Calories burned: Go with what MFP says or what the machine says?

JediMasterNaw
JediMasterNaw Posts: 124 Member
edited November 15 in Fitness and Exercise
I have a recumbent bike that I am just starting up with again and I was wondering which will be more accurate for how many calories I'm burning per session - MFP, which knows my weight and height etc, or the machine I'm actually doing the workout on?

Replies

  • stephenrhinton
    stephenrhinton Posts: 522 Member
    Hmmm, if your machine isn't taking your height and weight into account, I can't imagine it is terribly accurate. However, I have input the same exercise numbers (including height and weight) into multiple online exercise calculators and MFP is consistently among the most 'generous'. By up to 30% more calories burned in some cases.
  • branflakes1980
    branflakes1980 Posts: 2,516 Member
    If you are doing steady state cardio the most accurate would be to purchase a heart rate monitor. They are not very accurate for weight lifting / strength training burns but if you are on the bike only a HRM will be the most accurate. Good luck!
  • mandychowx
    mandychowx Posts: 179 Member
    If you machine knows your height and weight and it measures your heart rate while you are exercising- then your machine. Although I think my fitness pal is pretty accurate! If you are serious about wanting to know how much calories you are burning, I recommend you buying a heart rate monitor as your exercise :)
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    JediMasterNaw wrote: »
    I have a recumbent bike that I am just starting up with again and I was wondering which will be more accurate for how many calories I'm burning per session - MFP, which knows my weight and height etc, or the machine I'm actually doing the workout on?

    Neither. Figure out your fitness level by going out for a 30 minute run, and then base your burns off of that.
  • callsitlikeiseeit
    callsitlikeiseeit Posts: 8,626 Member
    edited March 2015
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    JediMasterNaw wrote: »
    I have a recumbent bike that I am just starting up with again and I was wondering which will be more accurate for how many calories I'm burning per session - MFP, which knows my weight and height etc, or the machine I'm actually doing the workout on?

    Neither. Figure out your fitness level by going out for a 30 minute run, and then base your burns off of that.

    ummm what? mmmmmmmmmm kay then.....

    and i imagine the machine is more accurate than MFP (assuming you input your weight), but a HRM is what you really need.
  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Doesn't really matter. Pick one. compare the number on the machine to the website, choose the number that seems more reasonable to you, be consistent and monitor results after 6-8 weeks.

    When I did neat method I logged machine numbers for things like elliptical or any entry on MFP that didn't have an intensity level entry (light, medium, vigorous), and used the entries on MFP for everything else. Ate all the calories back and ate a calorie goal determined by another website for my neat needs (higher estimate than what MFP spat out for the same activity levels).
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    I can't give a suggestion because I don't have enough info. Did you put any information into the machine? Do you have time/distance info? What are you picking on MFP?

    Here are two blogs that may help you decide.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041

    Personally, I always go with the lowest number.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    JediMasterNaw wrote: »
    I have a recumbent bike that I am just starting up with again and I was wondering which will be more accurate for how many calories I'm burning per session - MFP, which knows my weight and height etc, or the machine I'm actually doing the workout on?

    Neither. Figure out your fitness level by going out for a 30 minute run, and then base your burns off of that.

    ummm what? mmmmmmmmmm kay then.....

    and i imagine the machine is more accurate than MFP (assuming you input your weight), but a HRM is what you really need.

    That's right, neither. The less fit someone is, the more an HRM will over-estimate. The vast majority of people should NOT be using HRMs for burn estimates, because heart rate and calorie burn don't correlate well at all, for most people, most of the time, under most conditions.

    And MFP numbers are a total crapshoot - you may as well roll Yahtzee and multiply the numbers together.

  • jassoma
    jassoma Posts: 2
    My nutritionist tells me to use the machine. MFP is too generous.
  • shelleyrhoads
    shelleyrhoads Posts: 103 Member
    mfp is very generous. although its program of logging everything is proven to work. so i go with what it tells me. i have goals set for 2# loss a week. I don't eat back all my exercise calories. but a good many of them. doing this i have lost 20# in just over 2 months.
  • jodielarms
    jodielarms Posts: 51 Member
    I think it depends on the machine. I have a treadmill that I'm using to do the C25k app workouts on which doesn't allow me to input any info, or measure my heart rate. It always gives me higher number of calories burned than MFP does for the same workout.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    ana3067 wrote: »
    Doesn't really matter. Pick one. compare the number on the machine to the website, choose the number that seems more reasonable to you, be consistent and monitor results after 6-8 weeks.

    This.

    Pick a method, use it consistently and monitor progress. Once you know whether you're ahead or behind your target loss rate then adjust how you're compensating for calorie expenditure accordinly. If you're ahead of goal rate then eat back more, if you're behind then eat back less.

  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    Doesn't really matter. Pick one. compare the number on the machine to the website, choose the number that seems more reasonable to you, be consistent and monitor results after 6-8 weeks.

    This.

    Pick a method, use it consistently and monitor progress. Once you know whether you're ahead or behind your target loss rate then adjust how you're compensating for calorie expenditure accordinly. If you're ahead of goal rate then eat back more, if you're behind then eat back less.

    And if you've already been eating them all back (which I had to do) and still losing faster than you'd like then consider increasing your net calorie goal, or switch to the readout that gives a higher calorie number.
  • monicamminson
    monicamminson Posts: 3 Member
    Is their something you can buy and attach to your arm that logs heart rate,height, weight.
  • JediMasterNaw
    JediMasterNaw Posts: 124 Member
    I've been going with the machine's number because it's the lower of the two (by a quite a bit actually). Like a couple people suggested, I'm underestimating the calories I'm burning because I haven't been weighing my food. I did today get a scale to start weighing my food, but I guess my best bet is to go with the lower number from the machine and be consistent. Thanks everyone for your input!
  • Asher_Ethan
    Asher_Ethan Posts: 2,430 Member
    I go by what MFP says and only eat half back. I still get to eat more and I'm still loosing... Win Win.
  • LovelyIvy466
    LovelyIvy466 Posts: 387 Member
    I assume neither is correct. I use the readouts mostly as a benchmark, to track perceived exertion and workout times. This works for me, but I am atypical on this site- I don't weigh myself and track my progress solely on how good I feel (which is really the only point of exercising and eating right for me) and how my clothes fit- I have a goal of getting into my old work clothes lol. So far so good!
  • Jinxy23
    Jinxy23 Posts: 33 Member
    People say a HRM but for some reason my Polar gives a WAAY higher calorie burn than the machine (often by 100 or more calories), so i tend to go with machine.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories