Question regarding calories burned via MFP versus my ellipticall

Options
lipss2die4
lipss2die4 Posts: 6 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
the calories burned shown on my ellipitiHELL differs somewhat from the calories burned on MFP when I plug in time and activity. For example , 60 mins on my elliptical registers must lower in calorie burned than when I plug in the same exact info to MFP. Both entries include my weight as well as time and activity! Please help! Anyone have an idea?!?

Replies

  • strong_curves
    strong_curves Posts: 2,229 Member
    Options
    They're both estimates, if you want a better idea of how many cals you're burning you might need to invest in a HRM.
  • toughlove25
    toughlove25 Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    they are using different algorithms. MFP states that theirs is more accurate than the more commonly used one. I have to agree from experience using the calorie counter on the machine a fitness tracker and MFP.
  • lisab64mfp
    lisab64mfp Posts: 89 Member
    Options
    Don't trust the machine or MFP for calorie burned numbers. I bust my butt on the elliptical and my Garmin (HRM) says I only burn about (good day) 60% of what MFP or the elliptical says.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    John854 wrote: »
    they are using different algorithms. MFP states that theirs is more accurate than the more commonly used one. I have to agree from experience using the calorie counter on the machine a fitness tracker and MFP.

    I would argue it depends on the entry.
    For something that accounts for intensity, like the walking at specific speed entries, yes. But the elliptical entry is very general and does not account for speed or resistance level. I have always found it to be extremely high. But I hate the ellipitcal and never used a high resistance. I was getting calorie burns higher than a run and was putting out nowhere near the same effort.

    A really great blog or two on the topic

    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

    ETA - regardless of source, I always go with the lower estimate
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,488 Member
    Options
    Both estimates - log the lower number.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    I would log half of the lower number, track for a while and see if your weight loss is as expected. If you start losing too fast, you'll know your burn number is too low.
  • lipss2die4
    lipss2die4 Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    Thanks everyone! Maybe I will look into a HRM, I never knew about them since I started MFP
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    @lipss2die4 - before buying one, have a read
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    lipss2die4 wrote: »
    Thanks everyone! Maybe I will look into a HRM, I never knew about them since I started MFP

    Don't believe the hype. HRMs are one of the most problem-inducing purchases MFPers make. They cause more problems with their burn over-estimates than just about anything else here, other than bad logging.
  • lipss2die4
    lipss2die4 Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    Thanks! I just find this app, although I like it because I log all good in, when it comes to exercise calorie burn it's not very accurate...

Categories