calorie burn - HRM, cardio machine and MFP

l911jnt
l911jnt Posts: 164 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I see different people say different things. I just started excersizing 2 weeks ago. I use the same machines when I do so my calorie count from there is consistent but I have no idea if its right. Its something I need to know if I want to eat the right amount of calories back. I don't always eat them all but sometimes do. I know I will be told to get a HRM but right now I just can't afford a good one and what's the point of a cheap one if it isn't right either? I also read a lot of ppl saying MFP is wrong on calories and some say it is right. IMO I think the machine would be more accurate than MFP. Thoughts on this and ideas please?

Replies

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,432 MFP Moderator
    Do you exercise regularly?

    MFP - Take 50%
    Machine - 60%
    HRM - 80%

    That is what I would do.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    if you tell a machine your height, weight etc then it may have a clue what calories you burned - but the number will include what you would have used sitting on your backside so subtract that (70 calories an hour say).

    HRM is best especially if you've set it up with your VO2max and stuff.

    "Eating back" half of the calories leaves you on the safe side if weight loss is your goal.

    Anything that says more than 600 calories an hour is probably having a laugh.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    HRM is not a panacea, and only gets "close" on calories for specific types of exercising. The best thing to do is to use one method (any method, including MFP), stick to it for a few weeks, and then you can judge from the results how close it is. Make adjustments accordingly.
  • l911jnt
    l911jnt Posts: 164 Member
    in 2 weeks I excersise 4 times a week for 40 minutes ( on my lunch break) each time. Any week I can get in an extra I will.
    so if I were to get a cheap one do u think it would be more accurate?
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,432 MFP Moderator
    in 2 weeks I excersise 4 times a week for 40 minutes ( on my lunch break) each time. Any week I can get in an extra I will.

    If you can stay consistent, then you can change your account to moderate and not eat back exercise calories. I found that eating the same amount of calories daily allows a person to understand their TDEE much easier.
  • running_shoe
    running_shoe Posts: 180 Member
    It's a frustrating situation. I have a Polar FT4 and thought that would be the be-all, end-all. However, for the same workout, it gives me twice what MFP gives. TWICE! The machines are closer to MFP, but who knows what to believe. You'd think the $100 piece of equipment strapped to my chest and programmed with all my personal deets would be king, but, again, who knows. Needless to say a little disappointed in the $100 piece of equipment.

    I have decided just to go with what MFP gives. I'd rather underestimate the burn and eat back those calories. Seems to work; my weight loss is totally on track.
  • l911jnt
    l911jnt Posts: 164 Member
    It's a frustrating situation. I have a Polar FT4 and thought that would be the be-all, end-all. However, for the same workout, it gives me twice what MFP gives. TWICE! The machines are closer to MFP, but who knows what to believe. You'd think the $100 piece of equipment strapped to my chest and programmed with all my personal deets would be king, but, again, who knows. Needless to say a little disappointed in the $100 piece of equipment.

    I have decided just to go with what MFP gives. I'd rather underestimate the burn and eat back those calories. Seems to work; my weight loss is totally on track.



    wow this makes me more hesitant to buy one! I am losing but it is just so slow going that I want to make sure I am getting maximum results. Yes , I am impatient but I know I am in for the duration. I guess I will just get use to it cause I'm sure not giving up now.



    and to be honest, MFP usually gives me about 50 cals under what the machine does.
  • howardheilweil
    howardheilweil Posts: 604 Member
    It's a frustrating situation. I have a Polar FT4 and thought that would be the be-all, end-all. However, for the same workout, it gives me twice what MFP gives. TWICE! The machines are closer to MFP, but who knows what to believe. You'd think the $100 piece of equipment strapped to my chest and programmed with all my personal deets would be king, but, again, who knows. Needless to say a little disappointed in the $100 piece of equipment.

    I have decided just to go with what MFP gives. I'd rather underestimate the burn and eat back those calories. Seems to work; my weight loss is totally on track.
    Just going to throw this out there... The MFP estimates for calorie burns are based on assumptions regarding level of exertion. It is very possible that you are working a lot harder then the MFP assumption and you really are burning twice the calories. Have you checked the accuracy of your HRM in terms of your actual heart rate? You can just check your heart rate the old fashioned way, then check it with your Polar. If that's accurate and the information you programmed in are accurate, then the calorie burn just might be closer then you think.
  • l911jnt
    l911jnt Posts: 164 Member
    one more thing. I have read elsewhere that an elliptical and treadmill run close on the same amount of cals burned normally. MFP tells me on a treadmill in 37 mins I will burn 137 but on elliptical I will burn 410 ! Big difference. Today I plan on getting on the elliptical for the first time. I will post what the machine says I burned when I get done.
  • howardheilweil
    howardheilweil Posts: 604 Member
    Again, it's all based on your level of exertion. Put your stats into the machine... Age, weight, etc... The calorie count the machine gives you should be in the ball park.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,432 MFP Moderator
    one more thing. I have read elsewhere that an elliptical and treadmill run close on the same amount of cals burned normally. MFP tells me on a treadmill in 37 mins I will burn 137 but on elliptical I will burn 410 ! Big difference. Today I plan on getting on the elliptical for the first time. I will post what the machine says I burned when I get done.

    This is why it's much easier to add exercise as part of your lifestyle, so you don't have to worry about calories burned. I don't have one, nor do I plan on buying a HRM. Never stopped me from learning that my TDEE = 3000. TDEE being maintenance calories or total daily energy expended. I am sure some days are more, some days are less but overall in a week's time, I average 3000.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    The biggest determinants for how much you burn are distance travelled and body weight. Any device that uses heart rate to calculate calories is making assumptions - that includes machines and and HRMs.

    Forget speed, "effort", and hear-rate: here is a simple way to estimate burn on your own for running and walking.

    Walking: 0.57 * weight in pounds * miles walked
    Running: 0.72 * weight in pounds * miles run

    Having two different measurements within 50 calories is actually very very good. IMO the expectations for precision with all this stuff are way to high, both with exercise and food logging. That is why it is important to be consistent and consistently log - only then is it possible to figure out where the "math" adjustments need to be made.
  • l911jnt
    l911jnt Posts: 164 Member
    The biggest determinants for how much you burn are distance travelled and body weight. Any device that uses heart rate to calculate calories is making assumptions - that includes machines and and HRMs.

    Forget speed, "effort", and hear-rate: here is a simple way to estimate burn on your own for running and walking.

    Walking: 0.57 * weight in pounds * miles walked
    Running: 0.72 * weight in pounds * miles run

    Having two different measurements within 50 calories is actually very very good. IMO the expectations for precision with all this stuff are way to high, both with exercise and food logging. That is why it is important to be consistent and consistently log - only then is it possible to figure out where the "math" adjustments need to be made.


    can u be more specific with the way to calculate above? sorry, I can be a little "blonde" at times lol. Is it .57 x weight x miles walked?


    if that is the formula, then what I calculated says the machine is spot on
  • l911jnt
    l911jnt Posts: 164 Member
    I have also found a formula online with weight, heart rate , age and time walked but don't know how accurate it is.

Categories