burn estmiates on MFP and machines

wurgin
wurgin Posts: 241 Member
edited November 11 in Fitness and Exercise
So I am wondering where is a good source of caloric burn info for excersize. I hear that the MFP numbers are inflated (and I'd have to agree!), and that many work out machines are also off (though my excercycle seems reasonable)... where else can you get/calc this info?

Replies

  • jacquiroxx
    jacquiroxx Posts: 68 Member
    A good heart rate monitor will give you the best information for your individual case :)
  • bobie1978
    bobie1978 Posts: 204 Member
    Get a heart rate monitor its accurate!
  • DenverKos
    DenverKos Posts: 182
    I third this - HRM.
  • LivyJo
    LivyJo Posts: 355 Member
    Having a good HRM has been the best investment!
  • mcourtney09
    mcourtney09 Posts: 34 Member
    I only ever trust my heart rate monitor because it is the only thing that is set up just for me...not some average. We are all very different in terms of fitness level and that can't be predicted by age and weight alone.

    I have the Polar RS300x and I love it...would definitely recommend. You have to do some tests to get it set up properly, like a resting heart rate check, etc. but it is well worth the time and money to get an accurate reading.
  • skylark94
    skylark94 Posts: 2,036 Member
    I use a HRM because I got tired of having to guess. Between 3 different sources I get 3 different numbers.

    For example, I spent 60 minutes on the elliptical yesterday. MFP gave me a number of 574, my Polar FT4 gave me 620, and the machine (which gets it's HR info from my chest strap) said 550.

    I go with with HRM, since it know my height, sex, and age in addition to my weight.

    In yesterday's case the HRM was the high number, but when biking or running, the usually give me the lowest number.
  • josavage
    josavage Posts: 472 Member
    I also agree with the heart rate monitor. My HRM always gives me less calories burned than the machines at the gym and MFP.
  • annabellj
    annabellj Posts: 1,337 Member
    I havent had to use one. i think these numbers are inflated but i get good results with what I am doing so I am happy not to have another thing to take care of.
  • HWeatherholt
    HWeatherholt Posts: 283 Member
    I was wondering this yesterday in my post....

    Was wondering what your opinions are concerning accurate calorie counts during exercise?

    My girlfriend and I have been debating the accuracy of the treadmill/arc trainer/etc., in its calculation of calories burned. I always set up my machine with my current weight, and periodically have it check my heart rate.

    Today, I splurged and bought a heart rate monitor (with chest strap) that also measures calories burned. I set it up with my gender, height, weight, and age.

    When I went to the gym today, I did 15 minutes on the Arc Trainer. The HRM and the Arc Trainer had my heart rate within a beat of each other the whole time. When I was done, the ARC Trainer said I burned 146 calories and the HRM said I burned 116. Then I did a few strength training machines and then did a 15:30 (average) Mile (interval training at 3.5 walk for 3 / 4.5 run for 2) and when done the Treadmill said I burned 149 calories and the HRM monitor said I burned 133.

    The differences don't seem like much at first, but when you say 15 to 30 calories difference in 15 minutes, that is between 60 and 120 calories an hour. It doesn't sound like much, but it adds up.

    And if I am eating back at least some of the calories I burn, then am I negating the effects. It would explain why I haven't lost as much weight as I would have liked to at this point. I am only down about 8 pounds since January 18th.

    What do you think? Should I record the HRM calorie burn count or the machine calorie burn count, or split the difference?

    My diary should be open if anyone has any suggestions.
  • Flixie00
    Flixie00 Posts: 1,195 Member
    I cannot use a HRM due to blood pressure meds (the HRM would give an artificially low reading), so I work on the basis that I burn 200 cals for every 30 mins worked in the gym. I have run this past both my doctor and my personal trainer, and they both seem to think that this is reasonable.
  • JenSkinLaPierre
    JenSkinLaPierre Posts: 54 Member
    If you don't have. HRM, monitor your heart rate on the machines every 5 minutes and then enter your data on the website below and you'll get an accurate burn. I have noticed that it averages out for me.

    http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html
  • wurgin
    wurgin Posts: 241 Member
    so my bike monitors my heartrate, has my age weight height and gender - why wouldn't it be accurate?
  • MelissaGraham7
    MelissaGraham7 Posts: 406 Member
    I personally tend to average 3 or 4 different sources - So I take the machines, MFP, HRM and a couple of the more scientific sources on the Internet, such as http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm and then I just average them all. I just keep a little record then of how much a particular activity burns per minute and then multiple it x number of minutes. So, I use an overall average figure of several sources which works for me. I do tend to err on the lower side as it is much better to underestimate calories burned than overestimate. It works for me. ;)
  • david_swinstead
    david_swinstead Posts: 271 Member
    so my bike monitors my heartrate, has my age weight height and gender - why wouldn't it be accurate?

    I wonder the same, especially given that the machine you're using knows what exercise you're doing, at what intensity, and for how long, but a HRM only knows how fast your heart is beating.

    The more I read these forums the more I think that people put far too much faith in the mystical powers of a heart rate monitor. Surely the bike machine is just as accurrate or more so.

    Maybe people base their opinions on having used equipment that doesnt take their age, weight and hiehgt data into account? But at my gym I can tell their machines all about me and I think the calorie counts are pretty good.
  • david_swinstead
    david_swinstead Posts: 271 Member
    Also, when in doubt use the MFP estimate and subtract 25%.
  • jwatson7
    jwatson7 Posts: 58 Member
    MFP over estimates the number of calories I burn. Since I have been using my hrm, I have been getting better results. I personally would go with what the hrm says.
  • wurgin
    wurgin Posts: 241 Member
    so my bike monitors my heartrate, has my age weight height and gender - why wouldn't it be accurate?

    I wonder the same, especially given that the machine you're using knows what exercise you're doing, at what intensity, and for how long, but a HRM only knows how fast your heart is beating.

    The more I read these forums the more I think that people put far too much faith in the mystical powers of a heart rate monitor. Surely the bike machine is just as accurrate or more so.

    Maybe people base their opinions on having used equipment that doesnt take their age, weight and hiehgt data into account? But at my gym I can tell their machines all about me and I think the calorie counts are pretty good.

    Agreed. Its not a generic estimate in my house ;) So when running or other non-machine related excersize isin question what i hear is 1) HRM or 2) MFP- at least 25% seems like a good plan. Man, this place needs a used guide with these details in it ;) Thanks all!
  • em9371
    em9371 Posts: 1,047 Member
    I havent had to use one. i think these numbers are inflated but i get good results with what I am doing so I am happy not to have another thing to take care of.

    This^^
    i go with the machine numbers, or an estimate from the internet or MFP, Having to watch my HR would put me off my workout i think. I know they are a bit high but it seems to be working for me!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories