Machine Calories or MFP Calories?

kloco
kloco Posts: 85 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I used different cardio machines at the gym and I'm torn whether I should enter the calories that the says I burned or use the generated number that MFP gives me for the exercise.

What do you guys do?
«13

Replies

  • momofthreesons
    momofthreesons Posts: 162 Member
    For walking/running MFP- for everything else half of the machines numbers- I figure its better to underestimate!
  • Tatiyanya
    Tatiyanya Posts: 255 Member
    MFP overestimates a whole lot most of the time as far as I know.
    On other hand the machines aint too precise either.
    Aparently HRM is the only way to go, but since am poor translator I just stick with checking average calories burned for my weight on few sites and pick the lowest , just to be safe.
  • annbuschur
    annbuschur Posts: 4 Member
    NOt sure if this is the correct way, but I use the # from the machine. I change the settings frequently--incline, speed, stride length & tension, so I figure the machine is more accurate.
  • IntoTheSky
    IntoTheSky Posts: 390 Member
    Neither. Get a HRM. I found mine on Craigslist, and it was only $35. I have the Polar FT4. I thought that MFP must have been overestimating - and for a lot of people it does, but, it UNDER estimated for me. I would *find* the money for it.
  • BarackMeLikeAHurricane
    BarackMeLikeAHurricane Posts: 3,400 Member
    Which ever number is lower
  • FinallyDoingMe
    FinallyDoingMe Posts: 84 Member
    MFP gave me 500+ calories burned for 35 mins of Circuit Training, general ...but the EA Active only gave me 297...I went with what the EA Active gave to be on the safe side
  • Senecagant
    Senecagant Posts: 1
    I have always used the machine numbers and it has work for me, plus it makes you feel better when you push a high level of calories off from there :-). And as for the pounds that I want to lose every week, it calculates out for me, and the pounds come off as needed. Also not sure if that is the before pic or the current pic but you look great hun
  • KFuerst27
    KFuerst27 Posts: 43
    I use my HRM. When I use the elliptical and my HRM tells the machine my heart rate, the machine still comes in at least 50% higher in calories burned than what my HRM says. If you don't have one, I'd underestimate MFP and machine values. Better to be safe, in my opinion. Plus, ask yourself if it REALLY felt like you burned as many calories as they tell you.
  • wildchild06241
    wildchild06241 Posts: 130 Member
    I just got one but it doesn't calculate calories. My heart rate and oxygen maybe? I don't know what to do with it.
  • MsMargie1116
    MsMargie1116 Posts: 323 Member
    I say it depends on the machine... if it asks our age/weight, ect, then maybe the machine is correct??? If it doesn't, I'd say it wasn't accurate...
  • calhooner
    calhooner Posts: 8
    I've participated in actual testing of machine calorie counters and you are correct in not always trusting what they say. Some are even so subtle as to be accurate at low burn rates (exercise intensities) and inaccurate at higher rates.

    Having said all that, since I do fitbit, I enter a time that results in calories that split the difference between MFP and the machine and that seems to work for me.
  • runningbs
    runningbs Posts: 132 Member
    MFP is actually pretty close, for me that is!
  • Cyncham
    Cyncham Posts: 39
    My eliptical machine calorie calculations & MFP are total different. MFP always seems to be about 150-200 MORE than what my eliptical shows. So, what I do is just take it somewhere in the middle of the two & that's what I log into MFP. A friend has a heart rate monitor and I believe that is the most accurate but until I get one, I'll continue to just do that.
  • cskalaj
    cskalaj Posts: 94 Member
    My husband got me a heart rate monitor for Christmas and I've been experimenting since I had the same questions. MFP calories, for me, have been pretty close while the machines at the gym have sometimes DOUBLED what the heart rate monitor says I burned! And these are machines where I have to put my weight in and they are reading my heart rate while I'm going. I'd definitely say go with MFP over the machines.
  • skankamaggot
    skankamaggot Posts: 146 Member
    Neither. Get a HRM.

