Exercise calories burned???

luvmydoggies
luvmydoggies Posts: 27 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I was wondering what everyone else is entering as their exercise calories. When I put in my exercise it always gives me a really high number for calories burned.

For example I get on my exercise bike for 60 min at a regular pace and it says I burned 500 calories in 60 min but when I enter it here and I put 60 min and it gives me over 900 cal. The first day I left it like that but the next day I adjusted the calories to whatever the exercise machine I am using tells me.

If I am eating my exercise calories I don't want to eat more than I should.

I was wondering if a persons weight has anything to do with it. My elliptical/treadmill/bike does not know how much I weigh when it gives the calories burned but on here I am assuming it is taking your weight into consideration when it calculates them????

Replies

  • Tracilea38
    Tracilea38 Posts: 21
    I also would like to hear an answer to this . If they take your weight into consideration.
    My son and I use the runtastic app on our ipods and we go power walking together and he is bigger then me and his stats always give him more calories burned then mine.

    Curious too because when I exercise and add it on this it always seems to give me lots of burned calories. *I* know that I put a serious effort into it, but still curious how it works.
  • jasoncbackus
    jasoncbackus Posts: 131 Member
    I have similar issues, especially when I use the elliptical at the gym. MFP shows a LOT more calories burned for the amount of time than the machine does, and that's on an elliptical that has me enter my weight and age. I usually use what the machine shows since I do inclines and change the levels and MFP obviously doesn't know what level I was at or the incline.
  • 77tes
    77tes Posts: 8,514 Member
    Yes, MFP, takes into account your weight. That means you get to enjoy the bigger burns when you first get started. The bad news is that as you lose weight, you get to eat fewer calories, and your burns get smaller. But then you have all that happy success to spur you to ever greater success.

    Good luck.:flowerforyou:
  • MimRob
    MimRob Posts: 24
    I bought a HRM. I found that MFP estimated exercise calories by about double for me. e.g today I did circuit according to my HRM I burnt 416Kcal in 55 mins and MFP had me at 895kcal for the same amount of time. I eat back the kcals that my heart rate monitor says I burnt. To me it would be a little more accurate.
  • RTheHutt
    RTheHutt Posts: 46 Member
    MFP estimated exercise calories by about double for me.

    Thanks for reporting that. I thought this might be the case for me as well, but I don't have an independent way to check.
  • frankizoy
    frankizoy Posts: 83 Member
    i would probably use a number somewhere in between the two, but that's just me... :)
  • johnnlinda
    johnnlinda Posts: 69
    HRM here. I don't like to guess when I am working so hard.
  • kdelynko
    kdelynko Posts: 1
    I recommend a Heart Rate Monitor as well if you want a more accurate number
  • Lochlyn_D
    Lochlyn_D Posts: 492 Member
    Your weight absolutely has something to do with it. A 115lb person jogging burns way less than someone who is 215lbs. So unless your machine allows you to enter your weight, go with the MFP numbers.
  • lauraleighsm
    lauraleighsm Posts: 167
    I use a HRM most of the time and I found MFP to be pretty accurate. MFP was higher by about 5-10%. I found the machine calculations to be WAY off. Hope this helps! I use a Polar HRM bc it's what my husband had. Good luck!
  • shannashannabobana
    shannashannabobana Posts: 625 Member
    I think the calorie counts on this site are wildly inaccurate, so I just eat less. No calorie counter is perfect, the machines, etc.. all vary. The HRM of fitbit or whatever else are probably going to be the most accurate but I don't have any personal experience with them.
  • CyberEd312
    CyberEd312 Posts: 3,536 Member
    I always use my Polar Ft60 Hear rate monitor...... Works for me...... Best of Luck.....:drinker:
  • starcrost79
    starcrost79 Posts: 36
    I also use my Polar FT4 heart rate monitor. I've found that MFP's calories are way too high for some exercises (i.e., the HRM says I burn just over 400 calories for 50 minutes of boxing, and MFP says it's over 800), and way too low for others. It's also helpful for cardio that isn't listed in the system, like some of the exercise DVD's I have, and C25k. :o)

    Also, I've never noticed that calorie burns decrease via MFP's system as my weight drops. So, I just rely on my HRM. :o)
  • anewlife1980
    anewlife1980 Posts: 225 Member
    Get a HRM, I have the Polar F7 (got it on sale for 89.99 reg 159.99) & I couldn't believe the difference in calories! MFP is awesome but it def over estimates by ALOT. The only thing I've found so far that it is pretty accurate in is walking. But the elliptical it was off by over 200 cals, for my husbands bike ride it was off by over 350cals. The HRM was the best money ever spent & my hubby & I share it all the time, its easy to switch users. Now when I log in walking I use the exercise I created myself called "Walking Using HRM".
  • pcastagner
    pcastagner Posts: 1,606 Member
    I use a hrm. I find the calories estimated by machines are also too high.


    Sorry if this is bad news!
  • burnt_irish1
    burnt_irish1 Posts: 55 Member
    I recently started using a heart rate monitor (Polar FT7). I find MFP to be fairly accurate but is really depends on the workout. Take jogging for example- if I jog on flat ground MFP and Polar spit out similar stat's. But if I jog and much of it is on an incline, MFP doesn't know to account for that so the estimate is WAY off. :noway: I burn WAY more according to Polar than when I enter in "jog, 4.5"... nearly double.
  • cupcakes_and_cardio
    cupcakes_and_cardio Posts: 369 Member
    Whatever your machine says, keep it at that. As many have said, MFP over calculates by a lot. As for videos go, I do 25 mins of Jillian Michael's video and I log that as 300 calories burned; I did some research and that's what most people had calculated. Either research or go by what your machine tells you. :)
  • Tabby1216
    Tabby1216 Posts: 56 Member
    If I were you, I would get a HRM. I find that MFP overestimates a lot of exercises. It seems to be pretty accurate for me when walking, but that is about it. With that being said, I think a machine at the gym that takes your weight into consideration might be a bit more accurate than MFP, especially if it monitors your HR as well.
  • easternNCchick
    easternNCchick Posts: 198 Member
    The machines at my gym are always 100+ off if not half off of what my HRM says. Unless you're keeping hands on the HR sensor on the bike and getting a reading over and over, its prob not right. Get a HRM, you can get cheap ones at walmart if you cannot afford the $80 ones
  • Indymom45
    Indymom45 Posts: 7
    I use a treadmill which has my weight programmed in and it gives me calories burned for my weight.yey on MFP it always give me more calories so I adjust the calories to what my treadmill says I burned,I think the treadmill reading is more accurate.
  • kmgstevens
    kmgstevens Posts: 32 Member
    Here is what I have learned regarding reported calories burned:

    1) MFP crazy overestimates. I put in that I worked out for 30 mins on an elliptical and its ready to give me 600-700 calories burned.
    2) Machines overestimate a bit - depending on the machine. Depending on how well calibrated the machines are, it can really depend on how far off the mark it is. Since I was pretty damn sure MFP was 100% wrong about my calories burned, I would always use the machine readouts before I got my HRM. Turns out that the machines were overestimating how much I was burning too, but they were overshooting by about 50-75 (sometimes as high as 100) calories rather than the multiple hundreds that MFP would.
    3) HRM seems more realistic. If I am pushing myself, I an usually averaging about 10 calories/minute, so for a 30 minute workout I usually get around 300 calories burned.

    The HRM follows what my trainer has told me, that 10 cal/minute is probably the best I should aim for. And since I have definitely eaten back calories (not all the time, mind you), I'm glad to know that I'm getting a more accurate read, since I certainly don't want to be in the red with my calories!
  • pcastagner
    pcastagner Posts: 1,606 Member
    If I were you, I would get a HRM. I find that MFP overestimates a lot of exercises. It seems to be pretty accurate for me when walking, but that is about it. With that being said, I think a machine at the gym that takes your weight into consideration might be a bit more accurate than MFP, especially if it monitors your HR as well.

    Only if you are wearing the hrm and it is talking to the machine. Otherwise it's pretty random.

Categories