Calorie Burn Different On MFP than Machine?

camille97
camille97 Posts: 91
edited September 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
I did some elliptical this morning and the machine said a burned 633 calories, while MFP told me I burned 551. Usually MFP OVER-estimates, so I'm not sure what to think of this... I also did two sessions of 30 minutes with about 15 seconds break, so I went through all of the phases twice, could this have something to do with the higher burned calories?

Replies

  • Dornroschen
    Dornroschen Posts: 178 Member
    I strongly recommend getting a heart rate monitor if you're concerned about the amount of calories you're actually burning. One with a chest strap that monitors your heart rate would be your best bet. This will be more accurate than a machine or MFP.

    :) Good luck!
  • abalicious
    abalicious Posts: 361 Member
    Hm, I would underestimate and use the 551 number. Better than overestimating, IMO.
  • abbie017
    abbie017 Posts: 410
    I would really invest in a HRM. MFP once said over 700, the machine said about 600, and my HRM said in the 350s. It's a HUGE difference...
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    I did some elliptical this morning and the machine said a burned 633 calories, while MFP told me I burned 551. Usually MFP OVER-estimates, so I'm not sure what to think of this... I also did two sessions of 30 minutes with about 15 seconds break, so I went through all of the phases twice, could this have something to do with the higher burned calories?

    most machines over estimate caloric burn as well. Best to use a HRM are only count 75% of what MFP or the machine says.
  • mzjandiace
    mzjandiace Posts: 162
    I use the machine calorie counter; it has worked for me. I can't afford all the fancy HRM's so I use what is available to me, and it seems to be working so far. I also like the machine because I am able to input my weight and the type of program I want to use.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories