MFP caloric burns...always overestimated?

Options
mom2ava07
mom2ava07 Posts: 186 Member
edited February 2015 in Health and Weight Loss
Every day I see numerous mentions of something along the lines of "MFP overestimate calories burned during exercise." My question is why does everyone say that?

For example, I typically do 60 minutes on the treadmill at 4 mph and 4 percent incline. MFP typically says I burn approx 375 calories for that. Yet if I enter my stats (gender, height, weight, the length of time, incline, and speed) I get closer to 475 calories by those estimates. So to me it seems that either MFP either underestimates or is pretty spot on. Why is the assumption made its usually very off? I don't think 375 seems exessive for an hours worth of very brisk pace walking. According to the machine, I'm burning around 800 calories, so I could see that being WAY off. I'm not disputing the overestimatuon, simply wanting clairification on what is the most accurate. I don't have a Fitbit amd I really don't know that I would trust their accuracy either.
«1

Replies

  • 4legsRbetterthan2
    4legsRbetterthan2 Posts: 19,590 MFP Moderator
    Options
    best way to estimate cardio burns is a heart rate monitor

    I have found my fitbit and runkeeper app to be pretty in sync with a HRM for outdoor activity, not so much on the treadmill since they can't track "elevation" changes that way

    MFP is not necessarily alway overestimated, but the entries are pretty generic for alot of exercises
  • joneallen
    joneallen Posts: 217 Member
    Options
    I wear a Polar heart rate monitor, and it's MUCH different than the number MFP spits out for me.

    Accuracy is the key.
  • mom2ava07
    mom2ava07 Posts: 186 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    I'm only eating back very few (as in 150 or less most days) so I think I'm ok, but just found it confusing since all the online calculators seem to give a higher number than MFP.
  • DsAdvocate
    DsAdvocate Posts: 93 Member
    Options
    For me, compared to my heart rate monitor thing MFP is quite a bit off for jogging and horseback riding. MFP gives me 2-300 fewer calories than my watch says I've burned.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    My experience is that MFP gives a number in the ballpark of what a heart rate monitor gives me. I think people prefer to say that MFP is wrong over saying that even after spending so much time weighing their food that they are overestimating their calorie intake.
  • mom2ava07
    mom2ava07 Posts: 186 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    My experience is that MFP gives a number in the ballpark of what a heart rate monitor gives me. I think people prefer to say that MFP is wrong over saying that even after spending so much time weighing their food that they are overestimating their calorie intake.


    Sounds like a plausible theory.
  • mindidily
    mindidily Posts: 196 Member
    Options
    I used to only use MFP to log my runs. I later started using a GPS watch without a HRM and now use a GPS watch with the chest strap. When I log my time and average pace, all three have typically been within 75-80 calories of each other. To me, that isn't a big over/under estimate.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Options
    It's pretty close for me, for the activities that I do.
  • obscuremusicreference
    obscuremusicreference Posts: 1,320 Member
    Options
    I eat less than half of my exercise calories and am losing at a faster rate than MFP suggests I should be, so I suspect in my case they're close to accurate. (MFP says I should lose 1.3 pounds/week, I have lost 9 pounds since January 1)
  • NikonPal
    NikonPal Posts: 1,346 Member
    Options
    MFP has been pretty darn close in calculating my burn. For example - today the difference between MFP and the number on the treadmill I use - there was only a 1 calorie difference.

    73641431.png
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    Options
    I find it to be spot on for me. The best thing to do is follow your plan for 4 weeks and adjust if needed based on your results.
  • JessicaP327
    JessicaP327 Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    MFP numbers have NEVER been accurate for me. The only way I know what is going on is with a reliable heart rate monitor. I have the Polar FT4. I was against the chest strap but I had a few friends with it and spoke highly of it. I will never exercise without it again.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    Yes, a lot of people claim that. A lot of people also claim HRMs are more accurate, but they are simply assuming it is. HRMs have limited use and they are just like anything else, based on averages.

    Here is a good blog that may help answer your question -
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak?month=201201

    For certain exercises, it can be fairly accurate. Bascially, the more specific it is, the more accurate it will likely be. Things like walking are fairly reliable as long as you have time and distance.

    Also useful blog regarding HRMs
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

    As for me, for a long time I used only MFP entries and lost weight accordingly.
  • mudmonkeyonwheels
    mudmonkeyonwheels Posts: 426 Member
    Options
    I often wonder if the 'overestimate' comes from people not estimating their intensity correctly. For example, I see quite a few people log a very brisk walk. Even when I am walking as fast as I possibly can, then enter my walk in map my ride to calculate speed I am only at a moderate walking speed according to MFP. The same goes for people estimating their running or cycling speed. Although you may feel you are working really hard it doesn't always equate to calories burned. Heart rate monitors are the way to go but I find that mine gives me very similar estimate to MFP for mountain biking and spin class.
  • Khukhullatus
    Khukhullatus Posts: 361 Member
    Options
    The calorie information on the machines are horrible too, even if they have all of your relevant stats, they tend to overestimate; sometimes by hundreds of calories. If you want something that is more accurate, a heart rate monitor is going to be your best bet.

    Every time I've used my heart rate monitor MFP has been over by, in some cases, double. It's cool for some basic tracking of exercise, but if you are going to be eating back the calories, or relying on the data for some other reason, get the heart rate monitor.
  • 970Mikaela1
    970Mikaela1 Posts: 2,013 Member
    Options
    Works for me.
  • MlleKelly
    MlleKelly Posts: 356 Member
    Options
    I would say just don't enter your exercise into MFP and keep your consumed calories as close as possible to your goal.
  • mom2ava07
    mom2ava07 Posts: 186 Member
    Options
    MlleKelly wrote: »
    I would say just don't enter your exercise into MFP and keep your consumed calories as close as possible to your goal.


    That is basically what I'm doing, but gets hard to stay on track though with 1200 calories. Today I've eaten 1245, and will do an hour on the treadmill which MFP will give me approx 345 for . Even if it's overestimated, I wouldn't be eating back many at all.
  • techgal128
    techgal128 Posts: 719 Member
    Options
    I have a similar device to a fitbit and I find that it overestimates with cardio and underestimates with weight training.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »
    The calorie information on the machines are horrible too, even if they have all of your relevant stats, they tend to overestimate; sometimes by hundreds of calories. If you want something that is more accurate, a heart rate monitor is going to be your best bet.

    Every time I've used my heart rate monitor MFP has been over by, in some cases, double. It's cool for some basic tracking of exercise, but if you are going to be eating back the calories, or relying on the data for some other reason, get the heart rate monitor.

    Again, you are assuming the HRM is the correct information. In some cases it may be, but that it is not necessarily.

Categories