Large Gap between machine & MFP

imnotyourpal

I know I need to get a HRM, but until I get some things paid off, it's just a luxury I can't justify. Having said that, does anyone know why there's such a large gap between what MFP says I burn and what the machine says I burn? I'm talking a 70 calorie difference, and that's just today. It varies from day to day, depending on my work out. I always go with the lower number, which is the machine. It calculates my weight & HR but not my age (not sure why, new gym, different equipment).

Anyone know why this is? MFP has my weight and age, but not my HR. And doesn't the HR account for how much you burn depending on age? I know neither are as accurate as an HRM, but which is closer? And WHY?

Thanks for any insight.

meshashesha2012

they are both wrong. you'll have no way of knowing which is closer unless you have an HRM. i have an hrm and depending on my workout and my intensity some times the machine is closer other times MFP is closer, even on the same machine

trac3

I dunno ~ I'm not sure if it takes in to account your age, gender etc.

All I can say is that the MFP calculations AND the machines are off. The machines average 100-200 cals off depending on what I'm doing. I always subtract at least 100 cals from the estimation on the ellipticals and stairs at the gym when not wearing my HRM.

meerkat70

the machines are generally closer. when i got my him i noticed the machines slightly underestimate and mfp hugely overestimates. this is assuming it's a machine that accepts weight entries.

chevy88grl

they are both wrong. you'll have no way of knowing which is closer unless you have an HRM. i have an hrm and depending on my workout and my intensity some times the machine is closer other times MFP is closer, even on the same machine

You don't know that both of these are wrong. Yes, a HRM is the most accurate, but sometimes they aren't in someone's budget. I lost ALL my weight without a HRM, so it is possible to be successful without a HRM.

I've always relied on the machines since they ask my age, weight, etc. Plus, they know how hard I'm working whereas MFP is guessing.

Newf77

Before I obtained a HRM I used the numbers the machine provided me. My reasoning was that the machines are intermittently taking my heart rate.

meshashesha2012

they are both wrong. you'll have no way of knowing which is closer unless you have an HRM. i have an hrm and depending on my workout and my intensity some times the machine is closer other times MFP is closer, even on the same machine

You don't know that both of these are wrong. Yes, a HRM is the most accurate, but sometimes they aren't in someone's budget. I lost ALL my weight without a HRM, so it is possible to be successful without a HRM.

I've always relied on the machines since they ask my age, weight, etc. Plus, they know how hard I'm working whereas MFP is guessing.

okey dokey then. no need to take my opinions so personally or start talking about people's budgets. it's not that friggin' serious :laugh:

meerkat70

they are both wrong. you'll have no way of knowing which is closer unless you have an HRM. i have an hrm and depending on my workout and my intensity some times the machine is closer other times MFP is closer, even on the same machine

You don't know that both of these are wrong. Yes, a HRM is the most accurate, but sometimes they aren't in someone's budget. I lost ALL my weight without a HRM, so it is possible to be successful without a HRM.

I've always relied on the machines since they ask my age, weight, etc. Plus, they know how hard I'm working whereas MFP is guessing.

I think this is reasonable. Realistically, the machines are still monitoring heart rate, and if they ask for weight (and ideally age too) they're not going to be miles off - just not quite as accurate as with a chest strap. And 50 or so calories off on an estimate really isn't going to do anyone any lasting harm.

If you're estimating without a machine (e.g running or walking), I'd suggest that you use a distance based estimate, if you can't get a HRM - these are a bit more accurate. There's a calculator on runners world and a few other places. MFP wildly overestimates these for me. I think its algorithm presumes people who are fat are also radically unfit - and in my case, that's not really true!

jassjazz

http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calories_burned.htm - try this website, it might help

amyy902

honestly i think its important to stress firstly you dont really need to knw how many calories you burn when you exercise, you should just be happy its doing you good. however on the other hand being obsessed with numbers i always want to know. machines and mfp dont take into account your fitness level or if you are used to using a machine. i found this out through a hrm. running i wasnt burning a lot of calories compared to the machine, because i d it everyday, i'll run 10k easy in like 40 mins (im a PT so my job is fitness). but then i thought oh i'll go on the elliptical and freaking hell my hr monitor showed me a much bigger burn than the machine did, because my body was so shocked by the exercise. it goes the the principle that you have to keep your body guessing about exercise to get the best results

meerkat70

http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calories_burned.htm - try this website, it might help

I'm afraid I find that site overestimates just as badly as mfp tends to.

The only exception is in weight training, where I think consensus is that it ridiculously underestimates...

twinmom01

I have found that MFP is way off...Machines are closer if they have areas where you can grasp so it can record your heart rate...

The machines at my gym I have found to be about 50-70 over based on what my HRM says depending on how long I do them for...whereas MFP is more like 100-150 over...

imnotyourpal

Thanks guys.....you have been awesome!!

For the record, I lost 75 pounds without an HRM, but I also was on calorie count and wasn't eating any calories back, so this is a bit of a different journey for me.