Confused about calories burned during exercise

dianne1023
dianne1023 Posts: 9
edited September 27 in Fitness and Exercise
So I go to the gym about 5 times a week, I don't enter my age or weight on the treadmill, and when my workout is done, it tells me how many calories I have burned in my time there. But when I come home and go to log my activity here, I select the exercise (walking), the amount of calories showing that I burned for the timeframe I worked out is vastly different than what the treadmill at the gym says I burned. Fitnesspal knows my weight, age, etc. The treadmill doesnt. Does this make a difference at all? Do I burn more calories simply because I am a larger person vs. a fit person having done the very same workout? I am very particular in entering every last morsel that I eat and trying to be just as careful when entering my exercise but this is very confusing and I want to be accurate. Should I go by what the treadmill says or by what the website says?

Replies

  • lutzsher
    lutzsher Posts: 1,153 Member
    Unless you wear an HRM you just don't know for sure . . . but to be on the side of caution I would always choose the lower calorie burn number as you wouldn't want to overeat if you choose the higher number.
  • Sunshine_Girlie
    Sunshine_Girlie Posts: 618 Member
    Make sure you add your weight and age and whatever it needs to know. See how well it matches up with MFP and if you have a HRM.
  • dianne1023
    dianne1023 Posts: 9
    Just did some research on a couple different websites and it looks like for the speed, duration, distance and my weight, the treadmill at the gym is just about right... within 10 calories. Glad I wasn't going by what this site automatically enters in when you select the appropriate exercise.
  • denitraross
    denitraross Posts: 325 Member
    I don't understand how the treadmill at the gym is telling you calories burned if you do not at least enter your weight? If it is just preset - almost all equipment is set to a 150 pound male (this is the research I have found online - you can actually call the manufacturer of the machine to find out, which is what I did for my treadmill at home)...

    I agree with the statement about using the lesser number to be safe
  • Cricket6382
    Cricket6382 Posts: 3
    It definately makes a difference.I excercise everday with a friend who is bigger and she usually burns twice as many cals (or more) as me and we do exactly the same thing! Thats one of the reasons on the Biggest Loser people lose 20 lbs the first week and struggle to lose 3 toward the end. And also why if you are bigger, your calorie allowence for the day is higher...definately go by MFP!
  • ErrataCorrige
    ErrataCorrige Posts: 649 Member
    If you can't afford an HRM, try taking your average heart rate (that you take manually, don't rely on the heart rate reading on the machine) and use this calculator.

    Make sure you enter a VO2Max of around 35 (like the explanation says). I have used this and compared it with my HRM and it is usually right on.

    http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/
  • webdiva1
    webdiva1 Posts: 326 Member
    I got a heart rate monitor about a week ago and was amazed at the difference between what MFP estimates I burn for a given activity and what I actually burn according to my HRM. MFP is always higher -- WAY higher. I was pretty annoyed at first, but the reality is, MFP's algorithms that calculate calorie burn pretty much have to include some averages and assumptions.

    For instance: when I mow my lawn, MFP says I burn about 3x what my HRM says. But how does MFP know how thick my grass is ... whether I have to mow uphill more than down ... that sort of thing? My HRM, on the other hand, is calculating *my* burn based on *my* heart rate. So even though it's lower (in some cases about 1/3 of what MFP says), I trust it more.

    I agree with others here: go by the lower number, and enter your age and weight into the equipment at the gym to see how they compare. Better yet, invest in an HRM if you can. That'll give you the best picture. There are several posts here in the forum about HRM recommendations, if you want to go that route. Good luck -- hang in there!
  • Minnie_Moo
    Minnie_Moo Posts: 239 Member
    I don't know if this helps any but.............

    I've been using our new Nordictrack treadmill with iFit live pre-programmed workouts (using gender, height, weight, etc.) since the end of January and am so frustrated and unhappy as the scale is not moving or if it does it seems to be the same 2 pounds up and down sad I forgot to take my measurments when I started so can't compare in that area but I am now making it a habit to take my measurements every 15th of the month and seems that I may have lost some inches......just NOT pounds :grumble:

    I just purchased a Polar FT40 about 3 weeks ago as my older HRM didn't calculate calories. The FT-40 also has the Polar Fitness test which measures your aerobic fitness at rest and tells you your progress.

