CaloriesBurned ?

traleen
traleen Posts: 58 Member
edited November 9 in Fitness and Exercise
At the gym today I programmed my weight and age into the exercise bike/machine/computer
at the end of the work out I had burned 188 calories.According to MFP I burned 409 calories for the same exercise. What number should I go by?

Replies

  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Probably the machine. MFP has general entries, the machine is programmed based on its specifications, resistance, etc.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    traleen wrote: »
    At the gym today I programmed my weight and age into the exercise bike/machine/computer
    at the end of the work out I had burned 188 calories.According to MFP I burned 409 calories for the same exercise. What number should I go by?

    Neither one. If you have to have a number and those are your only options, take the lower number and cut it in half.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    traleen wrote: »
    At the gym today I programmed my weight and age into the exercise bike/machine/computer
    at the end of the work out I had burned 188 calories.According to MFP I burned 409 calories for the same exercise. What number should I go by?

    Neither one. If you have to have a number and those are your only options, take the lower number and cut it in half.

    Based upon what science or logic?
  • laurfort
    laurfort Posts: 2
    Why am I doing this if MFP is that inaccurate?
  • carolinamombo
    carolinamombo Posts: 28 Member
    I had a similar experience. My fitbit logged my hiit workout as 100 calories burned while MFP estimated closer to 250... wasn't sure what to do either??
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    How accurate MFP, or any calculator is, depends on the activity. For things like running, the math is pretty straight forward. Cycling adds several variables but most have been figured out through testing. HIIT adds even more variables to the point where it's pretty much a guess no matter what you use to measure ... HRMs aren't designed or programmed to calculate it, fitbits only do step based activity, calculators can't account for the differences.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited December 2014
    laurfort wrote: »
    Why am I doing this if MFP is that inaccurate?
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    traleen wrote: »
    At the gym today I programmed my weight and age into the exercise bike/machine/computer
    at the end of the work out I had burned 188 calories.According to MFP I burned 409 calories for the same exercise. What number should I go by?

    Neither one. If you have to have a number and those are your only options, take the lower number and cut it in half.

    Based upon what science or logic?

    Let's turn it around - provide the "science and logic" that supports the 409 calories the user got from MFP, and let's use that as the starting point for the discussion on why it's a bad idea.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    laurfort wrote: »
    Why am I doing this if MFP is that inaccurate?
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    traleen wrote: »
    At the gym today I programmed my weight and age into the exercise bike/machine/computer
    at the end of the work out I had burned 188 calories.According to MFP I burned 409 calories for the same exercise. What number should I go by?

    Neither one. If you have to have a number and those are your only options, take the lower number and cut it in half.

    Based upon what science or logic?

    Let's turn it around - provide the "science and logic" that supports the 409 calories the user got from MFP, and let's use that as the starting point for the discussion on why it's a bad idea.

    So you have nothing ... got it. Thinking MFP's generality based estimates might be off doesn't justify blindly cutting the lower number in half. Sadly, somebody might think what you offered is actual advice.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited December 2014
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    laurfort wrote: »
    Why am I doing this if MFP is that inaccurate?
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    traleen wrote: »
    At the gym today I programmed my weight and age into the exercise bike/machine/computer
    at the end of the work out I had burned 188 calories.According to MFP I burned 409 calories for the same exercise. What number should I go by?

    Neither one. If you have to have a number and those are your only options, take the lower number and cut it in half.

    Based upon what science or logic?

    Let's turn it around - provide the "science and logic" that supports the 409 calories the user got from MFP, and let's use that as the starting point for the discussion on why it's a bad idea.

    So you have nothing ... got it.

    It's the other way around - you've got nothing. Until you present a justification for using the number, there is nothing for me to make a counter-argument against.

    I'll be over here waiting...

    Sadly, somebody might think what you offered is actual advice.

    Given that the second most common reason on MFP for stalled weight loss is over-estimated calorie burns, what I've given is not only "actual" advice, it's really good "actual" advice.

    Cheers.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    laurfort wrote: »
    Why am I doing this if MFP is that inaccurate?
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    traleen wrote: »
    At the gym today I programmed my weight and age into the exercise bike/machine/computer
    at the end of the work out I had burned 188 calories.According to MFP I burned 409 calories for the same exercise. What number should I go by?

    Neither one. If you have to have a number and those are your only options, take the lower number and cut it in half.

    Based upon what science or logic?

    Let's turn it around - provide the "science and logic" that supports the 409 calories the user got from MFP, and let's use that as the starting point for the discussion on why it's a bad idea.

    So you have nothing ... got it.

    It's the other way around - you've got nothing. Until you present a justification for using the number, there is nothing for me to make a counter-argument against.

    I'll be over here waiting...

    Sadly, somebody might think what you offered is actual advice.

    Given that the second most common reason on MFP for stalled weight loss is over-estimated calorie burns, what I've given is not only "actual" advice, it's really good "actual" advice.

    Cheers.
    Read the link I posted ... it gives a basis for believing the machine based on something called science. Your claiming that I have nothing only proves you didn't bother to read what was provided.

    Blindly cutting numbers in half is not good advice. You don't know what machine was used, what the workout was, the fitness level or intensity of the OP ... information needed to determine if there is a reason to think the lower burn number was an overestimate. Ranting in the absence of fact is not providing logical, sound advice.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories