Be careful with MFP calorie estimates - don't work for everyone

Options
IAmDrDirt
IAmDrDirt Posts: 2 Member
in Goal: Maintaining Weight
My goal is to maintain my weight. If I eat according to MFP, I gain weight. If I eat according to My Tracks, I maintain.
MFP or MapMyRide consistently estimate my calories burned during a bike ride by 200% to 350%.
For example, I rode 41 minutes today, 16-20 mph, and MFP imported from MapMyRide that I burned 632 calories; MyTracks estimated my calories as 186. Both apps use the GPS in my smartphone, track the same distance, same time, and same speed.
Another day I rode 21 miles in 98 minutes, averaging 12.9 mph. MFP estimates my calorie consumption at 955, while My Tracks reports 403.
Another day I rode 21 miles in 120 minutes, averaging 10.5 mph. MFP estimates my calorie consumption at 877, while My Tracks reports 420.
«13

Replies

  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,590 Member
    Options
    Interesting! Il'l go look at that.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    I'm assuming you burn less on the stationary bike vs a real bike, but going at 15mph for 45 minutes, I only burn 220 calories (on the stationary bike). I see people logging 600 calories for 60 minutes and I just shake my head... it really doesn't burn as much as people think (maybe if they have a lot of resistance added, but I tried once and frankly the difference wasn't that great).
  • kisses71213
    kisses71213 Posts: 97 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    I'm assuming you burn less on the stationary bike vs a real bike, but going at 15mph for 45 minutes, I only burn 220 calories (on the stationary bike). I see people logging 600 calories for 60 minutes and I just shake my head... it really doesn't burn as much as people think (maybe if they have a lot of resistance added, but I tried once and frankly the difference wasn't that great).

    This is exactly it. You use your core muscles on a real bike which burns tons of calories because you're constantly balancing and steering, etc. Where as stationary is very easy on the muscles and only focuses on leg movement.
  • kisses71213
    kisses71213 Posts: 97 Member
    Options
    That is why you always see super fit lean hard-core real life bikers, and usually overweight people on the stationary bike. Total difference!
  • mangrothian
    mangrothian Posts: 1,351 Member
    Options
    It's definitely something most people have noticed about MFP's burn estimates. It's why in many threads posters suggest that you only eat back 50-75% of your Cals to account for that overestimation.

    In the end, no burn estimator is going to be accurate for you, since they have to go off stereotypical people for the burn rates, and each one would use a different calculator, etc.
  • PokeyBug
    PokeyBug Posts: 482 Member
    Options
    I think I learned the first week that the MFP estimators aren't accurate for me. I found different calculators to estimate my calories burned for my different exercises (treadmill walking and Callanetics) according to my weight. I know they're still not perfect, but they've actually proved to be good ballpark estimates for me. I'm too cheap to buy one of those wristband thingies that calculates your calories burned. :D
  • leslturn8
    leslturn8 Posts: 505 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    kisses71213 wrote: »
    That is why you always see super fit lean hard-core real life bikers, and usually overweight people on the stationary bike. Total difference!

    That is a bit of a stretch isn't it? I've seen more thin people on stationary bikes than what I have seen overweight people. Personally as an overweight person, it doesn't matter what seat it is but my butt doesn't like it, it hurts. In the privacy of the gym fat people may be trying to make strides in their fitness journey and yet they are still being judged from within. Personally I have always been told to warm up on a bike and then get into the workout, each to their own. A fat person is always going to look fat until their bodies begin to morph to show their hard work, so while they are on the stationary bike don't put them in a category.


    From personal experience map my walk, map my anything isn't accurate. Id walk the same place daily for a week, every day I reached it at the same time, walked the same path, walked the same pace and yet it ranged from 4.1 km to 5.3 km. I don't map my anything now. I will google the distance and time myself and log that. If you want a more accurate reading you wear a heart rate monitor for calories burnt.
  • brianam204
    brianam204 Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    Both numbers seem a little off to me. But then, I open up a few different calorie calculators on the internet and get (sometimes wildly) different answers even when using the same numbers of an imaginary person for weight/age/etc.

    If anything though, My Tracks seems to be estimating very low compared to the majority of numbers (and I've done plenty of rides in the 30-35 kmh range, and I'm way more exhausted than the few hundred calories could account for), while MFP seems to estimate a little higher in some cases.

    For my part, I don't like using GPS and would rather just time myself, map it out to figure out distance, and then I usually adjust according to real life factors: if I was biking against a strong wind the whole way and doing a lot of uphill, GPS might show me as only going 20 kmh, even if I was using enough energy to push myself to 35+. Similarly, I may feel the number is too high and lower it. As long as you're not cheating yourself, then whatever...
  • kisses71213
    kisses71213 Posts: 97 Member
    Options
    emily_stew wrote: »
    kisses71213 wrote: »
    That is why you always see super fit lean hard-core real life bikers, and usually overweight people on the stationary bike. Total difference!

    What?

    Please read my above posts. I was stating that the MFP isn't accurate with "Biking" calories burned. Real moving bikes vs stationary bikes work different muscles and I stated the difference in the people who use them. If you want to burn more calories and work your core than a real bike is the way to go as far as burning massive amounts of calories.
  • isulo_kura
    isulo_kura Posts: 818 Member
    Options
    IAmDrDirt wrote: »
    My goal is to maintain my weight. If I eat according to MFP, I gain weight. If I eat according to My Tracks, I maintain.
    MFP or MapMyRide consistently estimate my calories burned during a bike ride by 200% to 350%.
    For example, I rode 41 minutes today, 16-20 mph, and MFP imported from MapMyRide that I burned 632 calories; MyTracks estimated my calories as 186. Both apps use the GPS in my smartphone, track the same distance, same time, and same speed.
    Another day I rode 21 miles in 98 minutes, averaging 12.9 mph. MFP estimates my calorie consumption at 955, while My Tracks reports 403.
    Another day I rode 21 miles in 120 minutes, averaging 10.5 mph. MFP estimates my calorie consumption at 877, while My Tracks reports 420.
    How do you know map my ride isn't wrong? Just because the figures are different doesn't automatically mean the lower one is correct. It may not be the exercise calories that are off but the errors on your normal calorie counting. If you're eating more than you think due to inaccurate calorie counting and using a under estimation of exercise calories you'd maintain.

    In my experience mfp calorie counts for steady state cardio such as running or cycling are comparable to a heart rate monitor. All the figures we work with are estimations and could need adjustment but just because you are finding it is not working for you does not mean that figure is wrong because there are so many personal variations sums possible inaccuracies we could all make. That is why making definitive statements that those exercise calories are adding is a bit silly.

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Firstly 16-20mph is a huge range for cycling, an enormous difference in effort between 16 and 20mph.

    Secondly GPS trackers don't guarantee any accuracy for calories, only speed and distance. Garmin and Strava give hopelessly low estimates for me.

    Just because estimates are lower doesn't mean they are more accurate. The 14-16mph estimate in the database is actually quite good for me, maybe not for others.

    Also don't assume the whole exercise database is wrong, some will be high, some reasonable and some too low.
  • spyro88
    spyro88 Posts: 472 Member
    Options
    Yes I think the only way to really do it accurately is to get a heart rate monitor that also shows calories burned. I am happy with the general estimation though and I rarely eat back my exercise calories. If I do it will only be about 1/3 of them. I just don't get that hungry anyway really!

    For me though, as I was so inactive before this, any amount of activity is an improvement. I try not to get TOO hung up on it because I know I'm losing weight and my lifestyle is better than it was before. I see MFP as a tool which is helpful, not always 100% accurate but it's just another string to the bow :)
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    kisses71213 wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    I'm assuming you burn less on the stationary bike vs a real bike, but going at 15mph for 45 minutes, I only burn 220 calories (on the stationary bike). I see people logging 600 calories for 60 minutes and I just shake my head... it really doesn't burn as much as people think (maybe if they have a lot of resistance added, but I tried once and frankly the difference wasn't that great).

