Which is more accurate?

Options
alliesun53
alliesun53 Posts: 160 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
The calories burned count on the machines at the gym, or here on MFP?? I've been finding that even after entering my weight and age into the gym machine, the calories are LOWER then MFP says. I know a HRM would be the best, but right now it's not in my spending budget to get one.

The machines will account for how hard of an effort and the distance, but MFP accounts for lifestyle and other factors. Both seem to have an advantage.

For example: Today I biked at the gym for 40 minutes at a resistance of 6. I went a total of 8.62 miles. The machine accounted for about 300 calories. MFP is calculating 503...thats a big difference!!

Replies

  • escloflowneCHANGED
    escloflowneCHANGED Posts: 3,038 Member
    Options
    I find MFP always too high, and the machine fairly close compared to my HRM.
  • Saruman_w
    Saruman_w Posts: 1,531 Member
    Options
    If anything, probably the machine. They're more closely configured with that particular exercise than what MFP would know about.
  • japruzze
    japruzze Posts: 453 Member
    Options
    Pick one and stick with it. Neither is going to truely accurate. I found that when I bought my HRM, the treadmill had be burning twice as many calories as my HRM did. I was very disappointed. MFP was still higher but not as much. I also find, with my HRM, that no two 30 min treadmill session at the same speed/elevation burn the same calories. They can be remarkably different! WTH! Any way back to the beginning. Pick one and stick with it.

Categories