    Now, according to the threadmill (for one day last week), it said I burned 219 calories but was wearing my new polar HRM (with chest strap) and it said I burned 169 calories :huh:

    I guess my calories have been off all along since I started using the treadmill ?? I am now going to use the calories that come up on my HRM and try to figure out how to get the scale moving down :ohwell:

    Here's another example on of one of my workouts......

    My threadmill and iFit Jillian Michaels workout program gave me the info as follows: 45 Minutes, 2.35 Miles (3.79 Km), 4.40 mph (max) (7.08 km/h), 4.00% Incline (max) and 286.5 Calories Burned

    I was wearing my new HRM and it shows that I burned 229 calories :noway:

    I think that using a HRM would be best if you are not going to enter your info in the threadmill and even with entering your info I believe that is an average number. I questioned the difference between calories on our threadmill vs my HRM and the people at iFit Live told me to use my HRM as it would be more accurate :ohwell:
  • erzille
    erzille Posts: 524 Member
    I would use MFP since you did not have any stats on the treadmill.
  • dianne1023
    dianne1023 Posts: 9
    I don't understand how the treadmill at the gym is telling you calories burned if you do not at least enter your weight? If it is just preset - almost all equipment is set to a 150 pound male (this is the research I have found online - you can actually call the manufacturer of the machine to find out, which is what I did for my treadmill at home)...

    I agree with the statement about using the lesser number to be safe

    I live in a rural town and know the gym owners rather well. I know they would be more than happy to help me out with this when I go in today, so I can get to the bottom of it. I would *think* that moving at 2.5mph for a 250 pound woman burns more energy than it would for a 150 lb woman, but hey... I could be wrong and I will find out. The machines at the gym are very new and very tech savvy, but I dont think I have been using them to their full potential as I just get on and start walking (well, after hooking my iPod up to it, of course).
  • lisabel87
    lisabel87 Posts: 152
    I don't understand how the treadmill at the gym is telling you calories burned if you do not at least enter your weight? If it is just preset - almost all equipment is set to a 150 pound male (this is the research I have found online - you can actually call the manufacturer of the machine to find out, which is what I did for my treadmill at home)...

    I agree with the statement about using the lesser number to be safe

    I live in a rural town and know the gym owners rather well. I know they would be more than happy to help me out with this when I go in today, so I can get to the bottom of it. I would *think* that moving at 2.5mph for a 250 pound woman burns more energy than it would for a 150 lb woman, but hey... I could be wrong and I will find out. The machines at the gym are very new and very tech savvy, but I dont think I have been using them to their full potential as I just get on and start walking (well, after hooking my iPod up to it, of course).

    Your weight definitely DOES matter in terms of how many calories you burn during a workout. A heavier person doing the same exercise will burn more than someone that weighs 100lbs less.

    Personally I don't think the cardio machines are accurate in terms of calories burned. Also the heart rate monitor on every single machine I've used seems really sketchy. I go from having a 70bpm to 195bpm in less than 1 minute. That doesn't seem possible, but I'm not an expert.
  • lullmann23
    lullmann23 Posts: 2 Member
    Hi guys,
    I'm actually experiencing the opposite where MFP is estimating my calories burned at about 1/2 of what they should be. I have a polar heart rate monitor (old school one so it doesn't calculate calories burned) and my heart rate gets really high even when I'm only walking at medium pace (ie 3.5 mph). It's actually really hard for me to keep my heart rate below 85% of max (sometimes have to slow down to 3mph). So I suspected that the MFP calculations were probably off for me. I used the calculator at http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/ and it says I'm burning about twice as much as MFP says.

    Oddly, my ancient treadmill calculates my calories burned more accurately than mfp but I figure that may just be a fluke.

    I'm actually kind of upset about this discovery because it means that I have been over estimating my net calories. Now that I've adjusted my past exercise, I can see that I have been well below 1200 net calories for like 2 weeks. That may explain why I haven't been losing as much! I am probably in starvation mode! Argh!!!!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories