Calories burned on MFP vs Gym?

belesmommy
belesmommy Posts: 9
in Fitness and Exercise
Why is there such a variance? For example....I did 30 mins on the stationary bike today. HR btw 130-140. 95rpm.6.25 miles. Machine said 150 calories burned. MFP says 303....why the huge difference? Which number is correct?

Replies

  • kajpen
    kajpen Posts: 120 Member
    Why is there such a variance? For example....I did 30 mins on the stationary bike today. HR btw 130-140. 95rpm.6.25 miles. Machine said 150 calories burned. MFP says 303....why the huge difference? Which number is correct?

    Your best bet would be to invest in a HRM (heart rate monitor) so you can personalize to your height/weight/gender. That will be the most accurate method. You can pick them up pretty inexpensively and they are well worth the investment.
  • bethfartman
    bethfartman Posts: 363 Member
    I always go to a website that can calculate the burn based on my heart rate average. I find it's generally it's a little less then what the machine said, which is typically less than what MFP estimates. I also question whether the heart rate montior on the machines are accurate. I plan to get an HRM at some point, I'd be interested in other's input on that.
  • WickedSpinSistr
    WickedSpinSistr Posts: 139 Member
    It's likely that neither is correct. I recently bought a heart rate monitor and found that MFP was underestimating my calories burned, while machines at the gym (elliptical in particular) were overestimating. The amount of difference depended on the activity, but MFP was way off for Spinning by hundreds of calories, and just a bit off for circuit training.

    The elliptical always tells me I burn 400 calories in 30 minutes when I've only burned 266, even though the heart rate readout on the machine appears to be correct.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Why is there such a variance? For example....I did 30 mins on the stationary bike today. HR btw 130-140. 95rpm.6.25 miles. Machine said 150 calories burned. MFP says 303....why the huge difference? Which number is correct?

    Neither number is correct ...

    Height, weight, age, gender, and exertion level are all used to calculate calories burned. The machine may have had some of that information. MFP may use some of that information .... or they use averages (not sure?).

    Neither MFP nor the machine has exertion level .... this is key. The more fit you are the fewer calories you burn.

    Either get a heart rate monitor (chest strap models are more accurate than wrist only ones) - or use a percentage of calories from the machine (or MFP) ... pick one. If you eat back 100% of your calories & gain weight ....then that % is too large. Many people eat back 1/2 - 3/4 when using MFP numbers.

Categories