How accurate are most of the exercise calorie burns on this site?

SchmancyName

For example, I rode (leisurely) my bike to the store this morning. 10 minutes total both ways. I went to add that in, and I see a listing that says: "Bicycling, <10 mph, leisure (cycling, biking, bike riding)". So I click on that and enter 10 minutes. It then populates calories burned at 82. Which seems more than I feel I burned. But I have no way to actually knowing how much was burned. And I'm new to paying attention to any of this. So I really have no idea.

And I guess second question; is there a way to know for sure? Will a fitness band like a fitbit or something similar give me an accurate, or a good estimate on things like that? Because you can change the calorie number. So if I had an outside source that was more accurate to what I actually did I could just change it. I do a lot of small amount of exercises like that thought each day. But I've never really considered adding them all up and seeing what they are doing for me. And today I thought maybe I should. Adding that to the actual 30 minute workouts I do I could then see what my actual total burn was for each day.

Thanks in advance for taking the time.

pmdonnelly

This answer may not satisfy your question, but my nutritionist has recommended that I enter "0" for exercise. This is because the "calories burned" number is so imperfect. I find that by entering 0 and sticking with my calorie target to be more effective. If you have to, add 300 calories to your active days and see how that works. Listen to what your body is telling you.

pmdonnelly

Another thing is to set targets that are not calorie related. For example, maybe try to get the average heart rate up. I find time and duration to be less effective than average heart rate and pace.

RunsWithBees

I’ve found the calorie burns on MFP to be slightly higher than than they should be for me. I use the iRunner app to calculate my exercise burns and these have been spot on for me as I’ve always eaten back all the exercise calories it says and lost weight just as expected. I’ve continued using iRunner for the almost 6 years of maintaining my goal weight so it’s stood the test of time and I know it works for me. That app uses GPS and has various settings so it can be used for all kinds of exercise including biking. That being said, a burn of less than 100 calories like a 10 minute bike ride is something I wouldn’t even count as it fits in with regular daily activity anyway. Good luck on your journey!

sijomial

In reality it's only the small subset of the database that includes your personal selection of exercises is relevant.
For cycling there's a lot of "depends" - depends on the bike, the tyre, the terrain, the elevation, the speed.....

For me and for my cycles/tyres/terrain etc. the database is a dreadful choice for estimates (far too high), approx. 150% of reality.

Yes there is a way to know for sure by getting a power meter that measures the force you apply and calculate the calorie burns - but they are expensive and totally over the top for a recreational rider.

An activity tracker or heart rate monitor might be a reasonable choice for some (if they have average fitness, average exercise heartrate...) but can be dreadfully inaccurate for others.

Would simply recommend downloading the free Strava app to your phone, although not empiracally accurate the estimates are within the realm of reasonable and that's all you really need. Use the MyFitnessPal categories to log your cycle but overwrite the calories with the estimate Strava gives you.

yirara

I don't think I would track 10 minute exercises. Sure, if you did 10 of those in a day, but other than that it's probably too insignificant. I have some data to back it up:

Used to drive to work by car for nearly 2 years. Moved, ate the same number of calories (and basically the same food apart from brand of bread) and cycled to work for a year, 2.23km twice per day. Had no influence on my weight at all.

For longer rides I think that the database overstates it a lot for me. But my bikes are very light, easy rolling, and the terrain is non-existing.

MikePTY

pmdonnelly wrote: »

This answer may not satisfy your question, but my nutritionist has recommended that I enter "0" for exercise. This is because the "calories burned" number is so imperfect. I find that by entering 0 and sticking with my calorie target to be more effective. If you have to, add 300 calories to your active days and see how that works. Listen to what your body is telling you.

Your nutritionist either doesn't understand how MFP works or is giving bad advice. While exercise calorie estimates may at times be imperfect, your body needs more energy on days it expends more energy.

AnnPT77

I 100% agree with sijomial here, if best accuracy for cycling is the goal.

If you're talking about an exercise that might be 82 calories, or if dramatically overstated might be half that, I wouldn't stress about that too much. As a practical matter, that's down in the realm of numbers where one apple might be sweeter than another, or you might walk more at the grocery store one day than on another visit.

At a more general level, if you do mostly the same exercises most of the time, and don't do extremely high amounts of exercise (large fraction of daily calories) then using the MFP estimates can be OK, because standard advice here is to use MFP's calorie goal for 4-6 weeks, then adjust your intake based on your actual weight loss results. If you do mostly the same exercises in the same amounts pretty consistently, that intake correction will cover a bit of approximation in the exercise calories, too.

Some people will tell you that a heart rate monitor or fitness tracker will give you fully accurate data, but that's not true, either. They're better for some activities than others, but they're still just statistical estimates, only a bit more personalized. They can also be helpful because they'll give you consistent estimates, so the same general reasoning applies as for using MFP estimates consistently.

Some people will tell you not to log exercise, or to log it as zero. That's not how MFP is designed to work, and not all trainers/doctors/etc. understand that. Zero is the one calorie estimate for exercise that is absolutely guaranteed to be inaccurate.

If you are targeting relatively slow weight loss for someone your current size, and your exercise is not long/intense/frequent (i.e., not a big calorie burner), it can be OK to record it as zero, and let the exercise speed up your weight loss rate, because you're unlikely to get to a weight loss rate fast enough to create major health risks.

On the other hand, if someone has an aggressively-fast weight target weight loss rate, then does a lot of high-burn exercise but records it as zero calories on top of that, they're creating significant health risks for themselves.

The territory in between those extremes is a judgement call. Too-slow weight loss is frustrating. Too-fast weight loss is a potential health risk.

Best wishes!

nighthawk584

the only way to know for sure is to experiment with it for a a couple weeks or more. eat back all the exercise calories and see if you are still losing weight. Personally, I only eat back 1/2 of what it is telling me I have or none at all if I'm not overly hungry. I think a lot of people use it as an excuse to gorge on more calories. just like eating junk instead of healthy choices is not wise either. my opinion, sticking to it.

sijomial

pmdonnelly wrote: »

This answer may not satisfy your question, but my nutritionist has recommended that I enter "0" for exercise. This is because the "calories burned" number is so imperfect. I find that by entering 0 and sticking with my calorie target to be more effective. If you have to, add 300 calories to your active days and see how that works. Listen to what your body is telling you.

Your nutritionist doesn't seem very bright and probably doesn't understand how this site works out your calorie goal.
Zero is guaranteed to be wrong, it's a fallacy that you need to be completely accurate anyway - reasonable estimating is good enough.

BTW - I will be burning over 3,000 cals tomorrow (Century ride) - would your nutritionist think zero or 300 would be appropriate?

SchmancyName

Thanks for the input everyone.

nighthawk584 wrote: »

the only way to know for sure is to experiment with it for a a couple weeks or more. eat back all the exercise calories and see if you are still losing weight. Personally, I only eat back 1/2 of what it is telling me I have or none at all if I'm not overly hungry. I think a lot of people use it as an excuse to gorge on more calories. just like eating junk instead of healthy choices is not wise either. my opinion, sticking to it.

This is what I have been doing this week (first week on the site). And its been working for me so far. I'll probably just stick with doing that going forward.

Hannahwalksfar

Unless I have a super intense day I don’t eat calories back because I don’t trust the readings

coffeexxeyes

pmdonnelly wrote: »

This answer may not satisfy your question, but my nutritionist has recommended that I enter "0" for exercise. This is because the "calories burned" number is so imperfect. I find that by entering 0 and sticking with my calorie target to be more effective. If you have to, add 300 calories to your active days and see how that works. Listen to what your body is telling you.

I've had a lot of success with a method similar to this! I have a weekly calorie goal based on the amount I typically exercise in a week (I use the scooby tdee calculator), and I log my food in MFP. I listen to my body instead of "starving" on rest days! I don't eat extra on cardio days vs weight training days anymore. It all evens out at the end of the week. I'm 10 vanity pounds from my goal weight and it's slowly coming off. Best part? It's staying off! ❤

MikePTY

I am curious how many people here would put their height as 3 feet tall in MFP to get a lower calorie goal? That is essentially what you are doing if you don't eat your exercise calories back. MFP does not take into account your exercise when creating a calorie goal. Your exercise is just as important as your weight, height, age, or anything else that goes into your calorie expenditure goal. Ignore it at your own risk. Nobody is doubting you can lose weight without eating your exercise calories back. You are creating a larger deficit. Of course you will lose weight. But depending on how much you exercise, it could make your weight loss and calorie deficit too aggressive.

If you don't like the idea of "eating exercise calories back", you can use a TDEE calculator that calculates a daily goal that doesn't change for you, but incorporates your exercise level as a component. You have to account for it somehow though. Using MFP's calculations without eating your exercise calories back is giving you an artificially low calorie goal.

spiriteagle99

For some exercises, MFP is very accurate. I mostly log running and walking, which are easy to calculate. I eat back 100% of those calories. I don't log short bits of exercise (i.e. 10 minutes stretching or yoga or calisthenics after my run) because that varies so much depending on how intense I choose to make it, plus I don't think it burns enough to make much difference. I look at those as bonus, which make up for errors in my logging. Some things like mowing the lawn or riding the exercise bike I'll log, since I sweat a lot and spend at least 45 minutes at them, but may or may not eat back all the calories, depending on how hungry I am.

poisonesse

How accurate are they? The short and simple... they aren't. Neither are the ones you get in your apps, like MapMyWalk, MapMyFitness, FitBit, Bartal, etc. They're just a guideline, which is why I never try to eat my exercise calories.

kimondo666

ya can simple eat 50% of what it says. its best advice many mfp users gives.

WinoGelato

pmdonnelly wrote: »

This answer may not satisfy your question, but my nutritionist has recommended that I enter "0" for exercise. This is because the "calories burned" number is so imperfect. I find that by entering 0 and sticking with my calorie target to be more effective. If you have to, add 300 calories to your active days and see how that works. Listen to what your body is telling you.

So because calorie estimates can be imperfect, you choose the one number that is definitively wrong, which is zero?

WinoGelato

poisonesse wrote: »

How accurate are they? The short and simple... they aren't. Neither are the ones you get in your apps, like MapMyWalk, MapMyFitness, FitBit, Bartal, etc. They're just a guideline, which is why I never try to eat my exercise calories.

Again, you realize that the exercise burns SOME calories, right? So why choose the one number that is definitely wrong, which is zero, to trust?

I lost weight using both the MFP estimates and later a FitBit synced with MFP. Both were accurate enough to help me lose weight at my desired pace, fueling my activity appropriately.

coffeexxeyes

WinoGelato wrote: »

pmdonnelly wrote: »

This answer may not satisfy your question, but my nutritionist has recommended that I enter "0" for exercise. This is because the "calories burned" number is so imperfect. I find that by entering 0 and sticking with my calorie target to be more effective. If you have to, add 300 calories to your active days and see how that works. Listen to what your body is telling you.

So because calorie estimates can be imperfect, you choose the one number that is definitively wrong, which is zero?

Actually, he didnt choose this number. His personal nutritionist chose it for HIM, not you. He was kind enough, however, to share his plan with other people on the same journey. Personally, calculating my TDEE at the beginning of the week helps keep me on track vs the MFP method of eating more on cardio days, eating less on rest days. I track my exercise on my Google calendar and this helps me see with a quick glance how often I'm moving and what I am doing,
or if I need more variety . Some rest days I eat 1,400, some weeks I'll go for 1,800 on my rest day if I had a particular tough workout session the day before. This is why a weekly allowance works better for me, and perhaps him, too!

In the end, we are on the same mission. What works for one may not work for all, and that's okay. That's why it is nice to learn about other methods of tracking nutrition. Eventually, we find something that sticks. Have a great day!

WinoGelato

coffeexxeyes wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

pmdonnelly wrote: »

This answer may not satisfy your question, but my nutritionist has recommended that I enter "0" for exercise. This is because the "calories burned" number is so imperfect. I find that by entering 0 and sticking with my calorie target to be more effective. If you have to, add 300 calories to your active days and see how that works. Listen to what your body is telling you.

So because calorie estimates can be imperfect, you choose the one number that is definitively wrong, which is zero?

Actually, he didnt choose this number. His personal nutritionist chose it for HIM, not you. He was kind enough, however, to share his plan with other people on the same journey. Personally, calculating my TDEE at the beginning of the week helps keep me on track vs the MFP method of eating more on cardio days, eating less on rest days. This is what works for ME.

In the end, we are on the same mission. What works for one may not work for all, and that's okay. That's why it is nice to learn about other methods of tracking nutrition. Eventually, we find something that sticks. Have a great day!

But TDEE factors an estimate of exercise calories, it doesn’t disregard it altogether as this poster and his “nutritionist” recommends.

My assumption is that the nutritionist doesn’t realize that poster is using MFP which calculates a NEAT calorie target.

Regardless, suggesting that all calorie burns are to be ignored because they can be imperfect seems to be an unnecessary and uninformed overgeneralization regardless of who is making the recommendation.

coffeexxeyes

But then again, you aren't his nutritionist, so there's that. You have no idea what calorie goals his nutritionist may have set for him. Like him, I also don't track my calorie burns, only how often I exercise. It's working wonderfully for me. Just because you don't like the method doesn't make it wrong. I still track my calories in MFP, though. You dont need to let MFP create your calorie goal in order for it to be a useful tool.

WinoGelato

coffeexxeyes wrote: »

But then again, you aren't his nutritionist, so there's that. You have no idea what calorie goals his nutritionist may have set for him. Like him, I also don't track my calorie burns, only how often I exercise. It's working wonderfully for me. Just because you don't like the method doesn't make it wrong. I still track my calories in MFP, though. You dont need to let MFP create your calorie goal in order for it to be a useful tool.

Lots of people use the TDEE method to set calorie goals and then still log and track through MFP. You’re right that can be a very effective tool.

That is different than saying exercise calories can’t be estimated reliably so ignore them all. One would hope that a nutritionist worth his or her accreditation (which many can be obtained in a weekend of online courses) would explain the difference in how a calorie goal was calculated to their clients so they better understood the process. As I read the poster in question, you’re right we have no idea if TDEE was used and exercise was factored in but if it was then that should be explained instead of advising people on a site where exercise is NOT factored in to just ignore the estimated burns.

sijomial

coffeexxeyes wrote: »

But then again, you aren't his nutritionist, so there's that. You have no idea what calorie goals his nutritionist may have set for him. Like him, I also don't track my calorie burns, only how often I exercise. It's working wonderfully for me. Just because you don't like the method doesn't make it wrong. I still track my calories in MFP, though. You dont need to let MFP create your calorie goal in order for it to be a useful tool.

But hope you realise you ARE estimating your exercise calories - look up the descriptions in the TDEE calculator you used and your will see it covers both general activity and exercise.

That people can be successful using the TDEE method which not only estimates what your workouts are but also the duration in advance should reinforce to people that the myth that imperfect estimates don't work is completely false.

It's the nature of the skill of estimating on both calories in and calories out that it accomodates imprecise estimates.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

kshama2001

pmdonnelly wrote: »

This answer may not satisfy your question, but my nutritionist has recommended that I enter "0" for exercise. This is because the "calories burned" number is so imperfect. I find that by entering 0 and sticking with my calorie target to be more effective. If you have to, add 300 calories to your active days and see how that works. Listen to what your body is telling you.

Is your nutritionist aware that MFP uses NEAT rather than TDEE?

If you use MFP to set your calorie goal, exercise, but don't eat back any exercise calories, you are not using MFP the way it was designed.

Unlike other sites which use TDEE calculators, MFP uses the NEAT method (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis), and as such this system is designed for exercise calories to be eaten back. However, many consider the burns given by MFP to be inflated for them and only eat a percentage, such as 50%, back. Others, however, are able to lose weight while eating 100% of their exercise calories.

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p1