Machine Calories vs MFP Calories burned?

DelightfullyWifed

Just worked out for 35 minutes on the elliptical at work during my lunch break. I entered my sex, weight and age.

Machine = 333 calories burned
MFP Exercise Entry = 398 calories burned

Which do you think I should go with? Thoughts?

I always get confused why they are so drastically different. I could understand maybe 10 or 15 calories but that is a 65 calorie difference! I typically always go with the lower number but sometimes I average the 2 together and go with that number instead. I want to see what others do in the same situation.

(NOTE: No I don't have a heart monitor/ calorie counter. No I am not going to get one right now so please do suggest that because I'm saving for some things and holding every penny I can. I'm looking to see what people do who don't buy a heart monitor. - Not trying to be rude I promise! )

THANKS!

msaestein1

I always overestimate on food and underestimate on exercise just to be sure, so I would go with the lower number. Look at this way, you will lose more weight! Also, the machine may know when you slow down, etc.

njobst

I've heard MFP always estimates high, so don't go by them. Besides, it's better to estimate low rather than high. Unfortunately, the most accurate way to measure is to use a heart rate monitor.

pastryari

Go with the lower number.

LorinaLynn

As long as you plugged your info into the machine, use the machine. It knows what pace and resistance you're going. MFP's elliptical entry is pretty much useless since it doesn't include either.

zaph0d

In this case they're both close enough to each other that it doesn't really matter. In general, you would be far better off using an HRM.

Oneday150

I would go with what the machine says if you do not have a heart monitor. Reason why sometimes the MFP Exercise are in a data base on a specific person height and weight. For instance I create alot of exercise base on what I've done that day. Just like when your logging in your food.

sonjarogers72

I have heard that the machines are sometimes inaccurate-they are not maintenanced on a regular basis and the count can be off... I can attest to the fact that when I wear my heart rate monitor and calorie burn (Polar FT4), my numbers match up exactly on the newer ellipticals- older models are off by as much as 50 calories

jjennasmithh

In this case they're both close enough to each other that it doesn't really matter. In general, you would be far better off using an HRM.

I agree ^^

twinmom01

I would go with the machine (especially one where you put in sex and weight) vs MFP - I have worn my HRM many times when working out and MFP ALWAYS skews higher.

EmilyOfTheSun

I would go with what the machine says because the machine also took into account the speed that you were going.

Terree83

I would go with the lower number..

I always think of it like this.. MFP doesn't know how hard someone is working.. especially on an elliptical. It will tell you that you burned the same amount of calories in 35 minutes whether you got on there and completely busted *kitten*, or if you got on there and stood still. So, I would go with the machine for now.

twentyjxthree

I'm sorry to ask a question within your question, but I'm wondering..... does MFP "calculate" the calories burned for exercise per the weight you have entered in your profile? Or is it generic like when you just hop on a cardio machine and go?

Chasing_Cars

Mine are always hugely out and i enter my weight age and height on the gym equipment too - i usually do 30mins on the elliptical and 30 mins treadmill & mfp states it as anywhere between 300-500 calories but sometimes if iv just walked on the treadmill iv actually only burnt around 200 - 300 cals.... i usually go with the machines as the number is lower so i assume its more realistic !

SavageFeast

I'd go with the lower number, definitely.

SomeoneSomeplace

I'm sorry to ask a question within your question, but I'm wondering..... does MFP "calculate" the calories burned for exercise per the weight you have entered in your profile? Or is it generic like when you just hop on a cardio machine and go?

It takes into account your weight

slimmermomma

I rather follow the machine - but when I do workout where I can't see what I am burning (and since I don't have a monitor either) I always take 5-10 minutes off my workout time. That way I am not overestimating what I burned.

Sweetsugar0424

I agree with the previous posts, go with the machine as it knows what speed you went at and isn't just a random number. Chances are that the number you found in here are for someone else who went faster than you did. Also, I know that a lot of machines have HRM things in their handles. Did you use those at all for the machine to see that?

I don't have a HRM either and not sure that I can afford to get one so I am not increasing my calorie intake based on workouts (I highly doubt that 60 minutes of kickboxing burns 800 calories) and I just eat the same amount of calories every day, but increase a little on workout days if I'm still hungry at the end.

lilangel317

I do not have a HRM either. I just can't see spending the money when what I am doing is working. I overestimate on the food and use the calories burned from the machine. I have not ever used MFP calorie count simply because it was way off what the machines were saying on the high side.

Growtinymusclesgrow

I tell everyone that they should get a heart rate monitor...one WITH a chest strap. If you do have to use a machine (or MFP), know that machines have an error rate of about +/- 25%. MFP probably is even higher...

silver_arrow3

I always go with the machine because, like another poster said, MFP doesn't take into account the resistance that you have the machine set for. I know you are pinching pennies, but once you've attained whatever you are saving for, there are some fairly cheap HRMs that calculate calories. One of my MFP pals suggested the Pyle Sports PHRM38BK Heart Rate Monitor Watch with 3D Walking/Running Sensor which costs less than $20 on Amazon.