Tracking "Exercise" Calories
alska
Posts: 300 Member
Hi All, I noticed when I use the electrical equipment or whatever they are called for exercising ... it says says I burn way less than when I look or check in the exercise from the app here from endomondo. Like today I did spinning for 32 minutes. The cycle said 115 cals, but when I checked in via endomondo it posted 419. That is a big difference 
Which one am I supposed to go by? The cycle said to add my weight n whatnot ... which I didn't do. I never edit anything on them ... all I do is go or sometimes I choose a program to do.
Thanks for any help
Which one am I supposed to go by? The cycle said to add my weight n whatnot ... which I didn't do. I never edit anything on them ... all I do is go or sometimes I choose a program to do.Thanks for any help
0
Replies
-
bump0
-
If you don't add your weight, the cycle (or whatever you use) will not be able to calculate your calories correctly. Weight is an important factor in the calculation0
-
Hi All, I noticed when I use the electrical equipment or whatever they are called for exercising ... it says says I burn way less than when I look or check in the exercise from the app here from endomondo. Like today I did spinning for 32 minutes. The cycle said 115 cals, but when I checked in via endomondo it posted 419. That is a big difference Which one am I supposed to go by? The cycle said to add my weight n whatnot ... which I didn't do. I never edit anything on them ... all I do is go or sometimes I choose a program to do.
Thanks for any help
I think all of it is an estimate to a degree, because it doesn't take into account your level of fitness, your body composition, etc... so I'm not sure ANY number is exact, but I do know this- nearly all cardio machines are set for a 150lb person. If you don't put your weight in, it definitely won't be even close to accurate. At least, that is how I understand it.
That being said, I just use the numbers MFP gives- I've compared activities and calories burned on other sites, and while MFP probably does overestimate a little, the numbers are fairly consistent, and I rarely ever eat back all my exercise calories.
Edited to add: here's a couple of the sites I've used to compare cals burned
http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc
http://www.webmd.com/diet/healthtool-fitness-calorie-counter0 -
I agree that mfp gives a lot of calories burned. I usually just split in half when calculating how many calories I have burned/will eat back0
-
Assuming the bike is a reasonably good model then it'll be far more accurate - your weight deviation from it's set standard isn't going to make too much difference since ultimately it's only your leg mass which is being propelled on a static bicycle. Besides, it's always better to under estimate burn than over estimate!0
-
The only way to really know is by wearing a heart rate monitor. Like others said, if you didn't input your weight it won't be accurate at all. There could have been a 90lb person on it before you and fitness levels make a lot of difference. Of you're 130lbs and very unfit you'll burn more calories than someone the same weight that has a high fitness level. Use MFP or take an average between sites for now.0
-
They are both just estimates... neither one is guaranteed to be more or less right than any other one.
Personally, I'd go with the lower number to be on the safe side. Besides, most people don't burn as much as they think/want when exercising.0 -
thanks everyone! i guess i have to figure out how to change the weight ... it'll give me a better guessament
and weight myself
that will be scary lol 0 -
The only way to really know is by wearing a heart rate monitor.
This. Don't count on the equipment, or MFP to be accurate.0 -
Most equipment I've seen DOES have heart rate handlebars or other things, so it does check your heart rate.0
-
The only way to really know is by wearing a heart rate monitor.
This. Don't count on the equipment, or MFP to be accurate.
Most HRMs do the same thing as most cardio machines... why are they automatically more accurate than a machine?
I have no idea where MFP's numbers come from though.0 -
The only way to really know is by wearing a heart rate monitor.
This. Don't count on the equipment, or MFP to be accurate.
Most HRMs do the same thing as most cardio machines... why are they automatically more accurate than a machine?
I have no idea where MFP's numbers come from though.
I don't know...but the treadmill and the stepper at the gym doesn't give the same calories burned as my Polar.0 -
I agree with those who suggested getting a heart rate monitor. I LOVE my monitor. It pairs with my iPhone then uploads all of the data automatically to MFP. The app I use (Digifit) has you program the pertinent variables (sex, age, height, weight, fitness/sedentary level) then uses those numbers to help calculate calories burned. The heart rate monitor I use is this…
http://www.shoppolar.com/polar-wearlink-plus-bluetooth.html0 -
Most equipment I've seen DOES have heart rate handlebars or other things, so it does check your heart rate.
Machines with the handlebar things are WAAAY off.
Heart rate monitors (with chest straps) measure your heart rate ALL the time & compare it to your resting heart rate.
Calorie burn is effected by many things: Weight, Height, Age, Gender, Exertion Level0 -
I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+0
-
The only way to really know is by wearing a heart rate monitor.
This. Don't count on the equipment, or MFP to be accurate.
Most HRMs do the same thing as most cardio machines... why are they automatically more accurate than a machine?
I have no idea where MFP's numbers come from though.
I don't know...but the treadmill and the stepper at the gym doesn't give the same calories burned as my Polar.
so why do you assume they are wrong?0 -
Most equipment I've seen DOES have heart rate handlebars or other things, so it does check your heart rate.
Machines with the handlebar things are WAAAY off.
Heart rate monitors (with chest straps) measure your heart rate ALL the time & compare it to your resting heart rate.
Calorie burn is effected by many things: Weight, Height, Age, Gender, Exertion Level
actually, its not. weight is the only significant variable.0 -
If you're using machines, I'd definitely adjust it to your weight/height if it asks you too otherwise you're not anywhere close to being accurate.
I found that when I went to the gym and then came home to add it on MFP, the calculations on the machine and MFP were pretty close together. The numbers weren't identical, but they weren't far off. - well, let me add to that. The longer I exercised on one machine, the farther away the machine and MFP numbers were. If I did 20-30 minutes, the numbers were within about 20-30 calories but once I went over 30 minutes, the calorie difference would become a lot bigger.
I'd say just be consistent. If you want to use the machine # then use the machine#. I wouldn't switch back and forth between the machine and the app.
but, I agree, an HRM seems to be the best route for consistency as it takes in your heart rate when you slow down or speed up and those little fluctuations.0 -
I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+
HRMs are not automatically more accurate than the machines. The machine knows what activity you are doing, the HRM doesn't... that's a big disadvantage for the HRM.
People need to stop thinking HRMs are some miracle tool...0 -
I got a heart rate monitor and noticed that I burn less than most of these online calculators (including MFP) say. And I also do a lot of yoga, which is strenuous but hard to measure. I tend to underestimate by a lot for things like that on MFP because I'd rather underestimate than overestimate and eat too much! I tend to get greedy with my calories and have a hard time not eating "up to" the amount they give me, so I don't want my "calorie burn credits" to be overestimated! I also go with the HRM for cardio because it's going to be measuring me more accurately.0
-
I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+
HRMs are not automatically more accurate than the machines. The machine knows what activity you are doing, the HRM doesn't... that's a big disadvantage for the HRM.
People need to stop thinking HRMs are some miracle tool...
That's interesting. Never thought about that and assumed HRMs were going to be more accurate. Perhaps I'm totally wrong about this, but it seems like the HRM would be more accurate because it knows how hard you are working. A treadmill, for instance, only knows how fast you're going, and for someone who is super fit, 4.5 might be a piece of cake and for someone terribly out of shape, it might have them working incredibly hard. If one of those people is 150 lbs with lots of muscle and great fitness level, and one is 150 lbs and overweight and out of shape, they would be burning cals at a different rate, wouldn't they? So the machine wouldn't see a difference, but the HRM would. Am I mistaken?0 -
I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+
HRMs are not automatically more accurate than the machines. The machine knows what activity you are doing, the HRM doesn't... that's a big disadvantage for the HRM.
People need to stop thinking HRMs are some miracle tool...
That's interesting. Never thought about that and assumed HRMs were going to be more accurate. Perhaps I'm totally wrong about this, but it seems like the HRM would be more accurate because it knows how hard you are working. A treadmill, for instance, only knows how fast you're going, and for someone who is super fit, 4.5 might be a piece of cake and for someone terribly out of shape, it might have them working incredibly hard. If one of those people is 150 lbs with lots of muscle and great fitness level, and one is 150 lbs and overweight and out of shape, they would be burning cals at a different rate, wouldn't they? So the machine wouldn't see a difference, but the HRM would. Am I mistaken?
how hard you're working (effort) doesn't impact calorie burn. It takes a fixed amount of work (calories) to move a 200lb body from point a to point b regardless of how fit you are... this is why weight impacts calorie burns but effort doesn't. Effort is more an indicator of how hard you are pushing yourself relative to your fitness level.
This is why HR is only loosely tied to calorie burns, but the person's weight and the activity being done have a very direct impact in calorie burns.0 -
I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+
HRMs are not automatically more accurate than the machines. The machine knows what activity you are doing, the HRM doesn't... that's a big disadvantage for the HRM.
People need to stop thinking HRMs are some miracle tool...
Activity doesn't matter. If your heart rate is 160 on a treadmill, or 160 doing HIIT your calories burned are the same.
My HRM this morning said my heart rate was 149 on the stepper. The stepper said my heart rate was 197. HUGE difference. Since I hadn't passed out, and had the resistance set high and was stepping slow and deep I have to say my HRM was correct
0 -
I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+
HRMs are not automatically more accurate than the machines. The machine knows what activity you are doing, the HRM doesn't... that's a big disadvantage for the HRM.
People need to stop thinking HRMs are some miracle tool...
Activity doesn't matter. If your heart rate is 160 on a treadmill, or 160 doing HIIT your calories burned are the same.
Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally wrong.0 -
I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+
HRMs are not automatically more accurate than the machines. The machine knows what activity you are doing, the HRM doesn't... that's a big disadvantage for the HRM.
People need to stop thinking HRMs are some miracle tool...
Activity doesn't matter. If your heart rate is 160 on a treadmill, or 160 doing HIIT your calories burned are the same.
Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally wrong.
Then explain why, when maintaining my HR almost the same on the treadmill, a bike or the stepper my calories burned are almost the same?0 -
They are both just estimates... neither one is guaranteed to be more or less right than any other one.
Personally, I'd go with the lower number to be on the safe side. Besides, most people don't burn as much as they think/want when exercising.
This.. I always go with the lower number and when I'm on any machine (treadmill, elliptical, etc.) I usually just cut the burned calories in half and use that number just to err on the side of caution.0 -
I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+
HRMs are not automatically more accurate than the machines. The machine knows what activity you are doing, the HRM doesn't... that's a big disadvantage for the HRM.
People need to stop thinking HRMs are some miracle tool...
Activity doesn't matter. If your heart rate is 160 on a treadmill, or 160 doing HIIT your calories burned are the same.
Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally wrong.
Then explain why, when maintaining my HR almost the same on the treadmill, a bike or the stepper my calories burned are almost the same?
because HRMs calculate cals burned based on HR, when in reality HR is only loosely related to calorie burns. It's a flaw with HRMs and the problem with your assumptions.0 -
What else are calories burned based on?0
-
What else are calories burned based on?
increased O2 exchange.0 -
What else are calories burned based on?
increased O2 exchange.
Wouldn't that affect your heart rate?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions