Myfitnesspal exercise calories, or the Machine's?

Options
jazgold
jazgold Posts: 8 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
My preferred cardio device is an Elliptical machine. I use it for 40 min. and it says I burned 384 calories. When I put that time into the My Fitness cardio exercise, it tells me 645. How do I determine how much I burned? What is important is what was burned, not the numbers I record, but it can have an effect on what foods I eat during the day.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Replies

  • EchoOfYourPast
    EchoOfYourPast Posts: 459 Member
    Options
    I decided to get a Heart Rate Monitor to determine the true figures....you program your height/weight and stuff into it and it will let you know how many calories you burned....if you get one..make sure it has a chest strap....the one i bought is a PolarFT40....i love it!
    San :)
  • mangojh2
    mangojh2 Posts: 175 Member
    Options
    I only go by my heart rate monitor. For me, except for walking, MFP Greatly over estimates my calories.
  • Awkward30
    Awkward30 Posts: 1,927 Member
    Options
    Before I got an HRM, I used the lower value, and usually put in less time than I actually did because both methods are very prone to overestimation and that can kill your deficit if you aren't careful
  • lolo406
    lolo406 Posts: 71
    Options
    From what I can tell MFP & the machines both typically give a higher calorie count than is accurate. Most use an HRM, it will monitor your heart rate and give a much more reliable number, a popular one is the polar ft4 I think wich can be found on amazon, ebay etc. The main thing is to keep on exercising though!
  • KatieJane83
    KatieJane83 Posts: 2,002 Member
    Options
    My first recommendation would be to get yourself a heart rate monitor. You can get great ones for under $100, just make sure it's the type that uses a chest strap, as the accuracy of the wrist-only kinds is crap. Personally, I have the Polar FT4 and highly recommend it. I would check out amazon.com or heartratemonitorsusa.com

    If you absolutely don't have the money to spend on an HRM I would go by the machine IF it's the kind that lets you input your age/weight/etc. If not, I would just take the lower of the 2 estimates. Better to underestimate than overestimate burns.
  • wookiemouse
    wookiemouse Posts: 290 Member
    Options
    A recent fitness mag did a test of machines and found some of them to be off as much as 42%. I would honestly invest in a HRM if you want to get an accurate gauge of where you're at. MFP tallies are WAY off for me.
  • c8linmarie
    c8linmarie Posts: 358 Member
    Options
    Definitely invest in a heart rate monitor. It's not perfect, but a lot more accurate than MFP or the machine you use combined. A decent one will cost around $60.
  • californiagirl1950
    californiagirl1950 Posts: 897 Member
    Options
    When I google this, it takes me to a site that has me enter my weight and how long I did the elliptical for and it comes out same as here, where as my machine, which has not a clue if I am young, old, thin or thick is much lower.
  • jazgold
    jazgold Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    As many mentioned, I have been going with the lower of the two. I have a heart rate monitor, Polar, but it keeps losing my pulse. I think I need to work on how tight the strap is.
  • jazgold
    jazgold Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    I have the polar working, most of the time. Still does not always work in the water. It's tells me burned 38 calories in 45 min. of swimming! Ah, well, it does't really matter what I put in the logs, as long as I don't think I can eat extra for calories not really burned.
  • sandrajune72
    sandrajune72 Posts: 550
    Options
    As many mentioned, I have been going with the lower of the two. I have a heart rate monitor, Polar, but it keeps losing my pulse. I think I need to work on how tight the strap is.

    ...or you might not be wetting the electrodes enough??
  • sandrajune72
    sandrajune72 Posts: 550
    Options
    I always go by my HRM. MFP is always really different.
  • beckylawrence70
    beckylawrence70 Posts: 752 Member
    Options
    384 is about right, not in the 600's, you really need to use a HRM with a chest strap for the most accurate readings........
  • cNhobbes
    cNhobbes Posts: 235 Member
    Options
    if you can't or don't want to get a heart rate monitor i would definitely go with MFP's number. i've found it to be pretty close to what my HRM says but the machines are usually WAAAY off. especially the elliptical
  • jazgold
    jazgold Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    I am trying to use my HRM more regularly. After exercising for 40 min. I 'adjust' the time I record in MFP so that it is recording that same number of calories. Unfortunately, that 40 min. is recorded as 10 or 15. Depressing, but hopefully I am getting the calories right, so I don't overeat thinking I had burned more.
  • jazgold
    jazgold Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    BTW, I have a Polar FT 7. I cannot get it to work when I swim. I even put the watch in a baggie so it would not get wet, but that did not work, either.

Categories