How many calories did I really burn?

Options
PatchFan
PatchFan Posts: 19 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hey everyone,

I'm new here. I'm 18-years-old (soon to be 19), 5'7", and 195lbs, which puts me at around 50lbs over where I should be. I think I've finally motivated myself to lose some weight once and for all, and I'm really excited to do this. Now, here's the problem I'm facing.

I went to the gym today for the first time in a long time and used an elliptical trainer. I ran 3.2 miles in 30 minutes. My first mile was just over 8 minutes. My second was 10 minutes, and that means that the last 1.2 were done in 12 minutes (which means I was running at a 10-minute-a-mile pace). Now, here's where I'm confused. I entered my age and weight into the elliptical trainer and by the end, it said I'd burned about 320 calories. However, when I entered these details into my MyFitnessPal account, it reported that I'd burned 470 calories in that session. I know that no tool is going to be 100% accurate, but I think that 150 calories is way too large a discrepancy. Which report is more accurate?

Replies

  • howardheilweil
    howardheilweil Posts: 603 Member
    Options
    It's hard to know for sure, but in all likelyhood, the machine is more accurate, particularly if it incorporated your heart rate. MFP uses lots of assumptions in it's calorie burned numbers... It has not idea what intensity level you were at or what your heart rate was. To be on the safe side, use the lower number. You'd rather be conservative.
  • Lysander666
    Lysander666 Posts: 275 Member
    Options
    Definitely trust the machine more. You were on it, it measured every step, faster or slower, your heart rate, it did all the calculations.

    I know it's tempting to trust MFP on this but be logical, the machine knows more.
  • Markguns
    Markguns Posts: 554 Member
    Options
    Hey everyone,

    I'm new here. I'm 18-years-old (soon to be 19), 5'7", and 195lbs, which puts me at around 50lbs over where I should be. I think I've finally motivated myself to lose some weight once and for all, and I'm really excited to do this. Now, here's the problem I'm facing.

    I went to the gym today for the first time in a long time and used an elliptical trainer. I ran 3.2 miles in 30 minutes. My first mile was just over 8 minutes. My second was 10 minutes, and that means that the last 1.2 were done in 12 minutes (which means I was running at a 10-minute-a-mile pace). Now, here's where I'm confused. I entered my age and weight into the elliptical trainer and by the end, it said I'd burned about 320 calories. However, when I entered these details into my MyFitnessPal account, it reported that I'd burned 470 calories in that session. I know that no tool is going to be 100% accurate, but I think that 150 calories is way too large a discrepancy. Which report is more accurate?

    In general machine will be more accurate than MFP.
    Elliptical are tuff not many calculators for them. I found one for a Precorp below.
    You can however try a Cross with these.

    http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php

    Tons of Calculators here --> http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/exercise/SM00109
  • rassha01
    rassha01 Posts: 534 Member
    Options
    I always take the lower, just to be safe.
  • lorigem
    lorigem Posts: 446 Member
    Options
    I always take the lower, just to be safe.

    I do this as well. And when I compare my Bodymedia with the machine - it's even lower than that! I think we burn fewer calories than we think we do. Although it's not unheard of to burn in excess of 600 calories in one session, it will take an extraordinary amount of energy expenditure to achieve that.
  • kandyice1
    kandyice1 Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    I would suggest maybe investing in a heart rate monitor. It's been very helpful for me while exercising.
  • starvinkevin
    starvinkevin Posts: 331
    Options
    Yeah get a HR monitor for sure - I compared my heart rate monitor to machine one time on a recumbent bike and the machine said I burned about 520 calories while the monitor said 330... a lot of heart rate monitors will sync with exercise machines and the machine will track more accurately but I still get different results from what the watch says, though it is often not that much of a difference
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    150 cals is not large at all. And I'd go with the lower one, given mfp doesn't even know your heart rate. With that being said they can all be off.

    I use a heart rate monitor for cardio. Keep in mind that these contraptions have math based on your heart rate for cardio burns. They get inaccurate for strength training (which I highly recommend taking up!)
  • ksy1969
    ksy1969 Posts: 700 Member
    Options
    HRM > Machine > MFP
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    HRM > Machine > MFP
    This is pretty much my logic. And in the case of strength training I suppose body media fit would be better?
  • silmarilliane
    silmarilliane Posts: 133 Member
    Options
    i've found MFP calories are accurate for the time i was actually in the 'zone' as my HRM says (HR between 125 - 163 bpm), so if you allow for 5-10 mins warming up before your HR is in the zone it's more accurate. for me anyway.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    150 calories is actually not that large a discrepancy in the grand scheme of things. That said, data bases can be wildly off...too many variables. A Machine is better...a HRM is even better...but at that, it's still an estimate. Personally I'd go with 320...it actually jives with the idea that most people will burn roughly 100 calories per mile give or take, whether they're running that mile, walking it, or whatever.
  • PatchFan
    PatchFan Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    Alright, everyone says that I should be trusting the elliptical trainer over MFP. The only thing I would like to add is that while I didn't keep my hands on the sensors the entire time, most every time I took my heart rate on there, it was between 180-200. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I just sort of feel like with such a high heart rate, I should have burned a few more calories. Am I wrong?
  • SarahSmilesCA
    SarahSmilesCA Posts: 261 Member
    Options
    I use a HRM and I only eat back half my exercise calories unless my body is screaming for more. This keeps me safe.

    At my weight I get an obscene number from both MFP and my HRM when I exercise for 90 mins, but it is still kinda cool because I know I have a bit of a buffer in my food options.

    PS: most machines do not consider how much you weigh and that is a determining factor in calorie burn, that is why a HRM is more accurate than any machine in the gym, but since your weight and height were considered your are probably close.

    The spinner computer I use doesn't ask and it is almost 300 calories off from my HRM.

Categories