    This is exactly it. You use your core muscles on a real bike which burns tons of calories because you're constantly balancing and steering, etc. Where as stationary is very easy on the muscles and only focuses on leg movement.

    Wing resistance is a significant factor on a real bike. I'll easily pick up an extra 3mph on my turbo trainer cf out in the real.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    kisses71213 wrote: »
    emily_stew wrote: »
    kisses71213 wrote: »
    That is why you always see super fit lean hard-core real life bikers, and usually overweight people on the stationary bike. Total difference!

    What?

    Please read my above posts. I was stating that the MFP isn't accurate with "Biking" calories burned. Real moving bikes vs stationary bikes work different muscles and I stated the difference in the people who use them. If you want to burn more calories and work your core than a real bike is the way to go as far as burning massive amounts of calories.

    I think she was drawing out that you're posting utter guff tbh
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    IAmDrDirt wrote: »
    My goal is to maintain my weight. If I eat according to MFP, I gain weight. If I eat according to My Tracks, I maintain.
    MFP or MapMyRide consistently estimate my calories burned during a bike ride by 200% to 350%.
    For example, I rode 41 minutes today, 16-20 mph, and MFP imported from MapMyRide that I burned 632 calories; MyTracks estimated my calories as 186. Both apps use the GPS in my smartphone, track the same distance, same time, and same speed.
    Another day I rode 21 miles in 98 minutes, averaging 12.9 mph. MFP estimates my calorie consumption at 955, while My Tracks reports 403.
    Another day I rode 21 miles in 120 minutes, averaging 10.5 mph. MFP estimates my calorie consumption at 877, while My Tracks reports 420.

    So, to summarise:

    Different methods of estimating an estimated number estimate differently?

    Pick a method and stick with it, test and adjust as required according to success.

    fwiw MFP is reasonably good for cycling and running, but it does go a bit over the top for things like Zumba
  • toofatnomore
    toofatnomore Posts: 206 Member
    Options
    I didn't see where OP posted anything about stationary bikes. That being said, the other day I did 16.1 miles in 60 minutes flat. Strava had me burning725 calories and MFP hadme around 1100 using 16 to 20 mph. Someone above mentioned the huge difference between 16 and 20 mph on a real bike. So true. I use the lower number wheni log even if it means using less distance or less mph on MFP to match the lower strava number.
  • toofatnomore
    toofatnomore Posts: 206 Member
    Options
    IAmDrDirt wrote: »
    My goal is to maintain my weight. If I eat according to MFP, I gain weight. If I eat according to My Tracks, I maintain.
    MFP or MapMyRide consistently estimate my calories burned during a bike ride by 200% to 350%.
    For example, I rode 41 minutes today, 16-20 mph, and MFP imported from MapMyRide that I burned 632 calories; MyTracks estimated my calories as 186. Both apps use the GPS in my smartphone, track the same distance, same time, and same speed.
    Another day I rode 21 miles in 98 minutes, averaging 12.9 mph. MFP estimates my calorie consumption at 955, while My Tracks reports 403.
    Another day I rode 21 miles in 120 minutes, averaging 10.5 mph. MFP estimates my calorie consumption at 877, while My Tracks reports 420.

    My tracks is silly low it looks to me...
  • JustSomeEm
    JustSomeEm Posts: 20,222 MFP Moderator
    Options
    MFP calories are very low for me. I maintain eating almost 1500 calories per week more than it gives me (a little more than 200 extra calories each day) - even using MapMyRun's calorie burn estimate for my runs.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    I find MFP calorie burn estimates great for me...maybe I am "the average" they were calculated with but you have to use what works for you and everyone is different.

Categories