MFP calories burned vs. machines count

sassy15241

When entering how long I was on a cardio machine, the amount of calories are different than what the machine says. Which should I follow?

Thanks!

JenMc14

Both are just an estimate. The machine knows your resitance, but it's also calculated for an "average" sized person, I think something like 150 pounds. So, if you're lighter, it might be too high, if you're heavier, it might be too low. When there's a huge difference, I average the two numbers, realize it's an estimate, and just go from there.

toxikon

When I use cardio machines, I always input my age and weight. So at least (I hope) it's pretty accurate. So I go by the machine calorie-count as opposed to MFP.

jacque1129

my bike has a chest strap heart rate monitor and take in account my weight and height so i record what that says, because i feel it's more accurate. mfp usually puts me at 10-20 above what my stationary bike says.

sassy15241

I was debating a heart rate monitor....what's the pros/cons? Can anyone recommend a fairly priced one?

cameronburns1982

A lot of gym machines display gross calories burned (the amount of calories used by the body just doing normal day to day things like breathing, etc as well as calories burned by exercising) whereas I think the calories shown by MFP are nett calories (calories burned purely by exercising).

If anyone knows whether or not this is correct, please correct me.

Also, if you Google gross calories v nett calories, you will get a better explanation than I gave.

renitawalker9

I asked this the other day because my 50 minute heavy weight lifting circuit only logged as about 156 calories but my 33 minute cardio logged as 200. hmmmm....

ETA: Another website gave me 292 calories for vigorous weightlifting