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

Options
2»

Replies

  • 4schrocks
    4schrocks Posts: 42 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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: 756 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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.
  • paulwgun
    paulwgun Posts: 439 Member
    Options
    Go with a polar HRM i use ft4 as do most on here and find it really good a slightly more expensive model ft7 is also widely used on here
  • lgschutt
    lgschutt Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    I have a FitBit Ultra, that does distance,steps taken, floors climbed and calories burned. It will sync wirelessly with MFP. How does a HRM compare to the FItBit and I didn't know that a HRM gave you calorie burn. Thanks!
  • imcatbear
    imcatbear Posts: 38
    Options
    I'm a fan of the Polar brand HRM, any one with a chest strap.

    My gym also offers tests that can calculate your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) and tell you how many calories you burn at what heart rate/zone based on the amount of oxygen you burn while breathing.

    I always wondered why I wasn't losing weight when I would start out new diets. It turns out that I need to eat more than the average person just to maintain my weight. The calories that MFP tells me I should eat to lose is low (not completely off, but still low). Also, in my case, MFP is too low on how many calories it says I burn during exercise.
  • eilmeister
    eilmeister Posts: 37
    Options
    I would disagree with most, MFP in almost all instances has been within 10% of what my HRM is saying.

    I second that. It seems to me that the MFP numbers are not too far off, at least for standard exercises like running. I've been comparing the calorie burn from my chest strap HRM to the MFP numbers for a few weeks now. I don't use Runkeeper, but I've mapped my most frequent runs in Google Earth, so I have a pretty good idea of my speed and pace. I've found that when I use the MFP entry that most closely matches my running speed, the numbers are pretty much SPOT ON compared to my HRM. It's usually within a range of +/- 5 calories for a 30 minute run. So I do have some faith in the MFP numbers for running. This is for a 5'7" male who weighs about 170 lbs currently. I do all of my running outside, on mixed terrain, surfaces and inclines.

    I think that an HRM and the MFP estimate, which takes into account your gender, age, height and weight, should both be closer to the truth than a gym machine running in generic mode (without knowing your data).

Categories