Treadmill calories burned v. MFP calories burned

Options
KariandCo
KariandCo Posts: 29
in Fitness and Exercise
If the treadmill says I burned 98 calories, and MFP tells me I burned 192... which do I believe? I'm more apt to go with MFP since it factors in my "norm" lifestyle, weight, etc., but that's a big variance.

Anyone with MFP experience that could offer any insight?

Thx!

Replies

  • KariandCo
    KariandCo Posts: 29
    Options
    If the treadmill says I burned 98 calories, and MFP tells me I burned 192... which do I believe? I'm more apt to go with MFP since it factors in my "norm" lifestyle, weight, etc., but that's a big variance.

    Anyone with MFP experience that could offer any insight?

    Thx!
  • kellys52
    kellys52 Posts: 3
    Options
    I was wondering this same thing! I feel like I am working too hard on the bike at the gym to only burn 79 calories when I am biking 4 miles!! Its super frustrating! Sadly I have ben going with the count on the treadmill just so that I eat less calories at the end of the day to stay on track. Even if its not right then I am at least eatting less! Good luck and if anyone knows the answer to this I would like to know too!!
  • deanea
    deanea Posts: 1,437
    Options
    MFP calories burned is pretty accurate and is very close to many other sites I have checked out. I would trust it as I have four the past four months.:wink:
  • chiefiron
    chiefiron Posts: 305 Member
    Options
    I have found MFP's calories burned rates for excersices pretty accurate and in line with what i have found at several other sites......except for the Eliptical trainers. for some reason i can not find much info out there. MFP gives me about 200 more calories burned V my eliptical. what to do? just stay aware and keep on going. if you get stuck look closer at the difference and adjust your calories.

    Tim
  • sarahbearbear
    sarahbearbear Posts: 14
    Options
    I've found MFP to be pretty accurate for the elliptical for me. Like, the other day i did 32 min or so and the machine told be approx 260 cal and that's about what was on here too. sometimes i burn more though
  • Helawat
    Helawat Posts: 605 Member
    Options
    I would go with what the machine tells you since MFP doesn't factor in speed, incline, heart rate, etc. I believe MFP averages what people usually burn in x number of minutes.
  • oneman86
    oneman86 Posts: 14
    Options
    Going off topic alittle but what does MFP stand for?
  • Helawat
    Helawat Posts: 605 Member
    Options
    My Fitness Pal, the name of this website.
  • TamTastic
    TamTastic Posts: 19,224 Member
    Options
    Does the treadmill give you the option to enter your weight?? I do that on the elliptical when I work out to try and get a more accurate reading.
  • banks1850
    banks1850 Posts: 3,475 Member
    Options
    I wouldn't trust either one. Not because I think the technology is flawed, but I think the logic is. they are ok for a general estimate, but there are too many unknowns for either of these to be truely accurate. If you really want to know, buy a heartrate monitor (you can pick up a cheap one for about 40 bucks on ebay, but a good one like a Polar F series is better). If you don't have the time or money to do this, you can check by taking your pulse for ten seconds (taking your pulse is pretty easy, place your index or middle finger on your carotid artery in your neck and count the beats for ten seconds then multiply by 6). take it 3 or 4 times and then take the average. That will be your heartbeat.

    here are the approximate calories burned at the % max heartrate. you get your max by doing this:
    HRmax = 205.8 − (0.685 * age) (this formula is different from the standard F&R formula, but has been proven much more accurate as the F&R can have a Standard deviation of up to 15 bpm where the one above is about 6 bpm) Once you have your max, divide your heart rate (the one you took) by your max heart rate to get the % HRmax

    90% - 12.5cals(kcal)/minute

    80% - 10cals(kcal)/minute

    70% - 7.8cals(kcal)/minute

    60% - 5.4cals(kcal)/minute

    So as you can see, it's easier to just buy a heart rate monitor. :tongue:
  • KariandCo
    KariandCo Posts: 29
    Options
    Banks, you're like a guru around here...

    I do 7 - 10 mins on the bike to get my heartrate up, then go through the weight machines chop chop (takes about 20 mins to do 2 sets of 8 slow reps on all of them), then I get on the treadmill.

    My HR is usually around mid-range when I get on, but within a few minutes, I'm up at the 85% range and stay there the whole time. I measure it both with the machine and manually. 2 - 5 minute cool down, some stretches, and we're done.

    The treadmills at the Y don't give you weight or sex options, but the database on MFP doesn't give me incline options, either. I figured by the fact that my HR was 85%+ the whole time, that I had to be doing more than 98 calories. Looks like MFP was much closer.

    I'm mainly concerned with calculating my exercise calories correctly so I don't over / under eat. I think I'll use MFP's calcs and aim for a 100 - 200 calorie error margin with what I eat. Lost 3 lbs this week, but was waaaay under on calories on 4 days.

    Thanks, everyone, for all your input!
  • yoginimary
    yoginimary Posts: 6,783 Member
    Options
    I wouldn't trust either one. Not because I think the technology is flawed, but I think the logic is. they are ok for a general estimate, but there are too many unknowns for either of these to be truely accurate. If you really want to know, buy a heartrate monitor (you can pick up a cheap one for about 40 bucks on ebay, but a good one like a Polar F series is better). If you don't have the time or money to do this, you can check by taking your pulse for ten seconds (taking your pulse is pretty easy, place your index or middle finger on your carotid artery in your neck and count the beats for ten seconds then multiply by 6). take it 3 or 4 times and then take the average. That will be your heartbeat.

    here are the approximate calories burned at the % max heartrate. you get your max by doing this:
    HRmax = 205.8 − (0.685 * age) (this formula is different from the standard F&R formula, but has been proven much more accurate as the F&R can have a Standard deviation of up to 15 bpm where the one above is about 6 bpm) Once you have your max, divide your heart rate (the one you took) by your max heart rate to get the % HRmax

    90% - 12.5cals(kcal)/minute

    80% - 10cals(kcal)/minute

    70% - 7.8cals(kcal)/minute

    60% - 5.4cals(kcal)/minute

    So as you can see, it's easier to just buy a heart rate monitor. :tongue:


    My god Banks, this rocks. I was looking for this (to figure out yoga calories burned). Where did you find it?

    I've been using the Karvonen Heart Rate,
    Karvonen: http://www.briancalkins.com/HeartRate.htm
    think I should use this method instead? My max using the 205.8 etc, seems a little low (at 181) since I've come close to reaching it (at 170-176) in many workouts.

    Again, you rock.

Categories