Does MFP really overestimate exercise calories burned?

Options
13»

Replies

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
    an engineer, ahhh so that explains alot (LOL)

    You mean the understanding what I'm on about thing?

    Or the not suffering fools thing? That's less about being an engineer and more about being military (combat arm)
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    robertw486 wrote: »
    But an elliptical isn't the same as walking.

    Indeed, but the MET factoring allows for the fact different exercises have different effects. It addresses the difference.

    The tables aren't easy to cut and paste but that MET of 5 is for Moderate intensity, hence being very subjective. Moderate for me is going to be very different to moderate for my partner, who is disabled, for example.

    Essentially there is a vast scope for uncertainty in anything outside a fairly narrow range of activities for any calorie estimation approach. Any testing done is really only valid for that machine on the day it was done, as they all require calibration to be reliable.



  • 47Jacqueline
    47Jacqueline Posts: 6,993 Member
    Options
    Any generic assignment of calories burned is based on a general model of circumstances. Usually a 150lb guy. So, that would definitely skew the outcome.

    The best thing is to use an HRM that has been calibrated to your height, weight, age. And even then, realize the results will vary because of metabolism or fitness status.
  • ScubaSteve1962
    ScubaSteve1962 Posts: 609 Member
    Options
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
    an engineer, ahhh so that explains alot (LOL)

    You mean the understanding what I'm on about thing?

    Or the not suffering fools thing? That's less about being an engineer and more about being military (combat arm)

    The I know I'm right about everything and everyone else is wrong!
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    But an elliptical isn't the same as walking.

    Indeed, but the MET factoring allows for the fact different exercises have different effects. It addresses the difference.

    The tables aren't easy to cut and paste but that MET of 5 is for Moderate intensity, hence being very subjective. Moderate for me is going to be very different to moderate for my partner, who is disabled, for example.

    Essentially there is a vast scope for uncertainty in anything outside a fairly narrow range of activities for any calorie estimation approach. Any testing done is really only valid for that machine on the day it was done, as they all require calibration to be reliable.



    I guess for me I just put more faith in hard numbers, rather than selecting exercises based on broad categories of speed and intensity.

    As for the calibration thing, I've seen this stated quite often here on the forums. But on my Precor machine and many like it, there is really next to nothing in calibration once the machine is properly assembled. I have the same manual the field techs use, and the sensors and inputs are more or less designed to be foolproof.

    Now how accurate the software uses those inputs is hard to say.
  • libby328
    libby328 Posts: 287 Member
    Options
    I've seen a lot of people say it's high... I wear a chest strapped HRM and the totals on MFP is always super low in relation to my HRM. I have to adjust accordingly. For example, a 30 minute fast job for me says I burn something like 95 cals, while my HRM says around 212.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    It's a tricky game at times.

    I'm just trying to find apps, machines, etc that log what I think is closest to correct. I would think for walking and jogging that comparisons to the accepted forumlas and calculators is a good test, but even then variances in stride length, heart rates, etc, still add up.



    On the subject, does anyone know if Strava applies weight to heart rates if you get the premium version? I've started using it for my biking, and I'm hoping it's closer with walking and such as well.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    libby328 wrote: »
    For example, a 30 minute fast job for me says I burn something like 95 cals, while my HRM says around 212.

    Assuming you mean jog, rather than job, it does depend on what you mean by fast. Personally 30 minutes is about 6km, at about 150-160bpm on level ground. I'll burn about 100cals/mile, as I'm 165lbs, so that'll give me about 350-360cals.

    I'd agree about MFP being slightly on the low side cf my Garmin, with HRM, but only by about 10-20 cals.

    I'd check your MFP settings given the scale of that error.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    robertw486 wrote: »
    On the subject, does anyone know if Strava applies weight to heart rates if you get the premium version? I've started using it for my biking, and I'm hoping it's closer with walking and such as well.

    It does.

    I did a 60km road session yesterday with Garmin giving 1000cals, feeding the GPX to Strava gave me 1200, Runkeeper gave me 1400, Endomondo gave me 1000 and Training Peaks gave me 1800. MFP gave me 1500.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    On the subject, does anyone know if Strava applies weight to heart rates if you get the premium version? I've started using it for my biking, and I'm hoping it's closer with walking and such as well.

    It does.

    I did a 60km road session yesterday with Garmin giving 1000cals, feeding the GPX to Strava gave me 1200, Runkeeper gave me 1400, Endomondo gave me 1000 and Training Peaks gave me 1800. MFP gave me 1500.

    Holy crap. I'm trying to nail down an accurate method, but having so many inputs would make me insane! Which do you think are the most accurate of the above?

    I'm also interested in how your Endomondo is recording lower than the Strava. I had the exact opposite, and Endo seemed to be throwing a lot of BMR calories at any exercise.
  • patrikc333
    patrikc333 Posts: 436 Member
    Options
    I use the estimated cals for waling only, and it looks like what I use is accurate

    not sure for actual running, as I use only garmin estimate (and strava overestimates)
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    robertw486 wrote: »
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    On the subject, does anyone know if Strava applies weight to heart rates if you get the premium version? I've started using it for my biking, and I'm hoping it's closer with walking and such as well.

    It does.

    I did a 60km road session yesterday with Garmin giving 1000cals, feeding the GPX to Strava gave me 1200, Runkeeper gave me 1400, Endomondo gave me 1000 and Training Peaks gave me 1800. MFP gave me 1500.

    Holy crap. I'm trying to nail down an accurate method, but having so many inputs would make me insane! Which do you think are the most accurate of the above?

    I'm also interested in how your Endomondo is recording lower than the Strava. I had the exact opposite, and Endo seemed to be throwing a lot of BMR calories at any exercise.

    And all derived from exactly the same data set. A Garmin 310XT head end with HRM, Cadence and Speed sensors. It uploads to Garmin which syncs automatically to Endomondo, MFP and Strava, then I use another intermediary to send it to Runkeeper and Training Peaks. Looking into it I think Endomondo allows Garmin to drive, so that may not be Endomondos assessment.

    I think 1300-1400 is about right, I had a fair amount of climbing early in the session so the 1000 doesn't seem to reflect that. In terms of effort, about the same as a 13-14 mile training run.

    That said it's a carbon frame and well maintained so minimal additional weight and rolling resistance. My average speed was only 18mph so bottom end of where wind resistance would be a significant factor.
  • kcjchang
    kcjchang Posts: 709 Member
    Options
    For me, Endomodo gives the lowest estimate. Strava is always on the high side and MFP in the middle. If you are uploading to Endomondo, it will reflect what in the file's header instead of recalculating based on the data set.

    Strava recalculation based on what's in the data set and makes its own determination of the path you took, active time, speed, etc. Not sure what it uses for calories but I know the free version will use the HR data if it is uploaded (I have never use the app to record an activity). It will display average power over the segments but does not use it to estimate calories in the free version. I think Strava is based more on Skiba than Coggan or TISS.
  • fiddletime
    fiddletime Posts: 1,862 Member
    Options
    For a 2 mile flat run my fit bit says about 420, my chest strap polar 220, MFP 205 and the Precor treadmill about 300. I always take 1/3rd off the treadmill. That seems to correlate with my calories and weight. If I do a HIIT session I usually just eat back half the calories of the HRM as the values are even more hit or miss. The Fitbit calories are always way too high.

Categories