Be careful with MFP calorie estimates - don't work for everyone
IAmDrDirt
Posts: 2 Member
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.
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.
0
Replies
-
Interesting! Il'l go look at that.0
-
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).0
-
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.0 -
That is why you always see super fit lean hard-core real life bikers, and usually overweight people on the stationary bike. Total difference!0
-
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.0 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.0 -
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.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.
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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
0 -
kisses71213 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.0 -
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 tbh0 -
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 Zumba0 -
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.0
-
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...0 -
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.0
-
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.0
-
I don't trust the extra calories from my actvities and and just eat my alloted calories for weight loss ( 1200cal ). On the days that I know that I will be doing heavy workouts I eat roughly (200) more calories and just on those days. I do a weekly spin class and it gives me 465 Calories (give or take a few) can't remember the exact number. I just don't trust the number and my vivofit watch will deduct totals from my activity tracker, I still dont get this deducting stuff (oh well).0
-
@Runngurl43Runngurl43 wrote: »I don't trust the extra calories from my actvities and and just eat my alloted calories for weight loss ( 1200cal ). On the days that I know that I will be doing heavy workouts I eat roughly (200) more calories and just on those days. I do a weekly spin class and it gives me 465 Calories (give or take a few) can't remember the exact number. I just don't trust the number and my vivofit watch will deduct totals from my activity tracker, I still dont get this deducting stuff (oh well).
You are going to have to estimate them when you get to maintenance so why not now?
200 for a workout and 465 for Spinning sound entirely reasonable. You "trust" the numbers by tracking your results over time.0 -
Thats just ridiculous.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!
0 -
i think pretty much everyone knows most of MFP's calculations are seriously overestimated.
my fat *kitten* did an hour on a stationary bike earlier this week (not a normal activity for me) and i think i came in around 300 calories, which seems accurate for the level of effort (not much, really) i was putting in.
I prefer other activities/machines with higher calorie burns normally but i wanted to watch my show, hence the bike
LOLOL 0 -
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).
Ofc because they might be the same action , but outdoors you have the road and elements to contend with. Thats why you would enter an estimate for outside cucling as opposed to stationary bike.
How many calories you burn depends on your intensity and duration. Someone working v hard on the stationary bike cam burn more than someone biking outside, it just depends on the individual how long and how hard they work. All things being equal then outside biking take more calories. Same effort same time .
You cna get 600+ on the staionary bike if you work hard enough, for long enough and weigh more. the limiting factor is the person on the bike. Some people go faster than 15mph.0 -
I get not many calories burned on the stationary bike but I choose it as part of my workout because where I live people drive crazy and bike lanes are rare. I do weights, elliptical, walking, and also the stationary bike. You just can't depend on that for your entire workout or assume that you burn a lot on there. I burn like.... I think it's about 100 cal to the half hour on there. MFP thinks more (of course) but I pay more attention to what the bike itself estimates. Basically MFP overestimates. Therefore it makes sense to eat back only half of exercise calories.0
-
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).
I'm one of these people logging the minutes where it comes up with a silly number. I just wanted to point out that, for me personally, I absolutely do not take the number seriously. I don't think I burn 1200 calories from doing 60 minutes of sitting cycling on an exercise bike. I know I can change the calorie burn but I wouldn't know what to change it to as I don't have a heart rate monitor. For me it's more about the minutes of exercise done rather than the calorie burn.
0 -
This is why I only log 1/2 my workout time. I walk everywhere (I don't drive) and I walk at a 4mph pace. If I walk for an hour I tell MFP I walked for 30 minutes. That way the calories burned is a LOT closer to what it is in reality and I don't have to remember to only eat back a certain portion of them.0
-
Its easy to look at some of the other calculators and make your own mind up, adjust based on results. Just enter an intelligent estimate. If you arent burning what you wnat then work harder and increase the resistance. Its possible to coast on any bit of cardio equipment by not being challenged or making an effort.Calories burned cycling or riding a bike is influenced by body weight, intensity of exercise, conditioning level and metabolism.
Btw if the sum total of this thread is that MFP overstimates on some activities, then its well known its not accurate for everything and people can be unreliable at estimating their own effort. mot exactly news. Clue is in ESTIMATE.0 -
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.
Ditto for me. It's almost creepy how I lose/gain/maintain on exactly what it says. For a while I decreased the exercise calories because everyone said MFP overestimated, and I was hungry and lost too fast.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions