Calorie read-out on gym machine vs. calories burned database

Options
sarahkatara
sarahkatara Posts: 826 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hey guys! I did an hour of exercise yesterday on the stationary bike at my gym, a total of 12.5 miles. The bike keeps track of calories burned and it showed I burned 350 calories. When I entered the exercise on here, it told me I burned 530 calories. I tend to agree with MFP but only because they have all of my health and nutrition information figured in. Any opinions as to which might be more accurate?

Replies

  • WarriorWomanMaxine
    WarriorWomanMaxine Posts: 162 Member
    Options
    bump i would be intrested to know also :)
  • hchandler0823
    hchandler0823 Posts: 46 Member
    Options
    I wish that I could help you out here but the truth is, I would LOVE to know the answer to this as well! My treadmill doesn't take into consideration my current weight or anything so I'm guessing that I'm actually burning more calories than what it tells me.
  • chanstriste13
    chanstriste13 Posts: 3,277 Member
    Options
    530 seems pretty high to me - maybe not if you weighed 200 pounds, but at 167 it seems overboard. i would either choose the lower estimate or split the difference between the two. ideally, a heart rate monitor is the best way to go, but when i doubt, choose the lower number of calories burned. good luck!
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    If you don't have a HRM I would go with the lowest estimate of the 2.
  • sophjakesmom
    sophjakesmom Posts: 904 Member
    Options
    That is a tough one. I find MFP to estimate very high on exercise calories. I use to use whichever was lower. Now I have a heartrate monitor and it seems like the calories on the machine were closer than MFP. But I always enter in my weight on the machine, so that probably helps with accuracy.
  • ShannonMpls
    ShannonMpls Posts: 1,936 Member
    Options
    Neither is accurate, so I'd go with the lower number especially if you eat back those calories. MFP may know your height, weight, and age, but it has no idea the speed you were going nor the resistance - two factors that impact calorie burn. The machine knows this information, but may not know your sex, weight, and age.

    A heart rate monitor would be more accurate, but it's still an estimate.
  • Luvmysixpack
    Luvmysixpack Posts: 43
    Options
    I would cut what MFP says in half and log that. I have a heart rate monitor that I go by and yesterday I ran 9 miles. My treadmill said I burned 1900 calories and my HR monitor said I burned 1401 and that is more accurate.
  • GambleGurl
    GambleGurl Posts: 39
    Options
    :smile: Most people will tell you to get an HRM, but really how do you even know between MFP, a HRM, and a machine which one is right. I asked the same question a few days ago. I just really tend to go with MFP. I' ve read on here that in order to lose weight you want to eat all of your recomended calories and then you want to start to burn the recomended calories to burn. Plus sometimes people dont take into account the calories you burn while your just doing everyday walking around, when you clean, sex, and burning calories when you do your strength training as well so some are burning more that what is logged in on this site. So thats just my opinion and what i' ve seen on here.
  • SueInAz
    SueInAz Posts: 6,592 Member
    Options
    While MFP knows your height, weight and age, it can't take into account the level of effort you expended. I can do two very different workouts on my stationary bike, one where I'm at level 2 and just taking it easy and one where I'm at level 10 and sweating my butt off, and get two very different calorie burns. MFP would give me the same calorie burn for each of these, which obviously isn't correct.

    Another point to consider... my stationary bike does take my weight and has sensors for my heart rate which I have a tendency to hold while I'm using it. I used the burn amount on that until I got my HRM fixed. Turns out, it's 30% too LOW. My bike will say I burned 200 calories while my HRM says 260. That's a pretty significant difference.
  • cantjustcant
    cantjustcant Posts: 1,027 Member
    Options
    530 for an hour on the exercise bike doesn't sound too far fetched to me. I am 201 and in an hour I burn between 850-1000 on the bike (level 4 resistance strength training intervals) My HRM is usually within 20-40 of that number
  • Espressocycle
    Espressocycle Posts: 2,245 Member
    Options
    did you enter your weight and age into the machine? did you use the hear monitor sensors the whole time? if so, trust the machine. If the machine was just using an average person, use MFP's.
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    Options
    I don't trust either. I believe the exercises are user input, and are based on their weight estimations. I just look it up online usually:

    Running - http://42.195km.net/e/treadsim/
    Swimming - http://www.swimmingcalculator.com/swim_calories_calculator.php
    Cycling - http://www.everydayhealth.com/Calories-Burned-Biking.htm (not quite as precise as the other two, but I don't cycle much at all so I just looked it up now)

    Still estimates, but I tend to trust things that take weight inputs and don't just say 'vigorous effort' or some such
  • dmpizza
    dmpizza Posts: 3,321 Member
    Options
    If the machine knows your age and weight, then I would trust the machine because it knows when you sped up or slowed down.
    The posted guidelines assume a full on even burn which rarely happens.
    I subtract minutes when I enter, so it covers my slower periods.
  • shaj316
    shaj316 Posts: 161
    Options
    I think some machines must assume your size and age because it doesn't allow for input. The bigger you are the more you burn (usually), so MFP is probably closer to right. However, I thought the number was too high until someone in the MFP community mentioned you have to subtract what you would burn just sitting around. Once I did that I got a number that seemed about right (compared to some other calculators on other sites I've been on).

    Get an HRM. I found the one I got (polar ft7) seems to hit the mark pretty consistently.
  • daretobethin
    daretobethin Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    I think that the machines are just estimating. Unless you put in your age, weight and it monitors your heartrate throughout the exercise, it can't give you a true calorie burn. I use a heartrate monitor watch that counts my calories and my friend uses the same watch... my heartrate is faster than hers so I burn more calories doing the same exercise. Everyone is different and burns calories differently based on heartrate. If you can afford it, I highly recommend the heartrate monitor watch. I got mine at Sports Authority. Good luck!!
  • wtorc
    wtorc Posts: 9
    Options
    calories burn are most accurate when you know you heart rate---most machines do not use this nor does mfp---get a hrm and take the average and go to this web site and enter your data...

    .braydenwm.com/calburn.htm


    if you do not know your vo2max, average person is 35-40

    always use average Hr, that is what calories burn are based on---the higher the average-more calories used


    wts
    sports medicine physician (ret)
  • sarahkatara
    sarahkatara Posts: 826 Member
    Options
    Thank you to everyone! Great feedback and advice. I will invest in a HR monitor. maybe i'm just behind but if i get one to use while exercising, it calculates my HR AND the calories burned? too good to be true!
  • smpreston
    smpreston Posts: 262 Member
    Options
    Getting a good heart rate monitor is very important IMHO. I use a Polar FT7. I input my stats and it will give me a calorie reading for each workout I do. Whether it's a neighborhood bike ride, some P90X, TurboFire or just walking the dog, I have an accurate representation of what I've done. An HRM is one of those things that pays to spend the money and buy a good one. Some people like the Timex ones. I tried one by Sports Instruments since it was cheap. It lost signal a lot and the battery life was terrible. My Polar is tough and holds up very well to daily use. You don't have to worry about holding the sensors on a machine all the time and you can use it with all your exercises, even weight lifting and yoga.

Categories