Estimated exercise calories

VastBreak
VastBreak Posts: 322 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So I just finished a quick walk on the treadmill. At the end of my 30 minute walk the treadmill reported a 201 calorie burn. After entering the numbers in my fitness pal it recorded a 343 calorie burn. Wow, that is quite a difference! Do others experience such a gap in numbers? I was even walking on an incline and didn't record that on MFP, that would have added to the calories expended. Whereas the treadmill obviously recorded the calories including the incline!

Replies

  • blw1125
    blw1125 Posts: 6
    I notice when I go to Curves Circuit Training MFP registers 211 calories, but I use the smart card and it says I burn 350 calories. I usually just go by what the card says and not MFP unless I don't feel like using the card that day then I use MFP
  • truddy6647
    truddy6647 Posts: 519 Member
    I have noticed that MFP always differs from what the machine says I did. This is one reason why I was thinking of getting something that tells me exactly or closest to exact of how much I burned (ie: fitbit etc)
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    A personal trainer once told me that the machine estimates high, and I should only be counting 2/3 of the calories it tells me (sometimes MFP is close to the machine estimate, but sometimes it's way off). I'm loving the Cybex machine at the gym (sort of elliptical like), and it tells me that after an hour I've burned 900 something calories. I only log it as 600 though.

    I've heard the only accurate way to record actual expenditure is using a heart rate monitor.
  • Trudyr777
    Trudyr777 Posts: 573 Member
    I have this problem too. I usually record what the machine tells me for cardio and then let MFP guestimate the weight trainng.
  • kr1stadee
    kr1stadee Posts: 1,774 Member
    Mine has been about 20 calories in the difference, with MFP being higher. I assume that since the treadmill doesn't know how much weight i'm moving, the MFP count is probably closer to being right
  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    I usually adjust my minutes on MFP so it matches the calories that the machine reads. The machine records speed and incline,which MFP does not, so I assume the machine is more accurate. If I'm doing other exercise, I only record about 2/3 the time I spent doing it on MFP.
  • Erienneb
    Erienneb Posts: 592 Member
    I got my heart rate zones tested and I know my calorie burns thanks to my HRM now. MFP is usually high by 50-100 depending on the exersise, but the machine is low by about the same amount.
  • Tonnina
    Tonnina Posts: 979 Member
    I don't have a HRM (too expensive) but what I do is take the machine's number and MFP's number and average them. Since I don't eat back calories it's not that big of a deal.
  • TexasTroy
    TexasTroy Posts: 477 Member
    Ive noticed that MFP seems to estimate a low total calorie burn. A good option is to just use the same method all the time...if you use MFP , always use it and if you use the machine totals, always use that. None are 100% accurate but at least if you use the same method, you will get a consistent estimate.
  • corys8646
    corys8646 Posts: 41 Member
    After using a HRM and comparing it to machines and MFP, I pretty much just base my caloric burn based from my perceived effort.

    At the very peak I may burn at a rate of 600 calories per hour, my typical workout is maybe 80% of my peak so I guesstimate in the range of 500 calories per hour.
  • VastBreak
    VastBreak Posts: 322 Member
    I usually try to overestimate my calories for food and underestimate my calories burned while exercising. I was just a little surprised at the gap in numbers. I assumed that with my weight being recorded with My Fitness Pal that it would estimate my calories burned according to my size.
  • elperrogigante
    elperrogigante Posts: 17
    another vote for taking the average of the two/splitting the difference.
  • Tilran
    Tilran Posts: 627 Member

    At the very peak I may burn at a rate of 600 calories per hour, my typical workout is maybe 80% of my peak so I guesstimate in the range of 500 calories per hour.

    ^^ This. At PEAK intensive performance you typically burn 10 calories a minute...so if you are seeing numbers higher then 600 an hour and you weren't at peak performance...you are probably over estimating.

    Obviously a fit runner would run much faster to get to intense performance level then someone who is obese and out of shape, so speed is not really a factor as much as your level of exhaustion.


    Another way to gauge it is (for running only) take your body weight and multiply by 0.6. That number is what you burn per mile (running)

Categories