Do you use calories burned on the gym machine or on mfp?
Options
Replies
-
Thanks for the advice about he HRM! I'll be investing in one asap! Polar FT4 is the only one mentioned. Anyone else have brands they like?
Loving this forum
I too love my Polar FT4!!0 -
I wear a HRM for everything, but I usually just post the generic calories that MFP has unless it's something MFP doesn't have in their system, then I add accordingly. I don't find the 2 to be that far off on me, but I have a tendency to get my heart rate going pretty good on anything I do. Polar FT4!0
-
I would definitely go with the machine. I always enter my weight and age to get a more accurate number. MFP numbers can't possibly know your heart rate, age, weight, etc.0
-
A machine that asks your weight and uses it in the calorie computation is going to be more accurate than a HRM.
The way MFP calculates cardio calories, however, is pretty useless. Time and weight is not enough information to provide even a rough guess of calories burned.0 -
Invest in a good HRM. The machines & the MFP database are both grossly inaccurate. For example, I did a machine last night which told me I burned over 100 calories more than my HRM said. Then when I went to log it MFP gave me about 100 calories less than my HRM.. so investing in one is a great idea!0
-
Hi, I did an experiment last week and this is what I found:
HRM with chest strap - more than twice as high as the machine (I'm returning my HRM)
Pedometer - 100 calories higher than the machine
MFP - almost right on with the machine
The treadmill I use doesn't ask for my weight. The HRM and pedometer do.
I've been using my pedometer to track calories for months now and have decided I am going to average the pedometer and machine (or MFP #) and then just eat 200 or so back.
Good luck!0 -
I tend to go with whatever is lower, just to be safe.
I did this till I got a body bugg.0 -
Any Polar product would do. They ask for your information in the set up (height, weight, age, sex); combined with the chest strap, they are pretty accurate. Machines are always 100-200 calories more than what my HRM says. I have an FT70
-
I have a HRM and go by that, if you want an accurate rate i suggest getting one I have a Ploar F6 and LOVE it. My treadmill only asks for weight, where my HRM asks weight, age, sex. And when i first bought it and compared it to my treadmill, my treadmill was always way more and same withthe one at the gym.0
-
A machine that asks your weight and uses it in the calorie computation is going to be more accurate than a HRM.
The way MFP calculates cardio calories, however, is pretty useless. Time and weight is not enough information to provide even a rough guess of calories burned.
You put all your info (Weight, Age, Height) into a HRM as well. THe HRM is going to be more accurate than the machine given the method that your pulse is taken (chest strap versus hand).
I would disagree with most, MFP in almost all instances has been within 10% of what my HRM is saying.0 -
Go with a polar HRM i use ft4 as do most on here and find it really good a slightly more expensive model ft7 is also widely used on here0
-
I have a FitBit Ultra, that does distance,steps taken, floors climbed and calories burned. It will sync wirelessly with MFP. How does a HRM compare to the FItBit and I didn't know that a HRM gave you calorie burn. Thanks!0
-
I'm a fan of the Polar brand HRM, any one with a chest strap.
My gym also offers tests that can calculate your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) and tell you how many calories you burn at what heart rate/zone based on the amount of oxygen you burn while breathing.
I always wondered why I wasn't losing weight when I would start out new diets. It turns out that I need to eat more than the average person just to maintain my weight. The calories that MFP tells me I should eat to lose is low (not completely off, but still low). Also, in my case, MFP is too low on how many calories it says I burn during exercise.0 -
I would disagree with most, MFP in almost all instances has been within 10% of what my HRM is saying.
I second that. It seems to me that the MFP numbers are not too far off, at least for standard exercises like running. I've been comparing the calorie burn from my chest strap HRM to the MFP numbers for a few weeks now. I don't use Runkeeper, but I've mapped my most frequent runs in Google Earth, so I have a pretty good idea of my speed and pace. I've found that when I use the MFP entry that most closely matches my running speed, the numbers are pretty much SPOT ON compared to my HRM. It's usually within a range of +/- 5 calories for a 30 minute run. So I do have some faith in the MFP numbers for running. This is for a 5'7" male who weighs about 170 lbs currently. I do all of my running outside, on mixed terrain, surfaces and inclines.
I think that an HRM and the MFP estimate, which takes into account your gender, age, height and weight, should both be closer to the truth than a gym machine running in generic mode (without knowing your data).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions