Accuracy with machines vs what's on MFP

Options
eag264
eag264 Posts: 116
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi all,

I'm somewhat new to MFP and find that the calories I burn on a machine doesn't exactly match that on MFP. As a matter of fact, it's substantially more calories burned on MFP than on my actual machine so I don't know what to make of it.

How accurate is MFP and should I be concerned?

Thanks for the help!

Replies

  • mrphil86
    mrphil86 Posts: 2,382 Member
    Options
    The machine will be more accurate than MFP.

    Pretty sure MFP's numbers are a low average of the activity.
  • jennyredfern
    jennyredfern Posts: 94 Member
    Options
    I have found that MFP seriously over estimates calories burned with exercise. I suggest a polar heart rate monitor. It will measure calories accurately for each individual. People are different... and lots of things can affect calories burned.... such as age, sex, weight..etc. Polars are great!
  • melonclarinet
    melonclarinet Posts: 163 Member
    Options
    I would go with the machine, but honestly that number can be way off too. I second the suggestion of getting a Heart rate monitor. I love my Polart ft4 it was worth every penny.
  • Textmessage
    Textmessage Posts: 387 Member
    Options
    MFP does seem to over-estimate on everything I've used it for thus far (in comparison to HRM).
  • JeneticTraining
    JeneticTraining Posts: 663 Member
    Options
    Yes definitely invest in polar.
  • JeninBelgium
    JeninBelgium Posts: 804 Member
    Options
    I too recommend a heart rate monitor and love my polar but it actually gives me a higher burn than MFP :-)
    so what I recommend is use a HRM, check out what the machine says and what MFP says- record the lowest number- it is better to underestimate your calorie burn than to overestimate (when you are trying to lose weight, I guess the opposite is true if you are trying to gain- but I have never tried to gain)
  • eag264
    eag264 Posts: 116
    Options
    Thanks for all the replies, I think the HRM will be the best bet.
  • BluePHX
    BluePHX Posts: 184 Member
    Options
    Hi all,

    I'm somewhat new to MFP and find that the calories I burn on a machine doesn't exactly match that on MFP. As a matter of fact, it's substantially more calories burned on MFP than on my actual machine so I don't know what to make of it.

    How accurate is MFP and should I be concerned?

    Thanks for the help!

    I take MFP over machine. Reason being? The machines I use at LA Fit don't seem to care if I run 4 miles or 2.5. I can't burn more than 100-125 calories regardless of how fast or slow I'm going. On the other hand though, if the machine is underestimating how many I burned, I like to use what the machine says because then I can sort of trick myself into eating less that day. :)
  • pinkraynedropjacki
    pinkraynedropjacki Posts: 3,027 Member
    Options
    OMG I'd never go with either of them. The machine at my gym can show me I've burnt over 1000 cals yet my HRM will let me know it's closer to 600. MFP is just as bad as the machine.
  • eag264
    eag264 Posts: 116
    Options
    [/quote]

    I take MFP over machine. Reason being? The machines I use at LA Fit don't seem to care if I run 4 miles or 2.5. I can't burn more than 100-125 calories regardless of how fast or slow I'm going. On the other hand though, if the machine is underestimating how many I burned, I like to use what the machine says because then I can sort of trick myself into eating less that day. :)
    [/quote]

    Yeah, the machines are extremely low but the trick to eating less idea is great thanks!
  • FUELERDUDE
    FUELERDUDE Posts: 150 Member
    Options
    I have been basing trying to eat back colories on what the machines state, and I think they are close. I;m basing this off of the weight loss I have been averageing (Then again I'm also haveing a hard time eating back all of the calories).

Categories