MFP Calorie burns

cocobongo

Apologies as I know this is much discussed but I can't find the answer to my question.

The general consensus on the forum seems to be that MFP widely over estimates calorie burns and you should half them. If this is the case, whilst it's a little disheartening then ok, I will start to halve them.

However... MFP gives me around 180 cals for 25 mins Circuit Training - which is how I log T25. Elsewhere on the web people with HR monitors seem to claim to burn over 300. So I stuck with 180 thinking if anything I'm under estimating - is it really possible that I only burn around 90 cals and that everyone else is over estimating by 3-4x as much?

Same goes with walking - I log the MFP calories which are usually crazy low anyway and definitely lower than RunKeeper says - so again I thought I was probably under estimating. For example I logged a 90 min 4 mile walk at 200 cals, Run Keeper said it would be 313 and someone on my newsfeed logged 1000 for the same distance/pace/time which was apparently in accordance to a Fitbit but sounds impossibly high. Again I thought by using the MFP one which is the lowest I was erring on the side of caution but do I really log only 100 which is 1/3 of the Run Keeper amount and 1/10th of what others seem to be logging.

These are just two examples but I basically see everyone else on my feed burning 400 - 1100 a day and I'm there logging around 200-300 and now thinking I should only be logging 100 if halving MFP cals? Which seems cruelly low for the intensity of my workouts?

brianpperkins

MFP is off on some, correct on some, and completely dependent upon subjective self assessment of effort level quite a few exercises. The inaccuracies apply to HRM wear as well since those devices are only programmed and designed for a narrow range of steady state cardio activities and miscalculate caloric burn for every thing else, including wildly inflated numbers for intervals.

Most apps report total calories burned, not net from exercise.

The reality is that for walking and running, the caloric burn has little to do with speed and more to to with weight and distance. For lifting, to include circuits, there aren't trackers or apps that accurately account for all of the variables.

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

drs64

First, you can't compare how much you burn from doing xx excersize for xx minutes to someone else on your feed doing the same thing, because different factors are at play. For example, if you weigh more, you burn more, simple. So if a a 125lb person and a 225lb person do the same activity for the same time, the larger individual with burn more.

Second, a lot of people use the "eat back half" rule to account for not only *possible* overestimation of calorie burns, but also for *possible, but extremely likely* underestimation of calories consumed. Since calories burned from excerise, and calorie goals are all estimations and based on averages, eating back half give you a little bit of a buffer to work against the hidden calories and such.

Third, a heart rate monitor is a good investment in that it will greatly increase the accuracy of your calorie burns, for sustained activity exercises. It estimates your calorie burn, by estimating the rate at which you use oxygen from the increase in heart rate (notice how many times I said estimate?). Activities that have sustained action, such as running/walking/biking would get fairly good estimates. Weight lifting, for example, which has a lot of starts/stops/rests would have very skewed numbers on a HRM since your heart rate would still be elevated, but you're not doing anything.

Lastly, even with a HRM, you'll find that the calories you burn for an activity decrease over time because a) if you lose weigh, you burn less and b) as you get in better cardiovascular shape your heart rate will take longer to get elevated to the same degree, or just won't get raised up as much at all. For example, when I first started out running my HR would be in the 180s from 2 minutes on. Now, I peak at 170, after having run for 30 minutes.


The best way to figure out how much you actually burn and what you should/can do with your exercise calories, is pick a plan (0%, 50%, 100%) and stick with it for 4 weeks. At the end of the 4 weeks, find out how much weight you've lost and use it to find the average weight lost per week. Then, with a bit of math, you can find your average deficit (since 1 lb is a 3500 calorie deficit per week), and you can find out how much extra you burned.

Best of Luck

cocobongo

drs64 wrote: »

The best way to figure out how much you actually burn and what you should/can do with your exercise calories, is pick a plan (0%, 50%, 100%) and stick with it for 4 weeks. At the end of the 4 weeks, find out how much weight you've lost and use it to find the average weight lost per week. Then, with a bit of math, you can find your average deficit (since 1 lb is a 3500 calorie deficit per week), and you can find out how much extra you burned.

Best of Luck

Excellent plan! I have been eating back I'd say between 75%-100% since January. I have been consistently losing weight so I'm not looking to change anything as such it just started to feel abut disheartening logging my calorie burns compared to seemingly everyone else on my timeline.

I will stick at 75% for the next 4 weeks and workout from there - such a good idea. It's more curiosity at this stage rather than a problem but I would hate to be over estimating and it made me worried that I had been logging double what I should all this time that I thought I was logging less than what I had actually burned.