Calories Burned Accuracy

thelittlenatnat
thelittlenatnat Posts: 7
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi guys,

I was just wondering if anyone knew much about the accuracy of the calories burned on MFP. I have always been hesitant to use this feature because I always think it overestimates my calories burned. What are people's strategies for recording calories burned?

Replies

  • dandelyon
    dandelyon Posts: 620 Member
    I agree, so I try not to eat them (my calories) back all the way. I'm sure MFP does the best it can, but there are some activities that you can do with intensity or barely move and you'll get the same answer, and there's really no formula for that :)

    edited to add, I also cut off the time on my workouts. I know my Zumba class isn't 60 minutes of going hardcore, so I usually put 45 or 50 minutes.
  • KinoM
    KinoM Posts: 359 Member
    I use Runtastic to track my runs, walks & cycles, and it *always* comes in with a lower calorie burn than MFP. I'm trusting it to be more accurate on that basis.

    You could use a heart rate monitor for more accurate figures across a broader range of exercises, but be sure you get the net calories burned rather than the gross amount. The net is the gross less the calories you'd burn if you were doing nothing (ie based on your BMR).
  • sarm1977
    sarm1977 Posts: 9
    I use a very simple app called "Calories Burned Calculator." And more recently "Endomondo." Both give me fairly similar numbers, and are typically less than what MFP app calculates. So I add the exercise, and change the calories field to whatever Calories Burned Calculator show it to be. Unless I've tracked the exercise with Endomondo, because that one is linked to MFP it updates my diary automatically.
  • TheGr8Kimbini
    TheGr8Kimbini Posts: 92
    I COMPLETELY agree! I think that every time I add my cardio. It's way too high compared to what my machines say.

    I do like Runtastic.... It seems more reliable if you're just walking or running.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Any data base for calories burned is going to be subject to a whole lot of error...it may be accurate, it may be wildly off. The problem is that there are too many variables. Yeah...I might burn 800 calories swimming for 30 minutes....if I was Michael Phelps or I was sprinting the whole damned thing....but my recreational lap swimming isn't going to do that. Neither are my recreational bike rides and what not.

    Machines are a better indicator and a HRM is the most accurate, though still an estimation. I believe Polar models were tested to be around 70% accurate for calorie burn during an actual aerobic event for an individual of average statistics.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    I COMPLETELY agree! I think that every time I add my cardio. It's way too high compared to what my machines say.

    I do like Runtastic.... It seems more reliable if you're just walking or running.

    Why don't you just manually set up an exercise and use the number the machine gives you?
  • H_Factor
    H_Factor Posts: 1,722 Member
    MFP's database cannot measure effort.....so its estimates are not a good guide. When you get a heart rate monitor, you will see that some of MFP's estimates are closer than others....but, really, that's just because of the effort you put into the workout. Anyway, until you get a HR monitor, you can use MFP's estimates...but don't eat back more than half of the estimated calories.
  • lewandt
    lewandt Posts: 566
    I use a heart rate monitor. Endomondo is usually pretty close to what my heart rate monitor says (slightly higher) because you have to enter your age, gender, size, etc. My equipment at home is off because i cannot enter my info (except for my treadmill which is pretty close).

    From what i have seen for me, most things are give a higher number.
  • 1princesswarrior
    1princesswarrior Posts: 1,242 Member
    I prefer my Polar HRM but if I forget the watch part of it I used Runtastic, both are lower than MPF.
  • lorigem
    lorigem Posts: 446 Member
    I use a BodyMedia armband because I'm a control freak and need to know how much I'm burning for the entire day. Yeah, I agree, MFP does overestimate...big time.
  • riley2323
    riley2323 Posts: 1
    I think net versus gross calories burned is a big gap in MFP. When you start hitting plateaus, this gap is most likely the reason.

    I used the calorie expenditure built into MFP, and then I plateaued, so I started using the exercise machine's number. Then I hit a plateau again, and consequently bought a heart-rate monitor. The calorie burn was much less, and weight loss continued again. I synced MFP with iCardio. iCardio connected with my Wahoo HRM. The calorie burn numbers went into MFP seamlessly via the vendor sync feature. I am now at a plateau again, and I believe the issue is the net versus gross calorie burn. I believe iCardio is using gross calorie burn when using the heart monitor....at least from what I read at their website.

    MFP needs to call out this gap, as I believe this is a big reason for hitting plateaus in weight loss. It should be spelled out that you need to be entering NET calorie burn as opposed to gross. I am assuming that when you choose your activity level as sedentary, active etc, that the picking of the activity level automatically precludes you from using gross calorie burn, otherwise one would be double counting the difference between gross and net when entering calories burned. This is significant over the course of a week.

    Bottom line is that most exercise equipment uses gross calorie burn, and it would appear that most calculators in the app world output gross calorie burn too. MFP, if I am not mistaken, should want net calorie burn to be input at all times.

    I have noticed postings above saying that the difference is not that significant.....I call BS, and challenge anyone saying that to do the math and add up the over estimates of calorie burn throughout a week and you will see that it is huge.

    MFP's summary should read GOAL, CALORIES CONSUMED, NET CALORIES BURNED, and DELTA.

    Finally, the reason it doesn't really matter in the beginning is due to the backpack of fat we all exercise with. The backpack makes all the exercises more intense....once you lose the backpack the math above starts to come into play.
  • thelittlenatnat
    thelittlenatnat Posts: 7
    Thanks for all the input! Currently I try not to eat back all the calories, but I definitely eat back some otherwise I just don't have the energy to work out. I'm seriously considering purchasing a Polar FT4!
  • CyberEd312
    CyberEd312 Posts: 3,536 Member
    I use my Polar FT60 HRM.......... I Never use MFP estimates or the Machines at the Gym.... Best of Luck
  • Rilzy
    Rilzy Posts: 59 Member
    I don't think it is accurate so I use the calories from whatever machine I use instead. So, my exercise add read Day 1, Day 2 etc etc. I used it once because I didn't have anything else to compare it to and ended up shaving 1/4 off my time.
  • nicoleisme
    nicoleisme Posts: 95 Member
    I just found this and it seems more accurate.

    Use this gross calories calculator: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
    Then after that it shows a link to go to the net calorie calculator so do that one after that.

Categories