Tracking calories

corey_e
corey_e Posts: 162
edited September 23 in Fitness and Exercise
Hey I just wanted to point out some discrepancies I’ve noticed with calories burned. MFP says that for an hour and 5 minutes on the elliptical burns 940 calories, the machine itself said 625, and my heart rate monitor says 766. I know the food calories on MFP are accurate because I check the labels on the food I eat but I think the exercise calories may be a little high which may result in eating a little more than one should. I’m going with my HRM since it seems to be the most accurate way to measure. The machines at the gym show drastic differences in my heart rate such as going from 130 which my HRM showed as well to 90 but I could feel my heart racing and it had actually increased on my HRM to 135. Just thought I would share, I’m a little anal with tracking everything so I can make sense of where I’m at and where I should be and there might be others out there like me.

:bigsmile:

Replies

  • GoofyOne
    GoofyOne Posts: 14
    Good to know. Thanks for the tip :)
  • vikespurple
    vikespurple Posts: 3
    Error on the low side. Intensity is important here so if you can gage the mph etc....it will be more accurate.
  • triciary1223
    triciary1223 Posts: 16
    Thanks for the FYI. I agree... going with the low end is best. I've been double checking the food labels also (and some restaurants for future reference), and they all have been accurate. And... I try not to eat all the calories they give back to you for your exercise... I *try* to stay within the original alloted amount on most days, and use the "excess" for when I know I'll be out somewhere or doing something social where it's hard to keep perfect track.

    And I read once the calories on the cardio machine are more accurate if you enter your weight and age, and if they are "weight bearing" types, such as a treadmill or elliptical versus the bike. I would think the HRM would be what to go by though as well. :-)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories