Do you trust the calories burned that MFP says that you burned during an exercise?
SillyCat1975
Posts: 328 Member
I'm trying to figure out the whole km stuff, I'm just wondering if I should trust it or not.
0
Replies
-
most people half what it tells you you burned as it does tend to overestimate in the high range.so If it says you burned 500 cut it down to 250,2
-
I don't track exercise on MFP. I go to the gym regularly, but I don't work out that hard. I would track it if I were doing extreme amounts of exercise, because I'd need more food, but that isn't where I am.0
-
No! I burn 150-250 in 30 mins depending on the intensity the work out is. MFP over estimate the calorie burned. I see a lot of MFP friends believe in it and I don't say a word. I think you need to use some common sense in this area. Then again it isn't my place to point this out. Their fitness journey, not mine.0
-
Completely agree with Nadine and Charlie. I have a fitbit so it tells me how many calories burned during my workouts, then transfers to myfitnesspal. I would say that myfitnesspal is not very accurate, but for me it is a difference of about 50-150 calories most times. I think it also depends on the person and how hard their body deals with exercise, and how much they weigh.1
-
No.. there are way too many variables that MFP cannot possibly calculate through the exercise you performed. Eat back a portion or percentage.. Trend your weight loss over period of time and increase or decrease the amount you choose to eat back based on your rate of loss.2
-
I used to believe MFP till i got a fitness tracker. Cals burned out by at least 200...such a shame lol coz i love those big numbers.0
-
No. I tend to record an activity that burns less. Like if I've been doing aerobics with jumping, I record low-impact aerobics.0
-
When I log, I choose the "light" or "slow" options even if I feel like I did a big workout. I also round the time down -- knock 5 or 10 minutes off what I think I did. And that seems to match my husband's Strava information fairly well.0
-
I use to put in half the time I worked out unless I was running. MFP running options seemed to match what my hrm said during steady state cardio.0
-
I have no idea honestly. I eat back only half of the cals it gives me just to be safe.0
-
I have been on mfp for 5 years and always used their calorie burn, eaten back my exercise cals and successfully lost weight.
I now have a HRM for running and my cals are pretty close to what mfp used to give me.
I think the problem a lot of people have is they over estimate the intensity of their workout when they log it, and tend to log cleaning etc instead of using the activity level correctly.2 -
No I usually log half the time to be safe. However when I compare the low intensity exercise they seem to be only a few calories out. ( leisurely walks, aqua, body balance etc). Really don't believe any that say I'm burning 600+ and am dubious on several of the 400-500 ones too.0
-
Some MFP estimates are good, some are low, some are high, some are ludicrously high.
Apply some common sense. Use or at least investigate a variety of methods appropriate to your particular exercise, MFP will be appropriate for some and a wild guess for others.
That advice also applies to people who put blind faith into the numbers given by various gadgets including HRMs. Understand the limitations of your particular gadget.
3 -
TavistockToad wrote: »I have been on mfp for 5 years and always used their calorie burn, eaten back I think the problem a lot of people have is they over estimate the intensity of their workout when they log it, and tend to log cleaning etc instead of using the activity level correctly.
I agree with this completely. I feel like the calorie burn numbers are accurate for me, but I'm also accurately logging my exercise. I make sure to check my heart rate when I cycle, so that I'm actually hitting 140+ and logging as such.
0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »I have been on mfp for 5 years and always used their calorie burn, eaten back I think the problem a lot of people have is they over estimate the intensity of their workout when they log it, and tend to log cleaning etc instead of using the activity level correctly.
I agree with this completely. I feel like the calorie burn numbers are accurate for me, but I'm also accurately logging my exercise. I make sure to check my heart rate when I cycle, so that I'm actually hitting 140+ and logging as such.
heart rate has no indication of how many calories you burn.0 -
The cycling estimates are way way off...almost 200-300 calories per hour (to high). I only bike and have been racing and riding with a powermeter for 13+ years...I also know my cycling efficiency (21-22%) on the bike which helps me really understand my calorie burn.
Also the difference between 16 mph and 19 mph is pretty large...I can average 16 mph and ride for an hour and burn 380 calories (I actually do this type of ride twice a week). To average 19 on the same course its closer to 500-600 per hour. I averaged 20.2 for 5 hours yesterday and only burned 775 calories per hour (202 watts average for the 5 hours).
Running is a different story as 100-110 calories per mile works for most people...a little more if you are running, a little less if you are walking.
I have no idea about other activities.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »I have been on mfp for 5 years and always used their calorie burn, eaten back I think the problem a lot of people have is they over estimate the intensity of their workout when they log it, and tend to log cleaning etc instead of using the activity level correctly.
I agree with this completely. I feel like the calorie burn numbers are accurate for me, but I'm also accurately logging my exercise. I make sure to check my heart rate when I cycle, so that I'm actually hitting 140+ and logging as such.
heart rate has no indication of how many calories you burn.
