Are MFP exercise calorie estimates reasonable?

IntoTheSunset

Just getting started here with tracking - I set my activity level at sedentary and plan on eating back exercise calories. My question for any other more experienced members who track this way also - is it safe (effective) to go with MFP's estimate of calories burned for an activity? It seems high. Yesterday it told me a half hour of kickboxing was over 400 calories. I'd be surprised if I burned quite that much.

Any thoughts or insights? I might be splitting hairs here - I know less food is less food, but an extra 400 calories a day over a kickboxing DVD is a pretty big chunk of change in terms of calorie currency.

SLLRunner

Yes, I have found the calorie counts on MFP to be high. I either input from the gym machines that ask for my weight and age or I input from my Footseteps Pedometer, which has my age, weight, height, stride, for walking and running. All of these calorie estimations are about 100 calories less than the MFP.

Also, off topic as a side note- are you sure your activity level should be set at sedentary? You might want to try lightly active or active because you are working out. Sedentary is for people who do nothing at all, even though MFP says it's for people with desk jobs. I have a desk job, but I also move about, and I changed my activity level to active. It worked for me and I've been steadily losing weight.

TonyStark30

They are high, but personally I still use them for consistency, I just never eat back all my Calories.

FerryfieldLad

I always found the calorie counts on MFP to be less than actual calories burned when I started exercising (as a very unfit man) and using a HRM.

As I got fitter the MFP calorie counts were excessive.

Chellellelle

It really depends. I actually find MFP calculations to be too low for me. I use a heart rate monitor to track my workouts, so that's how I know. Personally, I would probably burn 400+ calories doing a 30 minute kickboxing workout.

The best thing I would say to do would be invest in a heart rate monitor. Then you get accurate reads based on your body.

Holly_Roman_Empire

I always found the calorie counts on MFP to be less than actual calories burned when I started exercising (as a very unfit man) and using a HRM.

As I got fitter the MFP calorie counts were excessive.

This is how it happened for me. Save yourself and buy a heart rate monitor. That's as accurate as it's going to get.

IntoTheSunset

Yes, I have found the calorie counts on MFP to be high. I either input from the gym machines that ask for my weight and age or I input from my Footseteps Pedometer, which has my age, weight, height, stride, for walking and running. All of these calorie estimations are about 100 calories less than the MFP.

Also, off topic as a side note- are you sure your activity level should be set at sedentary? You might want to try lightly active or active because you are working out. Sedentary is for people who do nothing at all, even though MFP says it's for people with desk jobs. I have a desk job, but I also move about, and I changed my activity level to active. It worked for me and I've been steadily losing weight.

I'm nervous to set it at anything above sedentary - because I truly am pretty sedentary - desk job, tv watching in the evenings. Outside of a planned workout, I think house cleaning or walking around the mall might on a weekend might be as "active" as I get.

Probably I just have to try for a calorie goal range and just see what works over the next few weeks. I'm trying not to sweat the small details, but part of me (even after reading as extensively as possible about BRM, TDEE, etc) is really hung up on wanting to know the *magic* calorie number for weekly weight loss. I wish there was a way to just know for sure without any trial and error!

Jennloella

Once I got a heart rate monitor I realized mfp was way over estimating my cals burned, sometimes double. It's such a vague estimate and depends on your weight, fitness level, etc. I personally don't consider it the way to go, I enter calories manually for exercise

IntoTheSunset

Maybe I'll just log exercise and eat back only half the calories MFP says.

wisher40

They are high. Sometimes unbelievably so. I have found that if I exercise, say, for 40 minutes, I only log 20 of those. If you log half the amount of time, the number is usually closer to accurate. Try to do this especially if you plan on eating back calories. I don't eat back mine because I don't trust the numbers.

Chevy_Quest

Once I got a heart rate monitor I realized mfp was way over estimating my cals burned, sometimes double. It's such a vague estimate and depends on your weight, fitness level, etc. I personally don't consider it the way to go, I enter calories manually for exercise

^^ Said very well.

When I finally learned how to use an HRM - It really changed the way I looked at things!

VelvetMorning

Haha, I was wondering this too. The amount of times I've seen "So and So walked their dog for 30 minutes and burned 250 calories.." - I'll tell you what, my dog was about to get a lot healthier!

mcibty

Snap some of the above. If I'm logging something and I have no idea what the actual burn was, I tend to log it as half the time or 'less vigorous' effort, so it's a more realistic view. Otherwise, I put what the machines tell me I've burned in and ignore how many minutes MFP thinks it took me.

vim_n_vigor

When I wear a HRM, the calories here and on the HRM are very close. For some, slightly higher, some, slightly lower.

zardakfrbfast

I was talking about this with a friend who is an experienced gym-go-er. One of the things he said is that the machine counts don't often take into account the calories you WOULD HAVE BURNED anyway, if you didn't work out for that half hour. So if you've burnt 400 calories in 30 minutes, but on average you would have burnt 50 calories by sitting on the couch, your net loss is really 350 calories.

