Do you use calories burned on the gym machine or on mfp?

IsleEsme
IsleEsme Posts: 175 Member
edited December 25 in Fitness and Exercise
For cardio I prefer the ellipitical machine at the gym. Normally when I get on it I press "quick start" and go. I've been logging it into mfp and for instance today mfp said I burned 446 calories in 35 minutes. Today at the gym I took the time to enter my weight and time and I was suprised at the end of 35 minutes it said I burned 291 calories, not 446 that mfp says. In that 35 minutes I went almost 4 miles at a level 7, that's a decent pace. So do I log 291 calories burned or 446? I'm concerned because I hope that mfp isn't also inflating the calories burned when I log in other cardio like walking outside or running on our local school track.

I want to keep it honest. I've been doing great about logging in every calorie so I really want my cardio to be acurate as well. Advice?
«1

Replies

  • LeenaRuns
    LeenaRuns Posts: 1,309 Member
    I tend to go with whatever is lower, just to be safe.
  • gatecityradio
    gatecityradio Posts: 401
    I usually go with the machine because it's physically there. MFP is usually just a wild guess it seems.
  • hounds726
    hounds726 Posts: 63
    Honestly, I would invest in a heart rate monitor! It is the best way to know! I find that both the machines and MFP are off considerably. If you would rather not spend the 50-60 dollars, do with the lower amount to be safe :) Happy logging!
  • misscristie
    misscristie Posts: 643 Member
    Get a heart rate monitor if you can. I find that MFP either grossly inflates or deflates my calories burned for activities. It's never even close. The machines are close, but they're picking my heartrate from my HRM.
  • SueMizZou
    SueMizZou Posts: 139 Member
    I use the machine calories. MFP seems very high. I'd rather not overeat so I go with the lower number.
  • ARDuBaie
    ARDuBaie Posts: 378 Member
    If you want a really accurate read of how many calories you are burning, you need to get a heart rate monitor (HRM). I have the same problem because I use a treadmill at home and a LifeFitness treadmill at the gym and they both give me different readings. But the LifeFitness takes into account my weight and the my home one does not. MFP comes out close to my home treadmill. I do believe that when weight is taken into consideration, it is the more accurate one, but to really know what you are burning you need a HRM.
  • staceyseeger
    staceyseeger Posts: 778 Member
    Get a heart rate monitor if you can. I find that MFP either grossly inflates or deflates my calories burned for activities. It's never even close. The machines are close, but they're picking my heartrate from my HRM.

    ^^^ I agree^^^
  • Cal28
    Cal28 Posts: 514 Member
    The most accurate way is a HRM. Polar FT4 is widely liked and not too expensive. Otherwise go with whatever is lowest... especially if you're eating the cals back

    I slogged my *kitten* of at RPM/Spinning class for 50 mins today, left soaking wet and had only burned 513kcal on my HRM (just for an idea, but everyone is different which is why your own HRM would be best) xx
  • kristineevans
    kristineevans Posts: 56 Member
    Mfp tells me that I burn on a 2 hour walk 100 cals more than my heart rate monitor so I would def go with the lowest as even Mfp can read a little high!
  • KarenJanine
    KarenJanine Posts: 3,497 Member
    I previously tended to think the machines would be more acurate and so was using those figures, but when I got my HRM I discovered the MFP figures were actually a bit closer.

    MFP gives calorie approximations based on gender / height / weight / age etc. whereas the gym machine will just give a number based on an average person, rather than an average person of your age / weight etc.
  • IsleEsme
    IsleEsme Posts: 175 Member
    Thanks for the advice about he HRM! I'll be investing in one asap! Polar FT4 is the only one mentioned. Anyone else have brands they like?

    Loving this forum :)
  • mazasmusings
    mazasmusings Posts: 74 Member
    I can't justify the expense of a heart rate monitor, so I usually go with the lower.
  • Strive2BLean
    Strive2BLean Posts: 300 Member
    Sorry to tell you but I have found both MFP and the gym machines wrong on calorie amounts burned. (They are both inflated). I learned this after purchasing my Polar FT4 heart rate monitor. Now whenever I workout I wear the monitor for a true calories burned. It's worth the investment to purchase one.
  • didianadop
    didianadop Posts: 4
    I have an exercise plan and just do that. It doesn't matter how many calories it burns.
  • mtaylor1980
    mtaylor1980 Posts: 134 Member
    I agree with everyone about the HRM. I still have not bought one myself, but it is on the top of my wishlist!!!! In the meantime, I would go with what your machine says, since you put in your stats and all. MFP has been known to over estimate! The 200 something sounds about accurate for the level and time that you did on the elliptical.
  • munchlaxx
    munchlaxx Posts: 102 Member
    I check my pulse, mentally log it and enter all necessary info here when I get home: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    It's a minor annoyance, since it is an extra step...but at the moment I can't invest in a HRM. :blushing:

    I've already gotten used to the average I burn for 60 mins of Spinning or 4.0 walking...so I can log those in without the extra step. :tongue:
  • TrishaGuy
    TrishaGuy Posts: 63
    I agree the HRM is the best way to go although on somethings my HRM and MFP are pretty close. If you don't use a HRM go with the lower numbers. I also use Nike+ on my phone for walking and running (it is pretty close to the HRM) so if you can get that app on your phone it is helpful. Good luck and just remember no matter what the numbers say if you are moving you are burning ....keep up the good work :)
  • jdavis193
    jdavis193 Posts: 972 Member
    For cardio I prefer the ellipitical machine at the gym. Normally when I get on it I press "quick start" and go. I've been logging it into mfp and for instance today mfp said I burned 446 calories in 35 minutes. Today at the gym I took the time to enter my weight and time and I was suprised at the end of 35 minutes it said I burned 291 calories, not 446 that mfp says. In that 35 minutes I went almost 4 miles at a level 7, that's a decent pace. So do I log 291 calories burned or 446? I'm concerned because I hope that mfp isn't also inflating the calories burned when I log in other cardio like walking outside or running on our local school track.

    I want to keep it honest. I've been doing great about logging in every calorie so I really want my cardio to be acurate as well. Advice?


    NOt all of the machines are accurate. I have a HRM. I did the elliptical for 30 mintes yesterday at a 7 intensity and incline was at a 7 and 10 and I burned 342 cals.
  • annieu613
    annieu613 Posts: 143 Member
    I use my own HRM. I find that both the machines and MFP greatly overestimate how many calories I'm burning.
  • LCFulmer
    LCFulmer Posts: 183 Member
    I wear my heart rate monitor whenever I'm working out... even when lifting weights. That's the best way captured calories burned.
  • 4schrocks
    4schrocks Posts: 42 Member
    Thanks for the advice about he HRM! I'll be investing in one asap! Polar FT4 is the only one mentioned. Anyone else have brands they like?

    Loving this forum :)

    I too love my Polar FT4!!
  • Rockmyskinnyjeans
    Rockmyskinnyjeans Posts: 431 Member
    I wear a HRM for everything, but I usually just post the generic calories that MFP has unless it's something MFP doesn't have in their system, then I add accordingly. I don't find the 2 to be that far off on me, but I have a tendency to get my heart rate going pretty good on anything I do. Polar FT4!
  • Misslisat
    Misslisat Posts: 203 Member
    I would definitely go with the machine. I always enter my weight and age to get a more accurate number. MFP numbers can't possibly know your heart rate, age, weight, etc.
  • athensguy
    athensguy Posts: 550
    A machine that asks your weight and uses it in the calorie computation is going to be more accurate than a HRM.

    The way MFP calculates cardio calories, however, is pretty useless. Time and weight is not enough information to provide even a rough guess of calories burned.
  • Emancipated_Tai
    Emancipated_Tai Posts: 751 Member
    Invest in a good HRM. The machines & the MFP database are both grossly inaccurate. For example, I did a machine last night which told me I burned over 100 calories more than my HRM said. Then when I went to log it MFP gave me about 100 calories less than my HRM.. so investing in one is a great idea!
  • kbd388
    kbd388 Posts: 125 Member
    Hi, I did an experiment last week and this is what I found:

    HRM with chest strap - more than twice as high as the machine (I'm returning my HRM)
    Pedometer - 100 calories higher than the machine
    MFP - almost right on with the machine

    The treadmill I use doesn't ask for my weight. The HRM and pedometer do.

    I've been using my pedometer to track calories for months now and have decided I am going to average the pedometer and machine (or MFP #) and then just eat 200 or so back.

    Good luck!
  • DisneyAddictRW
    DisneyAddictRW Posts: 800 Member
    I tend to go with whatever is lower, just to be safe.

    I did this till I got a body bugg.
  • katapple
    katapple Posts: 1,108 Member
    Any Polar product would do. They ask for your information in the set up (height, weight, age, sex); combined with the chest strap, they are pretty accurate. Machines are always 100-200 calories more than what my HRM says. I have an FT7
  • Mom_To_5
    Mom_To_5 Posts: 646 Member
    I have a HRM and go by that, if you want an accurate rate i suggest getting one :) I have a Ploar F6 and LOVE it. My treadmill only asks for weight, where my HRM asks weight, age, sex. And when i first bought it and compared it to my treadmill, my treadmill was always way more and same withthe one at the gym.
  • jones137
    jones137 Posts: 89 Member
    A machine that asks your weight and uses it in the calorie computation is going to be more accurate than a HRM.

    The way MFP calculates cardio calories, however, is pretty useless. Time and weight is not enough information to provide even a rough guess of calories burned.

    You put all your info (Weight, Age, Height) into a HRM as well. THe HRM is going to be more accurate than the machine given the method that your pulse is taken (chest strap versus hand).

    I would disagree with most, MFP in almost all instances has been within 10% of what my HRM is saying.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories