and the winner is... HRM? MFP? or MACHINE? join now...

RepsnSets

You can burn a lot of cals doing weights for upto 24hours thereafter. Logging it is impossible. I tend to up my food intake on those days. Hunger is ravenous on lifting days.

Zekela

It all depends on the person, intensity and the times you stop, start the workout. MFP and the machine will still continue counting the minutes... and that's why I would say HRM. The machine and MFP are assuming that your pace and whatever intensity is maintained for all of the time you work out.

lexlyn14

OKAY...so here are the results...running 42 minutes...HRM=336 calories...MFP=384 and the machine =568

eliptical 20 minutes...HRM=150 calories...MFP=183...and the machine=200

kickbox 25 minutes...HRM=170calories...MFP=257

circuit training 22 minutes HRM=120...MFP=176


So...The machines calorie read out is over inflated...and now I hate them...

MFP calorie read out are also over inflated...and I am annoyed at them

HRM is probably the correct calorie read out...and I hate that damn watch and chest strap for being so stingy with the calories...

Well at least I know now to go by the HRM so I don't over eat calories I have not really burned...LESSON LEARNED!!!

heybales

OKAY...so here are the results...running 42 minutes...HRM=336 calories...MFP=384 and the machine =568

So...The machines calorie read out is over inflated...and now I hate them...

Did you run flat the exact pace that MFP had as a description?

That does mean your HRM is at least pretty accurate right now - should test from time to time.

Did you input your weight into the treadmill?
And for running calcs, were you between 5 to 6.3 mph, at incline no greater than 5%?

And does your known pace and incline result in same calories here?

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

Because that is very odd the machine was off from MFP if the pace matched the description.

lexlyn14

OKAY...so here are the results...running 42 minutes...HRM=336 calories...MFP=384 and the machine =568

So...The machines calorie read out is over inflated...and now I hate them...

Did you run flat the exact pace that MFP had as a description?

That does mean your HRM is at least pretty accurate right now - should test from time to time.

Did you input your weight into the treadmill?
And for running calcs, were you between 5 to 6.3 mph, at incline no greater than 5%?

And does your known pace and incline result in same calories here?

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

Because that is very odd the machine was off from MFP if the pace matched the description.

lexlyn14

OKAY...so here are the results...running 42 minutes...HRM=336 calories...MFP=384 and the machine =568

So...The machines calorie read out is over inflated...and now I hate them...

Did you run flat the exact pace that MFP had as a description?

That does mean your HRM is at least pretty accurate right now - should test from time to time.

Did you input your weight into the treadmill?
And for running calcs, were you between 5 to 6.3 mph, at incline no greater than 5%?

And does your known pace and incline result in same calories here?

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

Because that is very odd the machine was off from MFP if the pace matched the description.

I ran on my treadmill exactly as I put it in for MFP...5.2 mph...no incline...and machine said 568...MFP said 384 and my HRM said 336...
So MFP was 48 calories over and the machine was 232 over...
But my treadmill does not make me put in my height or weight or anything...

woodsy0912

I always go by my HRM now. Although I never thought to deduct a percent for BMR...

The ellipticals at my gym are the worst for over inflation, even with height/ weight/ age input. But the treadmills and stair climbers also overestimate me. MFP numbers are all over the place and some even manage to make me laugh.

cmriverside

OKAY...so here are the results...running 42 minutes...HRM=336 calories...MFP=384 and the machine =568

So...The machines calorie read out is over inflated...and now I hate them...

Did you run flat the exact pace that MFP had as a description?

That does mean your HRM is at least pretty accurate right now - should test from time to time.

Did you input your weight into the treadmill?
And for running calcs, were you between 5 to 6.3 mph, at incline no greater than 5%?

And does your known pace and incline result in same calories here?

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

Because that is very odd the machine was off from MFP if the pace matched the description.

I ran on my treadmill exactly as I put it in for MFP...5.2 mph...no incline...and machine said 568...MFP said 384 and my HRM said 336...
So MFP was 48 calories over and the machine was 232 over...
But my treadmill does not make me put in my height or weight or anything...

But. The 336 is pretty damn close...and really close enough for weight loss purposes. All the calculators use the same algorithms. You didn't go from a full stop to 5.2 MPH for the entire time, so your heartrate had to do some catching up....

Thing is, HRMs are not a necessary part of weight loss. They aren't effective with strength training - they aren't designed for that type of activity, and they are only effective once you are in the Aerobic Zone and when you have input your VO2Max.

So for people wanting to find the "exact" number - relax. There isn't one. Just pick a source and use it. It's not a perfect science. It's a range.

heybales

I ran on my treadmill exactly as I put it in for MFP...5.2 mph...no incline...and machine said 568...MFP said 384 and my HRM said 336...
So MFP was 48 calories over and the machine was 232 over...
But my treadmill does not make me put in my height or weight or anything...

Bad treadmill test then if no input for weight.

Weight and pace, that's all you need. Well, and incline.
Weight, pace, and incline, that's all you need. Well, and time.
Weight, pace, incline, and time, that's all you need...... ya. And doing the workout.

So for it to estimate that high, it's default weight must be pretty high. I'd ask the gym about that.

heybales

I ran on my treadmill exactly as I put it in for MFP...5.2 mph...no incline...and machine said 568...MFP said 384 and my HRM said 336...
So MFP was 48 calories over and the machine was 232 over...
But my treadmill does not make me put in my height or weight or anything...

But. The 336 is pretty damn close...and really close enough for weight loss purposes. All the calculators use the same algorithms. You didn't go from a full stop to 5.2 MPH for the entire time, so your heartrate had to do some catching up....

Thing is, HRMs are not a necessary part of weight loss. They aren't effective with strength training - they aren't designed for that type of activity, and they are only effective once you are in the Aerobic Zone and when you have input your VO2Max.

So for people wanting to find the "exact" number - relax. There isn't one. Just pick a source and use it. It's not a perfect science. It's a range.

Exactly.

Now, good news - this does mean your HRM is great tool for you because it is estimating really well, because MFP is going to be more accurate for that type of test. So as you use it on other exercise that is valid as mentioned above, pretty good estimate.

MissTattoo

I guess it depends on the gym equipment. When I was doing elliptical workouts, MFP was overestimating super bad. The machine was always lower and then I got my HRM and the machine and HRM pretty much matched up. (The machine let me put my height, age, and weight in)

lexlyn14

I guess it depends on the gym equipment. When I was doing elliptical workouts, MFP was overestimating super bad. The machine was always lower and then I got my HRM and the machine and HRM pretty much matched up. (The machine let me put my height, age, and weight in)

Thanks!!!