Calories for exercise...

AllsmilesMom
AllsmilesMom Posts: 12 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I am confused! Are the machines at the gym or the mfp exercises calculator more accurate? According the mfp, I did almost 400 calories on the bike this morning... According to the bike, I did 120!

I'm 34, weigh 239, and was on a resistance 3-4 for 35 minutes. Got my heartrate up to 140 for about 1/2 the time, rest of the time at about 130.

Thanks!

Replies

  • cc11395
    cc11395 Posts: 121 Member
    When you do the bike at the gym are you putting your weight, age, etc.? If so, then that is more accurate than MFP. I believe MFP is a generalized average (and from my experience, tends to be significantly higher than what the equipment at the gym says).
  • Anthonydaman
    Anthonydaman Posts: 854 Member
    The bike counter sounds a bit low, but MFP's exercise calorie counters are way high. I say split the difference. It's not an exact science just kind of a ball park figure.
    Generally you can figure burning 6-8 calories per minute bicycling, hope this helps
  • ChristiH4000
    ChristiH4000 Posts: 531 Member
    I've wondered the same thing for a long time and also find the calorie estimates on here to be much higher than the machines. I'll be watching this for more intelligent input than my own.
  • kdeaux1959
    kdeaux1959 Posts: 2,675 Member
    Assume the smaller of the two figures... LOL>>> Just kidding... No, the MFP guidelines recommend using the machine figure over their estimate. It has control of more variables. More accurate still is a quality heart rate monitor. (Or so I'm told.)
  • meleah1976
    meleah1976 Posts: 6
    My doctor and nutritionist told me that the MFP cals are about double what you usually actually burn...So enter the information on your treadmill and use that number or take about 50% OFF the MFP number for a closer estimation of what you actually burn...

    **Edit - the numbers the bike or treadmill says is usually very accurate for my cals burned etc...My friend uses a HRM to get even more specific results!**
  • Merrychrissmith
    Merrychrissmith Posts: 231 Member
    Bummer! Arrrgh. will start using machine numbers.....arrrgh, bummer! (chuckling ruefully).
  • Gemnildy
    Gemnildy Posts: 124 Member
    When you do the bike at the gym are you putting your weight, age, etc.? If so, then that is more accurate than MFP. I believe MFP is a generalized average (and from my experience, tends to be significantly higher than what the equipment at the gym says).


    I would generally agree here, the key is whether you are entering in YOUR data on the machine before you start? If you are customizing it then the odds are better that the machine is closer to accurate. MFP is generally higher but it also seems to come bery close in an avergae day by the time it accounts for your normal daily activity. I have been wearing a Fitbit 24/7 since the 1st of the year and even though there can be a lot of differences in the individual activity calculations, in the long run, the daily tracking average comes out pretty darn close!

    The more data you track and monitor over a longer period of time, the more accurate your results will be!
    :flowerforyou:
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    Bummer! Arrrgh. will start using machine numbers.....arrrgh, bummer! (chuckling ruefully).

    If you feel you need more calories, it's because you probably do! You have less than 30 pounds to lose, and you're male. Your calories are set ridiculously low at 1280.

    Please read these:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10665-newbies-please-read-me-2nd-edition

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/186814-some-mfp-basics

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/226404-bmr-maintenance

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/61706-guide-to-calorie-deficits

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/510406-tdee-is-everything

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calories

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/363561-weight-loss-6-strategies-for-success
  • yesthistime
    yesthistime Posts: 2,051 Member
    A heart rate monitor with chest strap is best, but if you don't have access to one I would take the lowest of the estimations so as not to eat back exercise calories that may not actually have been burned. In my experience, MFP way overestimates cardio calories burned.
  • rjo921
    rjo921 Posts: 130
    Assume the smaller of the two figures... LOL>>> Just kidding... No, the MFP guidelines recommend using the machine figure over their estimate. It has control of more variables. More accurate still is a quality heart rate monitor. (Or so I'm told.)

    Getting a heart rate monitor with a calorie burner counter is your best bet to get an accurate reading of how many calories you are burning.
  • jhefti13
    jhefti13 Posts: 24
    According to my Garmin FR60 the machine totals (at the gym) and MFP are low for me. According to my Garmin I burned 850 calories for 45 minutes on the elliptical today on the weight loss mode/level 3. The machine said I burned 610 and MFP said I should have burned 679. I do put all of my information into the elliptical before I start my workout.
  • icemaiden17_uk
    icemaiden17_uk Posts: 463 Member
    I would always say that it is better to underestimate your workout burns than to overestimate!! I always use the smalest number for this reason! You can cause yourself a world of hurt if you overestimate your burns and then eat back those calories!! Play it safe! At least until you can get a HRM!! :)
  • AllsmilesMom
    AllsmilesMom Posts: 12 Member
    Thank you for all the promt replies!

    I do put in my age and weight, use the hrm on the machine itself. I guess going with the lower number (amount of calories burned) on my machine is a good bet, just to be safe.

    So proud that I am burning calories! :o) Yahoo!

Categories