track weight.

Find your zone.

Dtho5159

Unfortunately, I have found MFP database for exercise to be way off. I purchased a HRM (heart rate monitor) back in August and it was the best investment I have made on this journey, outside of my food scale. It took 6 months for me to save for the HRM but well worth it.

philOHIO

for now... ENTER THE LOWER NUMBER

30yearssincebikini

Personally I don't track my exercise on MFP for this exact reason. I have no idea how many calories I burn when I do other things besides cardio. Like with cardio machines, it tells you, but what about if I do 80 leg curls and I am panting when I am done? I know I burned calories, but those kinds of machines don't say anything about calories.

Also, when I do put in how many exercises I do, it changes the total calorie intake, which screws with my head. I don't want to eat more calories just because I am exercising. So I just forget about tracking my exercise. I know I do it every day, that's all I need to know.

I only track food. I hope you figure out what works for you, but for me, I only track food. Doing otherwise is too confusing!

grobbygru

http://mynewbody.com.au/fitness/calculators/calculator/calorie-burn#

This may help. I use runkeeper a lot too (free app on smartphone)

Di3012

Ah thank you December thats really helpful thank you.. but do u think its likley that i burnt 538 doing 30 mins of breast stroke in the swimming pool?

lol think i need a personal trainer!!

One hour's worth of breaststroke swimming (continually) is approximately 600 calories, so I think 538 may be a little off.

To be sure though, a heart rate monitor will give you a much more accurate count :flowerforyou:

mikeyrp

As a really good rule of thumb - if you are working HARD - by which I mean at the end of 30 minutes you literally fall off the machine, you are probably burning 500 calories.

If you are walking at a rate which doesn't even get you out of breath, you're probably burning 200 calories in the same 20 minutes. Most people burn 750 calories per hour if they are pushing themselves but not to exhaustion.

SueInAz

Machine estimates (because really, calories in food and calorie burns are always just estimates) are most accurate when you enter your age, weight and gender into the machine before beginning. If the machine doesn't have you entering those things, it'll always be off. My personal stationary bike, which asks for weight during the set up process, is under by about 30% compared to my HRM. 30% is a pretty large amount to be under.

I usually don't like MFPs numbers because it doesn't have any idea of the level of effort you've expended during the activity. I've found that they are are either under or over what my HRM says and usually by a good percentage. If you know your average speed, walking is probably the one exception but even there, MFP is slighly under for me (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

I have to agree that your best bet is going to be investing in a heart rate monitor. Most of them are water resistant so you can even wear them swimming.

bodyjammin85

I'm with everyone else, get a heart rate monitor! I use one when i dance and lift. I did 30 mins of dancing today and mfp only said i burned 135 cals, where my HRM said i burned 260. It is programmed with my height, weight, gender and age in it already and it beeps at me constantly if i'm not working hard enough or i'm overdoing it and working in the anaerobic zone.

I agree also that machines are only accurate if you programme them but you can still use a heart rate monitor with a chest strap that the machines can pick up on, checking your heart rate without having to use those silly metal plates on the handles!

What i would recommend is interval training and it's perfect for any stage of fitness or knowledge. Instead of just walking try jogging for 1 minute then walking for 2 mins. Do this for 15 mins and i guarantee you'll burn more calories than just walking and rowing combined. Do the same on the rowing machine, say 35 spm (strokes per minute) for a minute and 25 spm for 2 mins.

When you can do that easily, change it to 1 min jog/35spm and 1 min walk/25spm. Not only does it increase calories burned but will increase cardiovascular fitness quicker.

Jazzyrose77

Get a heart monitor and give you calories. The machines and MFP are just giving you an estimate.

PoeRaven

Invest in a HRM..

Yep. What they said.

FitLink

Your best bet is to get a personal device to measure your calorie consumption, i.e., a heart rate monitor, a Bodybugg, a Fitbit, etc., etc., etc. Then you will know precisely what you are burning. Try a search on the topic!

What she said. I used a Fitbit until I put three of them through the washer. At $100 a piece, I decided to try something that I'd be less likely to forget. I now use a BodyMedia FIT (they make the BodyBugg as well and they are essentially the same device). Both of these devices show A LOT less calories burned than MFP's calculations; often less than half! I wouldn't use the MFP numbers--if I didn't want to buy a monitor of some kind, I'd use the numbers from the machine at the gym.

fitnessbugg

This is not an advertisement and I have never used one, but I ran across this "deal" today and immediately thought of this thread. If it works as advertised, for $24 you can't go wrong to monitor heart rate and calories. Here is a link: http://b71b898d-3923-491d-ab46-e0da5086f11d.kgbdeals.com/?id=72263 Good luck, and if you purchase, do tell how it works!

Marina614

Hi! I have personally tried many HR/CAL Monitors and by far hands down Polar is the best. It is a little $$ but worth every penny. It's your heart that is more important here. If your doing any kind of aerobic or anaerobic you need to make sure your not exceeding your max heart rate. It is also accurate calorically. Best of luck in your journey!

happystars82

Thank you so much all for your advice and thank you fitnessbug for the link, however i'm in the UK... i will get searching on ebay for something similar!

Thanks so much again!!