is mfp excersice burnt calories calculation accurate?

martides90

Hi everyone!

Is the calculation accurate? If yes, shall I eat the amount of calories I burnt...only the half?


Thanks.

yarwell

very variable in my experience, for example walking up a slope uses more calories than walking along the flat according to my Polar HRM but MFP calls both "walking".

The MFP calorie numbers don't say whether they include the 1-2 calories per minute that is already accounted for in your BMR and activity level. I subtract this from my HRM calories.

Eating half back is one approach to compensate for this. If your primary goal is weight loss the whole "eating back" thing may not work for you anyway.

acpgee

I don't trust MFP numbers for exercise. My workout is 65 minutes on the elliptical with a target heart rate of 140. I sprint for 20 seconds if my HR gets too low;

HRM: 540 cals
Machine: 780 cals
MFP: 926 cals

I trust the HRM.

Tubbytucka

I enter my exercise time into 4 websites - mfp, strava, garmin and sportstracklive (not that I'm obsessed or anything...) and they give four different amounts of cals burned. I'd take MFP's with a grain of salt, and I suspect that strava (usually the lowest) is more correct.

TarshCooper001

No.. a heart rate monitor is the closest you will get to an accurate calorie burn calculation. Invest in one.. it makes a huge difference!

nikilis

on a scale of one to ten...... NO!

kimosabe1

They are incorrect-that is why I only eat half of my exercise calories back.........

JacquiMayCrook

I think it can be used as a guide.

I tend to only eat back a portion of the calories I earn through exercise (a third to a half, depending on how many treats I feel I can live without.) I know I could be stricter with myself, but it is working slowly but surely, and I don't count any calories I burn in my very manual job, whereas some people count EVERYTHING!:huh:

markdavies120

as been said previously. Only a HRM which includes a Cal counter is going to give you the closest to an accurate figure you can get. Others just consider at a generic best guess. an entry level HRM / Cal counter such as the Polar FT4 is a good starting point without a massive outlay in cost if you are looking to get a pretty accurate read.

CarlKRobbo

I hope not, otherwise my Rock climbing really was 2844 Calories Saturday, and my Weekly Kickboxing is 1145 Per session!!

If that was the case I'd be loosing half a stone a week. I'm not.

I'd take it down to about a third of what it says at least.

LeanneGoingThin

The MFP calorie numbers don't say whether they include the 1-2 calories per minute that is already accounted for in your BMR and activity level. I subtract this from my HRM calories.

That's a tricky thing indeed. It's why I stopped eating back my exercise calories.

AnguishLanguish

I don't trust MFP calorie burnt calculations, I'm yet to get a HRM so I tend to take off about 10-15minutes from my total time to make it a bit more realistic.

falnangel1205

The only way to get accurate calories burned is by using a HRM. The cals burned that the machines at the gym, never match what is on the Heart Rate Monitor, and surely what is on here isnt going to be as accurate, as a heart rate monitor is the only thing that can accruately detect your heart rate, continuously...and how fast your Heart is beating is what helps to determine cals that you burn.

drefaw

I put the specific exercise I'm doing that day into 4 different calculators. Get the average for them, then subtract 25% from that.....And mainly because I weight train, so I only use calcs that are specifically made to figure by muscle group worked and various other data .......


I have figured out, that even as intense as I keep my weight training every day, I only burn about an avg. of 300 - 360 cals/hr while weight training...MFP will try and give you almost twice that ......

glovepuppet

the energy it takes to run a 300 pound body around the track is going to be considerably more than it takes to rin a 100 pound body around the track. no, one standard burn for any set of exercises is not going to be accurate.

Joehenny

Hell no, not even close lol. I only log exercise out of habit on here and because it helps with routine. Get a hrm.

pinkraynedropjacki

I did a workout yesterday that got me 605 cals burnt via my heart rate monitor..... put the time spent & what it was into MFP & it gave me 1130 burnt for the exact same amount of time.....


I think I'd halve it. But then I trust my HRM 100%

sylo1609

the energy it takes to run a 300 pound body around the track is going to be considerably more than it takes to rin a 100 pound body around the track. no, one standard burn for any set of exercises is not going to be accurate.

Which is why MFP adapts the displayed number of burnt calories according to your body weight.
Still not always accurate though.

BoogeyBrat

Eh, I don't take it as gospel. I kind of just use it as an idea of what I may have burned. Besides, I'm not clocking my 'brisk walk' to make sure I'm actually doing 3.5 miles an hour steadily. I'm not a robot. I walk pretty fast pretty consistently, but I also slow down to go around stuff that might be in my way, speed up even faster if I'm in a hurry and I might stop all together for a couple seconds if I drop something or stumble. For the just the unpredictability factor involved I don't think it could truly be exactly 200 calories burnt each 40 minute walk for me.

LilMissDB

There is no realistic way to accurately measure calories burnt. I personally would just use MFP and then eat as many of them as I decided to eat and adjust based on my results.

glovepuppet

the energy it takes to run a 300 pound body around the track is going to be considerably more than it takes to rin a 100 pound body around the track. no, one standard burn for any set of exercises is not going to be accurate.

Which is why MFP adapts the displayed number of burnt calories according to your body weight.
Still not always accurate though.

i just put my weight up to 300 pounds, well over double my weight, and it showed the same 69 cals for a 6 minute run as it did before. so, unless there's a time delay on mfp adjusting to new weight (which doesn't seem likely, as my cals went up straight away) then that seems unlikely.

shannashannabobana

Eating half back is one approach to compensate for this.

That's generally what I do. I think some are more accurate than others (walking slowly, for instance) while others (biking) are kind of insane.

NicolleLindgren

I have the RunWithMe app on my phone and use that for tracking my calories burned while walking/jogging. It takes into account height, weight, speed, and if you're running uphill. Not as accurate as using a HRM, but I don't have one yet. Still way more accurate (IMO) than MFP. I still use the database for some things if I'm in a hurry, but I don't rely on its accuracy.

martides90

In fact I heard that heart rate is the best way to know how many calories you burnt. Thanks for your comment.

nilbogger

They don't seem accurate from what I see friends logging. I have a FitBit and I just let that adjust MFP calories.