Calories burned--MFP v. the machines

TeamLeela
TeamLeela Posts: 3,302
edited September 21 in Fitness and Exercise
Hello everyone! I was just wondering if anyone had the same problem that I have. When I work out at the gym, I enter my age and weight on the machine and when I'm done, it tells me how many calories that I burn. than when I come home and log it in mfp, its about 100 calories or more than what the machine said. Which one is accurate? its easy to say to just go with the lesser number to be sure. i would rather underestimate the number of calories that I burn instead of overestimate. But which one is right? Why would the number be so far off? I see if it was 10 to 20 calories off, but 100 is a big difference.
So what would you recommend?

Replies

  • jrich1
    jrich1 Posts: 2,408 Member
    thats why I used a HRM, last night I was getting differences of up to 40% (in my favor), and before the machine was telling me too many cals
  • jennylynn84
    jennylynn84 Posts: 659
    For my elliptical workout (really the only machine I use) I tend to go with the machine rather than MFP. Mainly because MFP doesn't know that I crank up the resistance.

    Other than that I usually pick the lowest number. Better safe than sorry - I'd rather underestimate than over so that I don't accidentally unknowningly go over my allotted calories for the day.
  • DoctorLaura
    DoctorLaura Posts: 32 Member
    The machines at the gym are notoriously inaccurate. Personally, I'd go with the MFP numbers--I've double checked my own workouts with several other sources and MFP seems to be pretty accurate.
  • foxxybrown
    foxxybrown Posts: 838 Member
    I'd go with the machine. MFP is giving estimates based on the weight you entered. The machine is giving estimates based on the expenditure that you did. Buy an HRM to get a better read. For me, MFP gives me lower estimates but my machine and my HRM match up pretty good.
  • abricklin
    abricklin Posts: 156 Member
    Can you specify what machine you are doing. I have had a polar HRM for over a year now, and the cardio equipment at my gym all uses polar HRM built in, so its neat to compare. With exception of running, when the treadmill underestimates for me by about 10%, everything else at the gym overestimates in my experience.

    Unless you are using a HRM you won't know for sure but you should really survey people that are using HRMs at the gym to see what their opinions are, the question should NOT be MFP v. Machine but MFP v. Machine v. Reality. MFP says in 50 minutes I should be burning 680 calories on the elliptical, and in reality, its just over 400, on high resistance!

    I would say that the machines overestimate by at least 20% for me (195 lbs, 5'3, 26 yrs old)
  • metco89
    metco89 Posts: 578 Member
    to be rather safe than sorry, i usually deduct about 30 min from the time i acutually exercised that way i am certain i got in the workout i wanted maybe way off but it works for me.
  • Luckymam
    Luckymam Posts: 300
    I posted the same question yesterday. I personally feel that the burn rates on MFP are pretty inaccurate. What I compared it to was this;

    I noticed someone on here had logged burning 261 calories doing 35 minutes of bowling on the Wii, whilst I'd burned 180 calories doing some quite intensive aerobics for 30 minutes. Now I realise that these figures are just rough guides but I find the MFP burn rates far too high. I always input my own lower numbers according to my pedometer or elliptical trainer.

    So, to be on the safe side, input the lower figure.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    MFP is a user entered number, it's not right for everyone, at best it's a very very vague guess.

    Machine would be better, heart rate monitor would be better yet (a good one) unless the machine is a top notch one that takes more than just your weight and age. Even heart rate monitors have a margin for error (can be as small as 5% or as big as 20% depending on the model, and the formulas the HRM uses). But MFP is anyone's guess because you are using numbers that other people have entered, and besides the fact that you don't know how accurate they were, they most likely had different physical attributes from you and thus, the calories burned would be different.

    As an example, just ask 10 people on here how many calories they burn doing a moderate (75% max HR) jog for 30 minutes, you'll get anywhere from 200 calories to 600 calories depending on the person.
  • monkeysmum
    monkeysmum Posts: 522 Member
    the machines are differant because heavier pple burn more calories than lighter people but like others have posted i usually deduct time from exercise so i know im nearer the amount burned off
  • abricklin
    abricklin Posts: 156 Member
    In 30 minutes, I burn about 400-450 calories running... FWIW i would be shocked if someone only burned 200, at any weight, size, speed, etc.
  • Triguy83
    Triguy83 Posts: 57 Member
    you will always have that margin of error +/-. the only way to accurately calculate your calories is to invest in a Heart Rate Monitor. the machine is using the speed and the national avg cal burned on that speed. Yes, the machine says add your weight but honestly would you want to be holding onto the bar the whole time while your running or walking on the machine?
  • monkeysmum
    monkeysmum Posts: 522 Member
    In 30 minutes, I burn about 400-450 calories running... FWIW i would be shocked if someone only burned 200, at any weight, size, speed, etc.

    Question- if you click on my name, can you view my diary? If not, how do I change that?

    i cant see your diary you change it by going to home clicking settings tab and then diary settings i think its the last tab on right on home section

    luckymam i only burn 91 calories for 30minutes wii bowling but if i do that and other exercise it sometimes groups it all together instead of saying everything it only says 1 thing that could be why it seemed like a lot for the wii bowling
  • imarlett
    imarlett Posts: 228 Member
    I tend to go with the machine as well. Specifically because, like another poster said, I will increase and decrease the resistance and speed of the machine. And, to be on the safe side, I round down to the nearest number divisable by 10 evenly. So, 437 cals is documenated as 430.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories