Skip to content
  • Register
    • We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

    Machine Calories or MFP Calories?

    Posts: 85 Member
    edited January 13 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?

    Welcome!

    It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
    Sign In
    Register
    «13

    Replies

    • Posts: 162 Member
      For walking/running MFP- for everything else half of the machines numbers- I figure its better to underestimate!
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Posts: 3,400 Member
      Which ever number is lower
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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...
    • 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.
    • Posts: 132 Member
      MFP is actually pretty close, for me that is!
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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!
    • Posts: 85 Member
      So the general consensus is get a HRM. Which ones to you guys used?
    • 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.
    • Posts: 231 Member
      I never use MFP readings...MFP estimates are really high and Im not going to cheat myself.
    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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).
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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!
    • 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.
    This discussion has been closed.

    Welcome!

    It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
    Sign In
    Register

    Quick Links

    Categories