It made sense to me. And I think underestimating your calories burned by a little bit is probably better than slightly overestimating...especially if you plan on eating back your calories.

ideang

For me the MFP calories are always over. I log my walks as 2 mph even though I they are closer to 4mph because the calorie count is closer to what I burn. When I run, I track my heart rate and use another site to get the results and manually enter them here. For my 20 to 30 min run MFP is 100 or more calories over what I really burned.

cbirdso

Using the MFP calorie estimates worked for me and I ate back all my exercise calories. To be clear, I never logged 'activity' calories because I assumed they were included when I chose my activity level, which was lightly active. So, I only logged exercise calories when it was a (to me) bona fide workout. I lost at exactly the rate calculated by MFP when I logged my calories and ate back my exercise calories. That is what made me successful at reaching my goal, because I really do not like exercise, but will do it for food! :blushing:

Prettypedalpower

I think the exercise amounts of calories burnt are really high but I don't eat mine back.... I also dropped my calorie target from 1650 a day to 1200. I try to never go over

LJGmom

I burn more calories according to my HRM. I am on medication that increases my HR so I always wear HRM for safety. I am also out of shape, so my heart is in shock when I exercise...ha.

LJGmom

I burn more calories according to my HRM. I am on medication that increases my HR so I always wear HRM for safety. I am also out of shape, so my heart is in shock when I exercise...ha.

I eat back half.

tinavflynn

After reading everyone's responses about using a HRM, does anyone have a brand they would suggest??

diadia1

It made sense to me. And I think underestimating your calories burned by a little bit is probably better than slightly overestimating...especially if you plan on eating back your calories.

agree.

under estimate your exercise calories for a month and see at what rate your are losing.
If it is too much then you know for sure you are burning more thant you think, if it s a perfect rate per week then you know it is accutrate. That is how i do it because i eat back all my exercises calories...and sometimes more, and still losing. I don't own a HRM, maybe i should!!!

llbennett74

It really depends. The estimates it was giving me for Zumba were very close but what it was giving me for the cross training class I take were high. If you can, definitely get yourself and HRM. I've found it very helpful.

Cheval13

I use a HRM, but that thing overestimates the amount I burn anyway, even though I put in my weight correctly and my maximum heart rate at much higher than the 220-age formula.
I used to use MFP calorie burns to eat back until I realized that I wasn't losing weight and I was defeating the purpose of burning extra calories. After an epiphany that I couldn't eat all my exercise calories back and eat at BMR to lose weight, I stopped logging with the calories MFP gives me. I now use the weight*distance*0.63 formula I found somewhere, and while it doesn't account for the pace at which those distances are run, it gives me a lower calorie burn that I feel I can justify eating them all back better than what MFP gives me.

jmartis21

I love my Polar FT4. I have to have it when I workout, helps me push myself!

acpgee

For walking, MFP at my weight sounds reasonable (about 300 per hour).

However for my typical workout on the elliptical (65 minutes targeting a heart rate between 140-153 and doing 15 second sprints if necessary to stay in the zone), my HRM (Polar FT4) gives me around 600, the machine itself around 750, and MFP database says 926.

happysherri

Yes, some of the MFP exercise calories are off! Like others have already suggested, HRM are the best.

FP4HSharon

This is a great article from PC Magazine on the various fitness trackers out there...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404445,00.asp

Allup2Me78

Same for me

When I wear a HRM, the calories here and on the HRM are very close. For some, slightly higher, some, slightly lower.

FitNurseLex

I use a Polar FT4 HRM as well and I think the HRMs are about as accurate as it can get. Before I began using one, I thought that I was doing MAJOR work in the gym and it turned out I wasn't lol. (The gym's machines are pretty inaccurate as well.) I find that MFP's estimate are very high, so I usually just tweak the time spent on each activity to correct the cals burned. As long as the cals that my Polar watch displays match up with what I input into MFP, I can then trust the calculation for remaining calories for food.

dmoppy

It depends on the activity for me. I use a HR monitor when I'm really serious about measuring what I'm doing. When I run MFP significantly underestimates the calories burned, but at lower activity levels, like walking it's usually significantly over estimating the calories burned; best to get a HRM and see what you learn from it. I do use MFP estimates when I'm just logging a small think like mowing the grass or walking the dog - mostly as an excuse so I can eat more that day (yes I know I still need to work on this thinking).

I don't eat back all my exercise calories because I don't record every little thing (like condiments) but I do use the idea of exercise = reward which I find motivational.

As far as a HRM I had a Polaris for years but now have a Suunto because I think it's a cooler looking watch and use it as my daily wear. There are a lot of good ones out there