calculating calories burned

erinleigh76
erinleigh76 Posts: 62
edited October 7 in Fitness and Exercise
So I have a question for those that use machines to excersice that tell you your callories burned. Do you use the calories burned that the machine tells you or do you use what MFP calculates when you input your time?

I find that what my treadmill tells me is a way lower number than the number suggested by MFP when I put in my time on the treadmill.

What would you do?

an example is today I put in 50 minutes and my treadmill says 167 calories burned but when I put in 50 minutes into MFP it says I burned 791....ugh which should I use? That's a HUGE difference!

Replies

  • Kimsied
    Kimsied Posts: 223 Member
    I think I would go with whatever has the best information about my workout and about me. I've not logged treadmill on mfp, does it ask you about your distance? incline? Does your machine ask your age, gender, weight? Is it in good repair? Does it measure your pulse? If both have the same information, then maybe consider your perceived exertion, and if still in doubt go with the lower number to be safe. It is a huge difference between the two though.
  • RafalPolanski
    RafalPolanski Posts: 3
    Hi,
    I have the same problem, maybe someone from the admins or users with more expirience could let us know. I run and bike pretty regularly, and have Suunto HRM which is well calibrated for me (including age, height, activity level etc) Readings I get on calories burned are MUCH lower than the one calculated on the MFP. Not to mention that swim readings are completely out of proportion: 909 callories for the moderate 60 swim... that does not fly :) I hardly use more than 500 cals.
    Any suggestions help welcome.
    Rafal
  • mamasmaltz3
    mamasmaltz3 Posts: 1,111 Member
    That is why I got a HRM.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Height, weight, age, gender, and exertion level ..... all of these are required for accurate readings.

    MFP CANNOT know your exertion level .... so it "guesstimates." Machines that do not know your gender will assume (one or the other). Men have higher burns ... more muscle mass.

    You have 2 choices

    1. Get a heart rate monitor with a chest strap (watch type models measure your pulse from time to time) ... chest straps measure electrical impulses constantly

    2. Use a percentage of calories from MFP or machines (pick one). Use that number .... then wait and see. If your weight loss seems higher than expected .... your percentage is too low.
  • kbd388
    kbd388 Posts: 125 Member
    This is so interesting. I walk for 45 minutes on a treadmill and the treadmill and MFP calories burn almost always match, and they are never over 700 calories, usually around 267.

    I always thought MFP caculates calories burned the same for everyone but I guess not!

    I use a pedometer which I enter my age and weight into and that tells me I burn around 348.

    Edited to add I also had an HRM with a chest strap and it was calculating my calories burned at around 620, which can't be true. So I returned it and am sticking with my pedometer.
  • karamini
    karamini Posts: 21
    I enter what the machine tells me. I typically do interval training on the treadmill/elliptical in my gym which is difficult to calculate using MFP.
  • ggcat
    ggcat Posts: 313 Member
    I wear a heart rate monitor with the chest strap, and the machine always gives me a higher number than my hrm. The machine is usually 50-100 calories over what I actually burn. It sounds like MFP gives you a wrong number...

    Get a hrm....you won't regret it!
  • MandaLeigh123
    MandaLeigh123 Posts: 351 Member
    I didn't lose weight for months using MFP calculations. I now use a heart rate monitor and calculate calories burned that way. Agreed that myfitnesspal guesstimates, & the machines at the gym are not accurate either.
  • robzison
    robzison Posts: 2
    I have a BodyMedia armband and use the number from that. Since I use the sedentary setting on MFP I figure that any calories I burn during a workout should be subtracted from my daily total, but I shouldn't double count what my armband says for an hour and the hour that I normally burn sedentary calories. According to the armband, I burn 100 calories an hour just sitting, so I subtract 100 calories/hr. From whatever exercise I do. I walked for an hour and 18 minutes this morning burning 540 calories according to the armband, so I recorded 540-130 to get 410. A similar thing could probably be done on a treadmill using the machine's numbers. When I workout on a treadmill and compare it to my armband's numbers, the treadmill's number always seem high, even when I put in my weight on the machine.
  • TheBrolympus
    TheBrolympus Posts: 586 Member
    I use the calories burned from my heart rate monitor. I am sure it's still not perfect but it's got to be a lot more accurate than the MFP estimates.
  • PandaHerber
    PandaHerber Posts: 43 Member
    I love my Garmin HRM!! I use it for Insanity at home and then I have a Garmin GPS HRM for my outdoor runs. It's all about exertion. Me doing 10 min miles isn't a huge exertion, but using the treadmill's calculation or MFP's and they say I burned so many calories. Usually at least 100+ over what my HRM really says.
  • mommyhof3
    mommyhof3 Posts: 551 Member
    I use a heart rate monitor (Polar FT4) with a chest strap and go by what that tells me. What MFP and my elliptical say I burned is usually more than what I actually burned using my HRM.
  • saamantha
    saamantha Posts: 74
    I'm just going to pretty much repeat what everyone is saying :) Before I bought my HRM, I was inputting my 30 Day Shred as circuit training, which MFP caculated at at least 300 calories burned, however, it's closer to 210 calories burned, if my HRM is recording an accurate measurement. I was burning a significantly lesser amount than MFP told me. I've entered in the exercise I have planned for this evening, and according to MFP guestimates, I will be burning approx. 620 calories. I'm guessing it'll be closer to 400 :)
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    The MFP figures only seem to ask for your weight, and therefore take no account of your fitness or effort level. Some gym machines are the same. So a wheezing sweating 200 lb woman holding on to the sides of an inclined treadmill is assumed to have the power output of a 200 lb athlete and hence an overestimated calorie burn.

    Practically all figures are "gross calories" too - ie they include what you would have burned sitting down, so I subtract about 80 calories an hour for that.

    If you want accuracy you need to determine your VO2 max either by measurement or one of the protocols where you do a defined exercise for a defined period and measure your heart rate at the end. This VO2 max figure can be used in some HRMs directly or others you can fiddle height / weight to get the right outcome. Heybales has a spreadsheet that covers it.

    http://www.brianmac.co.uk/vo2max.htm
    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/vo2max-calculator.aspx

    As a worked example, an unfit 50 year old with a VO2max of 30 ml/kg/min weighing 80kg (176 lbs) has a maximum calorie burn of 5 cals/litre * 30 * 80 / 1000 = 12 calories a minute, or 720 per hour. Exercise for 30 minutes at 70% of VO2max and the calories burned are 720 * 30/60 * 70% = 252 calories. Of which about 40 would have been used sedentary, so 210 extra from exercise.
  • HealthyWarrior
    HealthyWarrior Posts: 394 Member
    Over 700 calories for 50 minutes. That sounds way off to me. When I walk at my local track I usually walk anywhere from 60 to 120 minutes.......when I do 120 minutes I get a calorie burn (using hrm) and 2lb hand weights of 823 calories.
  • cvance3
    cvance3 Posts: 64
    I find that both the gym equipment AND MFP are WAY off!

    I'm solidly on the "Heart Rate Monitor Bandwagon" here! I have one (with the chest strap) and it has been an invaluable tool! You enter your info (weight, age, gender) and since you wear the monitor, it's calculating actual heart rate output, versus the estimates that MFP gives...and since the HRM is personal, its a stable consistent calculator.

    And you can take a HRM with you...hiking, outdoor running, spin classes (where the bikes don't have the monitors).

    ETA: a HRM captures the output from incline treadmill running as well, since you'll be working harder on workouts like that. It can also help you stay within your "zone"...that you're not overworking your heart when it's beating too fast.
  • bamadwl
    bamadwl Posts: 111 Member
    I think one thing to remember is that you're estimating calories burned. I never try to eat back what calories I burn during excercise, so for me it doesn't have to be utra precise, but if your looking to eat back what you burn - then like others have suggested maybe a good HRM with chest strap would be better for you. Personally, I like to log what activities I do so I can chart what seems to work best for me.
  • julesribar
    julesribar Posts: 43 Member
    I use runkeeper when I do my walks and I noticed the calories burned are pretty close to mfp. I think your treadmill may be off.
  • AJ_Pete
    AJ_Pete Posts: 863 Member
    Invest in a HRM. It's a girl's best friend.... well, second best friend.
  • SarahSosi
    SarahSosi Posts: 349 Member
    and for people who can't afford HRM what do we do?
  • AZDizzy
    AZDizzy Posts: 434 Member
    I take the median between my cheap hrm and my fitbit and ignore MFP and the machine
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    and for people who can't afford HRM what do we do?

    The second option (from above)....... use a percentage of MFP or a machine.... say 75%. Plug that value in consistantly.

    Monitor that value ......if you find your weight loss is slower than you think it should be .... then 75% is too high. If you feel drained, or fatigued (weight loss is faster than normal) .... then 75% is too low. After you keep an eye on things ... you will get a good "feel" for what value works for you.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories