Machine Calories vs. MFP Calories

cass0107

I was wondering which you found to be more accurate - the calories the exercise machine says you burned or the calories MFP inputs? MFP always seems to be much higher, which makes me a bit leery... (I do understand a heart rate monitor would be the most accurate, but that is not an option for me at the moment.)

Thanks!

MichelleLaree13

I would go with a heart rate monitor first if I had one and secondly the number a machine gives you. I do not use the generated calorie counts that mfp gives.

fullofsmiles04

I think it's safe to say that the machine calories would be most accurate, especially if you enter your weight. The calories that MFP uses seem really high on certain exercises. I dont have a HRM either though, so I could be wrong. Just my guess.

xxnellie146xx

I have an HRM so I have never had to enter the exercises on MFP. I do notice that sometimes the machines are way off....both too low and too high. Cybex can be over 100+ cals, elliptical is usually under, and depending what I do on the treadmill it might be on point or over/under.

CyberEd312

I only trust my Polar FT60 HRM and then I only eat back 85% of those calories leaving 15% for error in logging and whatnot... Best of Luck!!!

witeowl

Assuming you're not able to enter your weight into the machine, then unless around 150 pounds, then I wouldn't trust the machine at all. But, MFP tends to assume a certain amount of effort. So... HR monitor is really the best way to go.

Bottom line: pick one method and stick with it. That way, if you get to a point where you're not getting the results you want, you have a baseline upon which you can make changes (up exercise, lower calories, whatever) until you do get the results you want.

Pitoufo

I use runtatstic. It is close to what I measure with my polar. It offers the advantage to copy my calories in MFP wich I like since it reduce time of input. I find also that the machine overestimate at low level of effort.