Calories on exercise machines vs MFP

bellamia88
bellamia88 Posts: 149 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So today I was on the ellipitical trainer and I logged in my weight and the amount of calories I would like to burn. I punched in 300 and after I hit my 300 after 40mins the machine stopped to say I've reached my goal for the session so then I go to log it in on MFP I put in 40 mins on the elliptical and it showed up as 500 calories burned. Now that's quite a difference in numbers and I am wondering which one is more reputable. I don't want to overestimate the amount that I burned nor do I want to short change myself either. I just left it as is from what MFP said. Would anyone happen to know which would be more accurate of the two?

Replies

  • teach722
    teach722 Posts: 18 Member
    I am wondering the same thing. MFP doesn't ask the mph you go on the elliptical, so it may be assuming a mph that you may or may not be doing.
  • Bon90
    Bon90 Posts: 8
    I would go with what the machine said as the machine knows exactly what speed you were going at etc... MFP exercise database is just a rough guide. I just did 15 mins on the bike and put it in here and it actually said in red writing somewhere to put in whatever it said on the machine :)

    Hope that helps x
  • jzammetti
    jzammetti Posts: 1,956 Member
    I always felt like my treadmill at the gym was harder than running outside so yesterday I tracked my time with the clock instead of the machine - turns out my machine is off - said i completed 3 miles in 37 minutes but the clock was only 31 and some seconds. Now I wonder if the speed and distance are also wrong...Ugh!!
  • 2pupsmama
    2pupsmama Posts: 77
    I use an HRM and it is pretty close to the machine calories (Machine burn is always slightly higher) I do however always subtract 10% just in case of error. So if my HRM says I burned 200 cals I log 180. I find MFP burns to be very high estimates.
    (Edited to correct math, DOH!)
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Probably neither are right. A HRM is the only way to get any kind of accuracy.
  • Capt_Apollo
    Capt_Apollo Posts: 9,026 Member
    tdee-20%
  • Vansy
    Vansy Posts: 419 Member
    Those machines are always off for me. I wear a HR monitor and the machines always over-estimate the number burned.
  • tmuckelr
    tmuckelr Posts: 1
    I get the same result difference when I use MFP. I always use the machine's numbers when available because they are most reliable. When I have to guesstimate, I am very conservative about it. I'd rather cheat myself than over-compensate and "lie" to myself. :-)
  • cardbucfan
    cardbucfan Posts: 10,549 Member
    I second the HRM suggestion. Just this week the elliptical said 400 vs my HRM of 224. Arc trainer-440 vs. 276. The treadmill is usually a little closer if I do intervals but it's still pretty high. This is with inputting my age and weight into the machine.
  • Cheval13
    Cheval13 Posts: 350 Member
    Probably neither are right. A HRM is the only way to get any kind of accuracy.

    A good heart rate monitor is the only way.. some HRMs tend to have funky formulas.
    I trust MFP for running, maybe because it gives me closer to the expected, but few other things.
  • Timmmy40
    Timmmy40 Posts: 152 Member
    The machine numbers are fine, but they are probably 10 - 20% high. Mfp is always higher. As long as you realize that you are burning less than the machine and mfp. I am getting a HR monitor soon. The problem with the machine and mfp is it uses your weight, the exercise you are doing, and your age. A missing variable is your heartrate. Without that number you really do not know what you are burning. So, 10 - 20% off on them and you should be close. Keep Punching! All Is Possible! It Is A Choice! No Excuses! :happy:
  • bumblebums
    bumblebums Posts: 2,181 Member
    There are a lot of factors that affect your caloric expenditures that neither MFP nor your machines or heart rate monitors can possibly know about. They are:

    * Your body composition
    * Amount of experience you have with the exercise
    * Amount of weight you have lost (yes, it matters: people who used to be overweight do not have the same metabolism as people who have always been within a normal weight range)

    You also do not necessarily use the same amount of energy throughout the time you spend on the machine. The relationship between energy expenditure and time is not linear. [EDIT: .... whereas the increase in calorie counts on the machine appears to be linear, at least on the treadmills I've used.]

    TL;DR: Don't trust the numbers you see--they are approximations based on average people.
  • bellamia88
    bellamia88 Posts: 149 Member
    Thanks a lot for the responses. I've always felt that sometimes the numbers on MFP are too good to be true so in the past I would always subtract 10 mins from my actual workout time in order to balance it out seeing as if I were to long in step aerobics for 60 mins it would say that I burned 700 cals but that's not accurate as there is a warm up and cool down which is not even enough to burn 100. I guess this confirms what I already knew but it's always good to know for sure none the less.

Categories