    THIS over and over. HRM still isn't 100% accurate but it's as close as you're probably going to get.
  • PonyTailedLoser
    PonyTailedLoser Posts: 315 Member
    Before my HRM I picked the machine calories. Which were 1/3rd greater than the actual calories I burned. Granted, I usually work out quite a bit so my body may be used to the machines I work out on. I would suggest going with whatever shows the lowest burn.
  • fbmandy55
    fbmandy55 Posts: 5,263 Member
    A ton of people say MFP over estimates but my HRM usually is higher. And my HRM is almost always dead on with the machines at my gym.

    MFP doesn't take weight and bf into consideration like my HRM does, so I will continue with that.
  • XXXMinnieXXX
    XXXMinnieXXX Posts: 3,459 Member
    Treat yourself to a HRM. I found both massively out compared to a HRM and Body media. Know nothing is perfect but I trust the HRM a lot more. X

    Edited to add of you want a HRM go Garmin... Not Polar!
  • kloco
    kloco Posts: 85 Member
    So the general consensus is get a HRM. Which ones to you guys used?
  • rattler0812
    rattler0812 Posts: 40 Member
    Use a HRM to compare between what your calorie burn is and what your calculated calorie burn is.

    I use a Pyle HRM. It was cheap ($40) on eBay. Does great for me. Has a chest strap and it works great with the chest strap enabled machines. Then I get an accurate calorie burn on the machines. Without the chest strap, not so much.
  • jraines1973
    jraines1973 Posts: 231 Member
    I never use MFP readings...MFP estimates are really high and Im not going to cheat myself.
  • xampx
    xampx Posts: 323 Member
    I use the machines, as I put my height, weight and age into it and I try to keep my hands on the built in heart rate monitors for most of my workout. I AM looking to get a HRM though, I just don't want to spend ALL OF THE MONEY on one
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    MFP is actually pretty close, for me that is!

    Same here. For running or walking anyway, MFP, a treadmill, or Runkeeper are all pretty close. Sometimes MFP is a little lower, since MFP doesn't include incline/hills into the equation.
  • newcs
    newcs Posts: 717 Member
    If you don't have a HRM, I'd average them. I got a HRM and realized the machine is just about right for me but MFP says I burned far fewer than the HRM says. It varies by person so your best bet is to take the average or the lower of the two (unless you start feeling really tired in which case you might be underestimating your calorie needs).
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    For your more basic machines (treadmills, stationary bikes, steppers, etc) go with the machine. For the newer fangled "hybrid" machines, hard to say for sure.

    When in doubt, going with the lower number is always a safer option.
  • newcs
    newcs Posts: 717 Member
    So the general consensus is get a HRM. Which ones to you guys used?

    I have the Polar FT7. I'd suggest the Polar FT4 since I've never used any of the fancy features that make the price difference. I got mine at heartratemonitorsusa.com with a coupon code (just google to find some codes) and it was the cheapest place I could find. Mine syncs well with all the treadmills I've used as well.
  • SuMcP
    SuMcP Posts: 244 Member
    Neither! Get a Heart Rate Monitor (HRM) then you can enter your personal stats (age, height, weight etc) and it will give you a much more accurate burn calculation. I use a Polar FT4 which is a mid range one and perfect for MFP logging. Hope this helps.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Neither! Get a Heart Rate Monitor (HRM) then you can enter your personal stats (age, height, weight etc) and it will give you a much more accurate burn calculation. I use a Polar FT4 which is a mid range one and perfect for MFP logging. Hope this helps.

    Not necessarily. HRMs don't know what activity you are doing, and thus they don't know the workload associated with the workout. All they know is HR, which is at best tangentially related to calorie burns.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    mfp is usually way off. machine is much closer usually.

    take your pulse for 5 seconds in you do regular cardio. then use online calculator
    http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html

    best is HRM though. even those can be wrong.

    very best is a VO2 max test. Then you know. but that changes with time too.

    good luck!
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    For walking/running MFP- for everything else half of the machines numbers- I figure its better to underestimate!

    This is actually backwards... for basic activities, trust the machine.

    But the idea of using the lower number is always a safe bet.

Categories