Accurate calorie burn?

kittyninja
kittyninja Posts: 118
edited November 8 in Fitness and Exercise
Which is more accurate for figuring out how many calories you've burned- this website's calculations when logging a cardio exercise, or the number of calories the machine tells you you've burned? How do you know which is right?
I know the most accurate way to know is with a Heart Rate Monitor, but I don't have one.
I REALLY need to know the exact number of calories I've burned in my workouts, so please help.

Replies

  • conlucmom
    conlucmom Posts: 4
    I really believe the calories on this website are over inflated. I was staying within my calories averyday and adding the work out calories I did and not going anywhere. I started using the calories listed on my Xbox workout game and got much closer to what I think the true caolries I lost were. If the calories from your other source are lower, I think you should take those.
  • kittyninja
    kittyninja Posts: 118
    I really believe the calories on this website are over inflated. I was staying within my calories averyday and adding the work out calories I did and not going anywhere. I started using the calories listed on my Xbox workout game and got much closer to what I think the true caolries I lost were. If the calories from your other source are lower, I think you should take those.

    The thing about using the lower number is, my goal net is 1200, and I don't want to put myself in starvation mode.
  • andesjardins02
    andesjardins02 Posts: 4
    I tend to average the two numbers and use that.......... The machine and MFP are never the same - sometimes they are close though. If I'm on the elliptical and it tells me I burned 210 calories and I go to log it on MFP and it tells me I should have burned 237, I just go with either the lower number of the two or right up the middle and use 224.

    I plan on getting a HRM soon - but for now, I just use an average - or lower number.
  • chubbybunnee
    chubbybunnee Posts: 197 Member
    Which is more accurate for figuring out how many calories you've burned- this website's calculations when logging a cardio exercise, or the number of calories the machine tells you you've burned? How do you know which is right?
    I know the most accurate way to know is with a Heart Rate Monitor, but I don't have one.
    I REALLY need to know the exact number of calories I've burned in my workouts, so please help.


    You just have to save up for a heart monitor! I was going off the machines before I got mine, and found that even when adding my heights age and weight, they still showed less that what was actual. I love my HRM and can't live without it now! I wore it to softball for the first time last night and have always benn guessing 200 calories burned with softball. Today I wore the HRM and burned over 2000! Huge difference! The HRM is really worth the money!
  • RAFValentina
    RAFValentina Posts: 1,231 Member
    Neither...both the calories on the machines and website are flawed. The machines basically use the same calculations as here except take more data points in to account so the fact that you work a bit slower/faster at various points of your workout means you'll burn more or less at those points. MFP is using an average,

    Use a HRM that takes into account your height, weight, gender, Max HR (ACTUAL- You'll need to do a maximal test for this as the formula 220-age isn't THAT accurate), RHR, and VO2Max (You can probably get away with a submaximal test and some HRM include a built in test for this. but it's better doing a maximal test such as the 1.5mile/2.4Km run or MultiStage Fitness test (bleep test) in order to do this)

    Why do you need your VO2 max and HR info to be included? Because the more efficiently your CV system works, the more efficiently you burn energy, i.e, less calories.

    However, even a HRM is never going to be 100% accurate, but it should give a better indication of how many calories you burned. This is because it takes in to account the exertion you ACTUALLY did as a proportion of your actual ability in the CV area.
  • alyssamiller77
    alyssamiller77 Posts: 891 Member
    I've found that ultimately you have to try them out and listen to your body (even with the HRM). Try two weeks following the machine numbers, if you continue to lose at the expected rate, great use that number. If your losses slow, then try the MFP numbers for a couple weeks and see what happens, etc. this isn't and exact science in that regard. Any measurement, even an HRM, is an estimate based on available information. Your best off just listening to your body to determine which estimate is most accurate for you.
  • chell53
    chell53 Posts: 352 Member
    I like my HRM............I used MFP and they are way to high for what I was doing............
  • PrincessLou71186
    PrincessLou71186 Posts: 741 Member
    You can always look on EBay for one, I keep looking and find some great deals.
  • kittyninja
    kittyninja Posts: 118
    I've found that ultimately you have to try them out and listen to your body (even with the HRM). Try two weeks following the machine numbers, if you continue to lose at the expected rate, great use that number. If your losses slow, then try the MFP numbers for a couple weeks and see what happens, etc. this isn't and exact science in that regard. Any measurement, even an HRM, is an estimate based on available information. Your best off just listening to your body to determine which estimate is most accurate for you.

    Considering I only have 9 pounds left to lose and I want to do it as quickly as possible, the "trail and error" method isn't going to work for me.
  • kittyninja
    kittyninja Posts: 118
    What if you enter your weight and age into the machine, and keep your hands on the heart rate sensors through your whole cardio session? Would that be more accurate? :/
    I just don't have the money for a HRM right now.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories