How Accurate is the Exersise logging for MFP on Terms Of Calories Burned?

StormiLu
StormiLu Posts: 211 Member
edited November 9 in Health and Weight Loss
Wondering if the MFP Exercise Part is as Accurate as it Says In terms of Calories Burned?

Replies

  • ValerieMartini2Olives
    ValerieMartini2Olives Posts: 3,024 Member
    edited December 2014
    Not at all. Approximate 50% of what is being offered and even that is probably too high. Invest in a heart rate monitor.
  • myheartsabattleground
    myheartsabattleground Posts: 2,040 Member
    It depends if you have a Fitbit or HRM.
  • amcook4
    amcook4 Posts: 561 Member
    In my experience, it isn't accurate at all. A lot of others feel the same way, general consensus, it tends to about double what you actually burned. I use a HRM for cardio, it gives a much better (and lower) calorie burn.
  • StormiLu
    StormiLu Posts: 211 Member
    What HMR do ya'll Recommend?
  • StormiLu
    StormiLu Posts: 211 Member
    HRM
  • amcook4
    amcook4 Posts: 561 Member
    It depends on what you are looking for and how much money you want to spend. Most tend to be pretty good, just get one with a chest strap, it won't be 100% accurate, but it will be more accurate than anything else
  • higgins8283801
    higgins8283801 Posts: 844 Member
    I don't think it is that far off.
    I did 30 minutes on the elliptical, according to my HRM, I burned 307. when I went to plug the exercise in; MFP gave me 287. Which was pretty dang close to what I got. I just used 287 and called it a day.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    I really think it depends on the individual and the activity. For me, it was always almost bang on for walking, circuit training, and aerobics, but off for running because I'm not very good at it and wasn't putting in the same effort that the site predicted.

    A bought a Polar FT4 to double-check my calorie burns and was honestly kind of disappointed by how close the two estimates were.
  • jessupbrady
    jessupbrady Posts: 508 Member
    I bought my wife the Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor - she likes it and it's around $55 on amazon. Doesn't hurt that I got it in pink/purple for her (it's the colors she uses for her horse).
  • esjones12
    esjones12 Posts: 1,363 Member
    I cut the time in half that I actually do the exercise when logging. It's been working for me weight loss wise. And it keeps my energy level up just fine.
  • Paul_Collyer
    Paul_Collyer Posts: 160 Member
    I think its ok for running, from what I remember. But then some stuff like "stretching" gives numbers that just aren't remotely born out when using a HRM, and I think walking is overestimated too.

    That said, I used the MFP database exclusively for my first 9 months on MFP and lost 20kg, using a relatively small calorie deficit, so it can't be all bad. But when I came back on here to lose the next 5kg, I found it far easier once I started using Garmin vivofit/620 for active calorie measurement. I think that's because as you become just slightly overweight the margins are just far more important.
  • NoelFigart1
    NoelFigart1 Posts: 1,276 Member
    Not very. It seriously overestimates my calorie burn on swimming, if my weight loss really is 3500 calories a pound over several months.
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    It depends. I found it accurate enough-- I ate back every calorie and lost weight at the expected rate. Others find it way off. The best thing to do imo is to choose a method (say to eat back 3/4 of the calories burned) and then evaluate your results after a month and adjust as needed.
  • sheepotato
    sheepotato Posts: 600 Member
    edited December 2014
    I found it to be far too high for me, I use a polarft4 because it's affordable and seems to be pretty accurate but I and still treat it as an estimate. (It seems high for walking (could be that I'm nervous when I walk), but it seems pretty accurate for swimming and elliptical) Make sure that you keep your weight updated in your HRM as you lose so your estimates stay on target.

    You can adjust your calorie deficit or eat back less than your estimate if you find that your weight loss isn't adding up. (-500 calories a day is a pound a week)

    Also, make sure you are not double counting your exercise. (IE if you work at a desk job but put yourself as 'lightly active' because you do cardio 3 times a week then that exercise is already built into your suggested calories.) If your activities vary greatly by day, I've found it's helpful to set to sedimentary and log all my exercise as I do it.

    I used to have a fitbit sync'd and it added extra calories but it seemed to give me too much for simple things like cooking or shopping and it even added calories to my day while I slept. (because I wore it on my wrist to track sleep)
  • karyabc
    karyabc Posts: 830 Member
    jessupbrady wrote: »
    I bought my wife the Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor - she likes it and it's around $55 on amazon. Doesn't hurt that I got it in pink/purple for her (it's the colors she uses for her horse).

    lord where do they keep the sweet husband type!? + is that your dog ? #Loveit <3
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2014
    Paul_Collyer wrote: »
    I think its ok for running, from what I remember. But then some stuff like "stretching" gives numbers that just aren't remotely born out when using a HRM, and I think walking is overestimated too.

    Yeah, it's funny how people have different experiences. I ended up using Runkeeper for running, but it was about the same as my HRM and MFP and the calculations, and I ate back most of my run calories back when I ate back calories and never had an issue. On the other hand, I didn't eat them all back for really long runs (since it simply wasn't possible), and that's what I think tends to get overstated, since it probably doesn't take into account what you would have been eating for that same time period.

    Calories for circuit training or elliptical seem insane to me (based on personal experience) and I've always cut them by half or simply left significant margins when eating them back.

    Mostly I just assume they are a rough estimate, which is one reason I tend to prefer the TDEE approach, although I did find that Fitbit was pretty much spot on when I was logging.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    I don't think it is as far off as some people think. They're using the standard multipliers that everyone else is. When compared to a HRM, the HRM does give me a slightly lower number, but only slightly. Obviously, some people are going to accomplish the same task with a lower heart rate than others. A person who is more skilled in an activity will likely burn fewer calories than one who is more skilled, all else being equal.

    But also, consider that MFP is already counting calories to account for calories burned doing normal activities. (approximately 70 calories per hour) The exercise calories include those calories in addition to the additional calories burned by the increased activity. If the activity burns 320 calories per hour, then a person should only add 250 calories per hour in their diary.
  • jessupbrady
    jessupbrady Posts: 508 Member
    karyabc wrote: »
    lord where do they keep the sweet husband type!? + is that your dog ? #Loveit <3
    + Actually, my wife's dog - It was her part of her birthday. Sweet husband? I'll tell my wife that so she can laugh. My super power is sarcasm so it cuts back on the 'sweet' factor.

  • sheepotato
    sheepotato Posts: 600 Member
    NoelFigart1 wrote: »
    Not very. It seriously overestimates my calorie burn on swimming, if my weight loss really is 3500 calories a pound over several months.

    I found mfp to be very high for swimming estimates too.

    For 50 minutes of breastroke it gives me 1108 calories, my HRM gives me 516 on a good day.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    sheepotato wrote: »
    NoelFigart1 wrote: »
    Not very. It seriously overestimates my calorie burn on swimming, if my weight loss really is 3500 calories a pound over several months.

    I found mfp to be very high for swimming estimates too.

    For 50 minutes of breastroke it gives me 1108 calories, my HRM gives me 516 on a good day.

    That sounds like a challenge to up your intensity.
  • sheepotato
    sheepotato Posts: 600 Member
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    sheepotato wrote: »
    NoelFigart1 wrote: »
    Not very. It seriously overestimates my calorie burn on swimming, if my weight loss really is 3500 calories a pound over several months.

    I found mfp to be very high for swimming estimates too.

    For 50 minutes of breastroke it gives me 1108 calories, my HRM gives me 516 on a good day.

    That sounds like a challenge to up your intensity.

    I'm 7 months pregnant, upping my intensity can wait. I am proud of myself each day for just getting in the pool at this point.
  • karyabc
    karyabc Posts: 830 Member
    jessupbrady wrote: »
    karyabc wrote: »
    lord where do they keep the sweet husband type!? + is that your dog ? #Loveit <3
    + Actually, my wife's dog - It was her part of her birthday. Sweet husband? I'll tell my wife that so she can laugh. My super power is sarcasm so it cuts back on the 'sweet' factor.

    ummm come on! the HRM and the dog i mean you pretty much ace it there- Lol B) they flag on us, really amount of awesomeness here
This discussion has been closed.

Categories