Then what is the point of having a HR tracker? I have a fitbit Alta, no HR monitor.0 -
Some MFP estimates are good, some are low, some are high, some are ludicrously high.
Apply some common sense. Use or at least investigate a variety of methods appropriate to your particular exercise, MFP will be appropriate for some and a wild guess for others.
That advice also applies to people who put blind faith into the numbers given by various gadgets including HRMs. Understand the limitations of your particular gadget.
This x10.
There are so many entries that are single entries for an exercise regardless of intensity that this alone should be a big red flag. Per MFP estimates, elliptical is elliptical, and the only thing that changes the calorie burn is your weight. I've seen some estimates here and there that seem reasonable, but would probably still fall short of an estimate from the proper apps.
As a great example of this, look at how many biking and running calorie burn estimates fall into categories that allow for a decent speed variance, but within that variance calculate the same. Bike at 15.99 MPH and your calorie burn would be quite a bit lower than the same time at 16 MPH.
But without some looking into things, I would suggest that any person hoping to find any reasonably accurate calorie burn avoid any blanket statements about the estimates on MFP. It might be exact for one person, off for the next, depending on their sizes and intensity of workout within a category.0 -
I use a calculator that removes my BMR from the exercise burn and log that number on MFP.0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »I have been on mfp for 5 years and always used their calorie burn, eaten back I think the problem a lot of people have is they over estimate the intensity of their workout when they log it, and tend to log cleaning etc instead of using the activity level correctly.
I agree with this completely. I feel like the calorie burn numbers are accurate for me, but I'm also accurately logging my exercise. I make sure to check my heart rate when I cycle, so that I'm actually hitting 140+ and logging as such.
heart rate has no indication of how many calories you burn.
Then what is the point of having a HR tracker? I have a fitbit Alta, no HR monitor.
its to monitor heart rate basically and thats all. its good for those who need to watch how high or low their heart rate goes. for example say a person who is 300 lbs gets their heart rate up to 150 and burns say 400 calories, a person who does the same exercise for the same amount of time and has the same heart rate in most cases wont burn the same amount of calories due to less mass. if you get scared and your heart rate goes up do you burn calories? probably but Im sure its not much if any to count. heart rate is just an indicator of how hard you are working and how hard your heart is working to pump blood and so on. sure you will burn calories but its not going to be an indicator of how many calories you will burn.not to mention HRM arent all that accurate either,and are only to be used for steady state cardio at that. I have done exercises where I got my heart rate up pretty high and yet didnt burn as many calories as I thought I did according to my fitbit charge HR.
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »I have been on mfp for 5 years and always used their calorie burn, eaten back I think the problem a lot of people have is they over estimate the intensity of their workout when they log it, and tend to log cleaning etc instead of using the activity level correctly.
I agree with this completely. I feel like the calorie burn numbers are accurate for me, but I'm also accurately logging my exercise. I make sure to check my heart rate when I cycle, so that I'm actually hitting 140+ and logging as such.
heart rate has no indication of how many calories you burn.
Then what is the point of having a HR tracker? I have a fitbit Alta, no HR monitor.
A HR monitor will assist you in setting up workout zones. In the cycling world, once you've set up your zones, you know what range you have to be in for recovery rides, and what range you need to be in for more intense rides and so on.
It also helps you determine your max heart rate (that's part of defining the zones) and your resting heart rate.
A low resting heart rate can indicate increased fitness.
It can also help you determine whether or not you've been overtraining.
So if your resting HR was 70 and slowly dropped to 55 over a year of getting fitter ... and then all of a sudden it was back up to 70, that might indicate overtraining.
0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »I have done exercises where I got my heart rate up pretty high and yet didnt burn as many calories as I thought I did according to my fitbit charge HR.
Yes ... and I made some interesting discoveries when I wore my HR monitor for a while ...
I discovered that when I cycled within the city, my heart rate was about 10 bpm faster than when I cycled in the country ... even though I was doing the same speed and putting in the same effort.
My guess was that I'm more tense and under more stress when I cycle in the city whereas I relax when I get out in the country.
I also discovered that when I'm really nervous about a particular long cycling event at my HR can be quite high for the first 50 to 75 km, and then all of a sudden it drops to a normal rate. But I'm not going faster or pushing myself harder or anything.
Again, probably stress and nerves.
So even though my HR might be up around 170, I'm not burning more calories than when I finally relax and it drops to 140 or so.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »I have been on mfp for 5 years and always used their calorie burn, eaten back I think the problem a lot of people have is they over estimate the intensity of their workout when they log it, and tend to log cleaning etc instead of using the activity level correctly.
I agree with this completely. I feel like the calorie burn numbers are accurate for me, but I'm also accurately logging my exercise. I make sure to check my heart rate when I cycle, so that I'm actually hitting 140+ and logging as such.
heart rate has no indication of how many calories you burn.
Then what is the point of having a HR tracker? I have a fitbit Alta, no HR monitor.
A HR monitor will assist you in setting up workout zones. In the cycling world, once you've set up your zones, you know what range you have to be in for recovery rides, and what range you need to be in for more intense rides and so on.
It also helps you determine your max heart rate (that's part of defining the zones) and your resting heart rate.
A low resting heart rate can indicate increased fitness.
It can also help you determine whether or not you've been overtraining.
So if your resting HR was 70 and slowly dropped to 55 over a year of getting fitter ... and then all of a sudden it was back up to 70, that might indicate overtraining.
So they are more designed for an (serious) athlete, rather than the casual walker like myself..0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »I have been on mfp for 5 years and always used their calorie burn, eaten back I think the problem a lot of people have is they over estimate the intensity of their workout when they log it, and tend to log cleaning etc instead of using the activity level correctly.
I agree with this completely. I feel like the calorie burn numbers are accurate for me, but I'm also accurately logging my exercise. I make sure to check my heart rate when I cycle, so that I'm actually hitting 140+ and logging as such.
heart rate has no indication of how many calories you burn.
Then what is the point of having a HR tracker? I have a fitbit Alta, no HR monitor.
A HR monitor will assist you in setting up workout zones. In the cycling world, once you've set up your zones, you know what range you have to be in for recovery rides, and what range you need to be in for more intense rides and so on.
It also helps you determine your max heart rate (that's part of defining the zones) and your resting heart rate.
A low resting heart rate can indicate increased fitness.
It can also help you determine whether or not you've been overtraining.
So if your resting HR was 70 and slowly dropped to 55 over a year of getting fitter ... and then all of a sudden it was back up to 70, that might indicate overtraining.
So they are more designed for an (serious) athlete, rather than the casual walker like myself..
Yes ... athletes that are going to use them as a tool to improve performance. If you've gone out and done a Try-a-Tri (a short introductory triathlon) and enjoyed it and figure that you can improve, you might get a HRM and work out your zones and start doing some training in those zones so that on your next attempt at a triathlon, maybe you'll move up half a dozen spots or something.
The other group of people who might benefit from them are those with heart issues. In those cases, hopefully the cardiologist has offered some information such as to keep the heart rate under a certain level or something.1 -
I use mine just to see how high my heart rate is during exercise, I do have heart issues so I often will have palpitations or other issues and can tell if my heart rate is high or not while things are going on.0
-
I have noticed MFP overestimates grossly with certain exercises I do (ex: elliptical), so I manually enter the numbers. It's literally like double what the machine gives - what a disappointment when I noticed that! lol0
-
I have noticed MFP overestimates grossly with certain exercises I do (ex: elliptical), so I manually enter the numbers. It's literally like double what the machine gives - what a disappointment when I noticed that! lol
yes but the machines estimate high too. they arent 100% accurate either,even the ones you put in your height and weight into
0 -
True, but I feel like if even they are reading high, at least they are closer?CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »I have noticed MFP overestimates grossly with certain exercises I do (ex: elliptical), so I manually enter the numbers. It's literally like double what the machine gives - what a disappointment when I noticed that! lol
yes but the machines estimate high too. they arent 100% accurate either,even the ones you put in your height and weight into
Yikes. It is scary to think this app is that far off with it's reading, if even those machines are high...0 -
I keep track of my net calories and calorie deficit in a spreadsheet. My net calories includes the exercises I log. With that spreadsheet, I calculate my expected weight by dividing my calorie deficit by 3500 and subtracting that result from my initial weight, which for this spreadsheet was arbitrarily chosen as August 15 by me because I had just finished a whoosh event and decided that having released my excess water I was measuring my "mostly really me" weight that day. If the mfp exercise database and my exercises were badly off, my expected weight would be badly off from my actual weight. I calculate the Error value of my tracking as a percentage differential between my actual weight and my expected weight. The Error value changes every day in confirmation that weight loss is not linear. Today the error value is actually the highest it has ever been in the past month, at 1.66%. On September 8, 3 weeks into the tracking, my Error value had its only 0.00% value of the past month. I've logged a lot of "standing at desk, working", my own created exercise, as well as a couple hours of bicycling, from the database, some 'gardening, general' from the database, and a little bit of my treadmill program, which is an exercise I created to account for the variety of speeds and inclines within the program. The evidence I have from this spreadsheet is that I can trust the mfp exercise database for the 2 exercises I use from it, and I can really trust the juststand.org site for telling me about the MET 2 exercise burn of just standing, and I can trust the nordictrack site for their really cool treadmill calculator.1
-
I use a HR strap at the gym and use the machine numbers (input weight, and age), HR changes count. I split my workout into two machines, and the number they give me is almost 30% lower than MFP. I then eat back between 50 and 75% of those calories.
I actually have trouble at times eating back enough calories on workout days now, since I have to eat 500 - 700 additional over my 2200 normal 1k deficit.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions