How accurate are the MFP exercise calculations?

Gtrmaestro

When I log exercise the MFP app gives me a tally of calories burned.
For instance, today I did over an hour of rolling at a BJJ open mat so I logged 60 minutes under the MFP Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu auto calculation. It says I burned 1209 calories so according to this, I have a 1200 calorie deficit just from that.

Have folks found these numbers to be accurate or inflated?

Thanks

kshama2001

I have found the estimates for the cardio I do (walking, swimming, yoga, etc.) to be accurate for me.

Others need to eat closer to 50 - 75% of the calories given.

kami3006

It varies from person to person. They are pretty accurate for me in both lifting and the elliptical; others find them high. Pick a percentage to eat and stick with it for four to six weeks and adjust as needed. It's the only way to know how they apply to you.

lemurcat2

I find it (or Runkeeper) pretty accurate for things like running (you have to include actual distance covered or time and speed, which tends to keep it more accurate).

It becomes more questionable for things where perceived exertion is a big deal or where there's a bunch of starting and stopping. For swimming I tend to always log light, since however much I might feel like I worked hard, I'm just not that fast a swimmer. If you have been practicing BJJ for a long time and are skilled, I'd think the estimate is more likely to be accurate than if you are newer.

On the whole I tend to use calories I can burn in an hour running as a good cap on what I'm likely to burn in an hour at the most, although adjusting based on actual results is a good idea.

Picking a percentage (50%-100%) and adjusting is also a good idea.

cmriverside

Yeah, I agree with lemurcat. Exertion on things that don't have time and distance is a huge determining factor.

I also agree with kami3006. Pick a percentage of those calories and use it consistently - whether that's 75%, 50%, or 100% and at the end of a six week period of tracking calories in and calories out you'll have a pretty good idea.

I used 100% and then I used my own determining data after I did that experiment. I can tell if my exertion level is 100% or less than that and I know what works since I did that experiment.

kshama2001

lemurcat2 wrote: »

I find it (or Runkeeper) pretty accurate for things like running (you have to include actual distance covered or time and speed, which tends to keep it more accurate).

It becomes more questionable for things where perceived exertion is a big deal or where there's a bunch of starting and stopping. For swimming I tend to always log light, since however much I might feel like I worked hard, I'm just not that fast a swimmer. If you have been practicing BJJ for a long time and are skilled, I'd think the estimate is more likely to be accurate than if you are newer.

On the whole I tend to use calories I can burn in an hour running as a good cap on what I'm likely to burn in an hour at the most, although adjusting based on actual results is a good idea.

Picking a percentage (50%-100%) and adjusting is also a good idea.

I do something similar only I use walking as a standard. For example, the walking calorie burn seems reasonable to me. I know how I feel after an hour of walking. I am much more tired after an hour of swimming, and the higher burn makes sense. I've never lasted an hour of snow showing, so that even higher burn makes sense as well.

Machka9

I tend to choose a light/low/slow choice and round my times down.

Then, when I'm on a mission to lose weight, I eat 50-75% of my exercise calories back.

AnnPT77

I've found the MFP estimates to vary a lot in reasonableness, with some exercises plausible, and others really stupid-high. That's based on a dozen years experience with heart rate monitors (that I used for training, more than for calorie estimates) and with machines that have a good reputation for accuracy in measuring power (which is a basis for more accurate calorie estimates), plus using other online sources as a comparison (especially those specialized for the given activity that let you enter more variables).

1200 for a hour would be a really high calorie burn. I'm smaller and female, so there's literally nothing I could do that would get me there (and leave me alive ). I've done martial arts in the past (regularly for several years), though not BJJ (it was a form of Kung Fu), and never felt like the effort expenditure was as high as running or cycling hard for a similar time period: Maybe you could use running or cycling estimates from an outside calculator as a cross-check? Unfortunately, a heart rate monitor or tracker won't give you a reliable calorie estimate for something like martial arts.

Some of the larger guys may have a gut-check on the 1200 number.

And it's definitely true that your weight loss experience over a period of weeks will give you the best feedback on whether your estimates are correct. While losing, I generally estimated my exercise conservatively, trying for accuracy - different methods for different activities - and ate them all back, which worked fine for me.

Safari_Gal

When MFP gives me my calorie expenditure- I typically will only eat back half- unless I’m ravenous- then game on. 😉 but I raise an eyebrow when I see people posting 800 calories for washing the dishes and cleaning. It better be like Cinderella scouring a palace for 800 calories in 1 hour.
So - I think it overestimates here and there- I’d take it with a wee grain of salt.

CarvedTones

I think they are fantasy calories for me, but I also think I under estimate burn. As others mentioned, it doesn't take exertion into account. On a cardio machine your weight, incline, resistance, pace and time are all contributing factors to how much you burn. One session can easily be double or triple another of the same duration. Out of the 5 factors, mfp uses 1 or 2 (it might use wight; not sure).

TavistockToad

i found it to be pretty much spot on for running/walking/strength training

sijomial

Accuracy depends on your personal selections from the hundreds of different exercises in the database.
Some seem low, some seem reasonable, some are high and some are comically high.
The whole database isn't skewed by some random percentage for every person.

The estimate of 1200 for non-constant high intensity activity such as yours OP I would put in the category of comically high.

If you want the roughest of estimates for your personal highest possible rate of burn for an hour multiply how many miles you can run in that hour by your bodyweight in pounds and X 0.63 for a net calorie estimate.

cmriverside

mg07030 wrote: »

When MFP gives me my calorie expenditure- I typically will only eat back half- unless I’m ravenous- then game on. 😉 but I raise an eyebrow when I see people posting 800 calories for washing the dishes and cleaning. It better be like Cinderella scouring a palace for 800 calories in 1 hour.
So - I think it overestimates here and there- I’d take it with a wee grain of salt.

Thanks for the giggle this morning.

I'm totally putting that in the Exercise database. With its stupid high number

CarvedTones

sijomial wrote: »

Accuracy depends on your personal selections from the hundreds of different exercises in the database.
Some seem low, some seem reasonable, some are high and some are comically high.
The whole database isn't skewed by some random percentage for every person.

The estimate of 1200 for non-constant high intensity activity such as yours OP I would put in the category of comically high.

If you want the roughest of estimates for your personal highest possible rate of burn for an hour multiply how many miles you can run in that hour by your bodyweight in pounds and X 0.63 for a net calorie estimate.

I had been using the same sort of measure. Somewhere I had come up with 600 an hour based on what I used to run (knee issues; don't run anymore). Your calculation comes up with 590. I was heavier when i cam up with the 600. Anyway, I give myself a max of 400 an hour for cardio on a machine at the gym as it doesn't seem as intense. I often go lower than that when I feel like I am slacking off a bit; sometimes i don't pay enough attention to pace if I am watching Hulu or Netflix on my hone.

Safari_Gal

cmriverside wrote: »

mg07030 wrote: »

When MFP gives me my calorie expenditure- I typically will only eat back half- unless I’m ravenous- then game on. 😉 but I raise an eyebrow when I see people posting 800 calories for washing the dishes and cleaning. It better be like Cinderella scouring a palace for 800 calories in 1 hour.
So - I think it overestimates here and there- I’d take it with a wee grain of salt.

Thanks for the giggle this morning.

I'm totally putting that in the Exercise database. With its stupid high number

Haha!!

kshama2001

mg07030 wrote: »

When MFP gives me my calorie expenditure- I typically will only eat back half- unless I’m ravenous- then game on. 😉 but I raise an eyebrow when I see people posting 800 calories for washing the dishes and cleaning. It better be like Cinderella scouring a palace for 800 calories in 1 hour.
So - I think it overestimates here and there- I’d take it with a wee grain of salt.

Some possible explanations to make those 800 calories legit:

1. It was for more than an hour.
2. It was "including" cleaning, not solely cleaning. For example, the person logged 5 minutes of cleaning and 55 snow shoeing - only the cleaning was displayed, but the post will say "including cleaning" so you know there was more than one activity involved.
3. The person is significantly larger than you are. Short women at their goal weight will burn considerably less calories than taller people who are quite overweight.

We may miss those nuances when reading feeds quickly.

cwolfman13

Gtrmaestro wrote: »

When I log exercise the MFP app gives me a tally of calories burned.
For instance, today I did over an hour of rolling at a BJJ open mat so I logged 60 minutes under the MFP Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu auto calculation. It says I burned 1209 calories so according to this, I have a 1200 calorie deficit just from that.

Have folks found these numbers to be accurate or inflated?

Thanks

That might hold true for 60 minutes of actual active combat, which I don't imagine took place.

sijomial wrote: »

Accuracy depends on your personal selections from the hundreds of different exercises in the database.
Some seem low, some seem reasonable, some are high and some are comically high.
The whole database isn't skewed by some random percentage for every person.

The estimate of 1200 for non-constant high intensity activity such as yours OP I would put in the category of comically high.

If you want the roughest of estimates for your personal highest possible rate of burn for an hour multiply how many miles you can run in that hour by your bodyweight in pounds and X 0.63 for a net calorie estimate.

Also this ^^^

Gtrmaestro

To answer a couple of questions my concern is definitely not giving myself extra calories to eat, just trying to get a better idea of how accurate what I'm logging in food vs exercise is. I know I need to log my food more accurately, just trying to tighten up on what my exercise actually is doing.

As far as how much intense activity is really happening in 60 minutes of BJJ, yesterday we rolled for 5 minute rounds and I actually grappled with 8 or 9 people so it was actually 40-45 minutes of active combat with 15 minutes of recovering from getting my face smashed LOL.
My stamina isn't high enough to fight for 60 minutes non stop. I wish it was but I can barely walk today hahaha.

BJJ isn't usually as intense as it was yesterday. Yesterday was brutal on me but I still don't think I burned 1200 + calories.

jjpptt2

Accurate enough.

IMO, the problem with them is the subjective nature of things like "fast" or "vigorous" or whatever else.

sijomial

A true 1200 net calories an hour would be possible for someone who is verging on being a professional racing cyclist going hard for the entire 60 minutes. For what you describe it's ludicrously exaggerated.

Maybe log it as 45mins of circuit training?

Unfortunately feeling hard, or being an effective workout, is a really poor guide to actual calorie burns.

CarvedTones

Reminds me of when i was trying to find info on calories burned paddling SUP. I found a chart with ranges for different types of paddling and surfing SUP was at the top at something like 700-1100. But I have been out there and they mostly sit on their boards waiting for a good wave. I have 2 SUPs. One glides really well and unless I am trying to go all out I just give it a little push to stay at a decent speed on most strokes. The other one has the glide profile of a tennis ball and every stroke is accelerating from near zero speed. So I end up estimating largely on how long I paddled and whether I pushed it or not with a max of around 500.