Calories burned; Machine vs MFP

imarlett
imarlett Posts: 228 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I notice that very often the calories burned calculated for exercises listed in MFP are very different than what is listed on the machine. Sometimes the difference is 500 calories! Which one do you go with?

Replies

  • jayjay12345654321
    jayjay12345654321 Posts: 653 Member
    I used a BodyBug a few years ago and found all of the machines to be wrong. Particularly, the treadmill underestimated while the elliptical crosstrainer overestimated.
  • j6o4
    j6o4 Posts: 871 Member
    Best bet is to buy a HRM.
  • Kimsoontobe
    Kimsoontobe Posts: 110 Member
    I go with my hrm mfp is always off for some odd reason or another
  • ashleyShades
    ashleyShades Posts: 375 Member
    MFP definitely over estimates calories burned. if the machine asks me to input my age and weight and I use the heart rate monitor on the machine I usually take that number and decrease it by 20%. A heart rate monitor would probably be best. P.S. sorry if the spacing is weird I'm using my phone to post!
  • Arnegard
    Arnegard Posts: 22 Member
    I normally run outside, but occasionally treadmill. I honestly never look at the calories burned according to it. I have a Nike Sportwatch and go by that - it calculates speed and my body weight to give calories burned. It is usually within 5 calories of the MFP calculators.
  • anaconda469
    anaconda469 Posts: 3,477 Member
    I have a Polar FT4 with HRM with monitor strap. I have found this to be the most accurate, particularly because I road bike daily. I used the same info from my road ride and put in MFP, I found a huge difference. MFP was way over what I actually burned.
  • jsjp
    jsjp Posts: 51 Member
    Bump
  • imarlett
    imarlett Posts: 228 Member
    Bump
    ????
  • shapefitter
    shapefitter Posts: 900 Member
    Thanks for thread. Will put a gadget on my xmas list. Have been using google, to find estimates, according to age, etc.

Categories