We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

MFP Calorie counter vs Gym Machine Calorie Counter

BrooklynBluBird
BrooklynBluBird Posts: 1
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
Hello all! Question: When i work out at the gym, the calorie counter on the machine always reads much less, then the one on MFP Cardiovascular counter. For example, 60 minutes on a Eliptical machine at the gym, reads at 600 calories burned. But on MFP, it reads as 900.

I would think the MFP calorie counter would be more precise, since it takes into account things like gender, which the gym machines do not. I read that the gym machines are calibrated for a 150lb male. I am a 198 lb woman. The gym machines also do not account for height. So according to the machine, my 60 minute workout burns the same calories as my friends, even tho I am 4.5 inches taller then her.

So which is more reliable. I am basing my calorie intake on what the MFP calorie counter is telling me im burning when i go to the gym. But there is such a big difference between the machines and MFP, that im worried that im overestimating the amount of calories im burning, and thus, eating too many calories to compensate.

Anyone know which is more accurate?

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,458 Member
    Why not split the difference?

    All things being equal, I'd use one or the other and stick to it. If you don't see results in a month, change it. This is not an exact science, and there are many factors in play here.
  • LilacDreamer
    LilacDreamer Posts: 1,364 Member
    neither. you should invest in a Heart rate monitor.
  • ashleab37
    ashleab37 Posts: 575 Member
    If you don't want to spend the cash on the HRM, then always go with the LOWER of the two.

    MFP overestimates a lot.
  • led6777
    led6777 Posts: 268
    the machine estimates are much more accurate than MFP estimates especially if you enter your weight, age, etc. instead of doing "quick start." i know this because i have tested it with my bodybugg.
  • DamaliAsabyiKioni
    DamaliAsabyiKioni Posts: 38 Member
    The heart rate monitor is more precise. I have a Polar FT4 and I love it.
  • RobbieKCPhT
    RobbieKCPhT Posts: 42 Member
    My elliptical does the same thing....calculates approximately 400 calories for 3 miles in 30 minutes and on MFP its totally different. I always use my elliptical....because I choose different levels, so the harder you work in 30 minutes, the more calories you will burn. I can totally slack off for 30 minutes, and burn way less calories. I wished HRM weren't so expensive, because I'd really like one....but for now, I'll just keep using what my machine says. :) Good luck in your journey!
  • 970Mikaela1
    970Mikaela1 Posts: 2,013 Member
    Most of the Mfp figures were really really close for me. I learned this after i double checked them all with my HRM. The oone that was way off for me was hiking uphill its 50 percent over. Walking , running were pretty close (within 100 or so cals ) for ME:)) Happy Saint Pats Day:)!!
  • blueandigo
    blueandigo Posts: 296
    Start entering your age and weight you'll be good to go. At the end it will give you your average HR as well, so you can calculate that.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories