Gym vs. MFP ??

Baby_Belles
Baby_Belles Posts: 39
edited September 23 in Fitness and Exercise
So after an hour of doing the stair climber at the gym it told me I lost 240 calories which is fine by me.
When I try adding it in for an hour on MFP it tries saying I burned 750 calories....

Why such a big difference?
Which is more accurate.
I didn't have my heart rate read by the machine at the gym also and I don't have a HRM yet but am getting one soon

Replies

  • jrueckert
    jrueckert Posts: 355 Member
    I would guess that different machines have different intensity levels. That could change the amount of calories burned. Maybe MFP has their numbers from a higher intensity level. If the machine asked you for your weight, I would go with the machine's numbers.
  • Indimenticabile1
    Indimenticabile1 Posts: 11
    I would cross-check it with other calorie counting web sites and just take down the average.

    The machine might be more accurate though, since I imagine it took your effort into account (speed, etc).
  • binary_jester
    binary_jester Posts: 3,311 Member
    Ooo...judging by your title, I thought we were going to have to fight the people at your gym.
  • kermode
    kermode Posts: 18
    Did you enter in your stats in the machine at the gym (age and weight). The numbers preset in MFP I find are always out, they are pretty generic. I have no idea where they got them from.
  • Sherri71
    Sherri71 Posts: 208 Member
    Since you don't have your HRM yet, check out this site. Enter your age and minutes that you did the stairclimber. Than take the average calories from all 3 numbers.

    http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc

    Hope this helps!
  • fuhrmeister
    fuhrmeister Posts: 1,796 Member
    If the machine did not ask for your weight it is probably too low. I like teh idea of checking multipal websites and getting an average. I perfer to erro ron the low side to make sure I don't go overboard when eating back exercise cals
  • jenbusick
    jenbusick Posts: 528 Member
    I would definitely go with the gym's numbers. MFP's numbers, from what I have seen, are all over the place and tend to be high (at least for me) -- representing either someone a lot heavier, or someone who's putting in a lot more intense workout than I am!
  • ladyhawk00
    ladyhawk00 Posts: 2,457 Member
    Ooo...judging by your title, I thought we were going to have to fight the people at your gym.

    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
  • 951heather
    951heather Posts: 75 Member
    Take the average of the two numbers and it = 495. That's how I have been calculating mine.
  • ladyhawk00
    ladyhawk00 Posts: 2,457 Member
    Yep, I agree, I usually just take an average of numbers (and try to be realistic about my intensity.)
  • Warmbloodwear
    Warmbloodwear Posts: 387 Member
    Ooo...judging by your title, I thought we were going to have to fight the people at your gym.

    LMAO :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
  • lizard9800
    lizard9800 Posts: 474 Member
    Definitely buy a HRM. One that tracks your rate constantly without having to push a button. You will never regret it. I have a Polar F11 with chest strap. It's 3 yrs old so I'm sure there are better models out now, but I love it. I find MFP to actually be low since it doesn't take into account any bursts of intensity, and machines are way too high. Even if you use machines, make sure to subtract your BMR for accuracy. (Mine is 60/hr which is easy!)
  • novatri
    novatri Posts: 262 Member
    I'd go with more conservative measures usually. It keeps me from over estimating my burn. I've noticed rollerblading is listed as incredibly high here. But I'd guess they meant speed skaters. There is not to much resistence when your rolling.
  • fuzzymel
    fuzzymel Posts: 400 Member
    I don't find either too accurate.

    I take my figures from my HRM then I know I am correct.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories