Are MFP exercise calorie estimates reasonable?

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

Ibleedlipstick

For me, MFP's calorie estimates are ridiculously off (literally double the amount of calories) and that actually caused me to gain a bit of weight back!

I recommend trying it, and seeing if it works for you. If you don't see the results you are looking for, change your intake!

I_Will_End_You

For me, MFP's calorie estimates are ridiculously off (literally double the amount of calories)

Same here. They are waaay off for me.

heybales

For pace related entries, (3 mph walking, ect), the formulas based on weight on more accurate than HRM's, which the cheaper Polar's and others are easily up to 30% off, actually that's even their more expensive ones.

But you must hit that pace, level walking or running.

The biking can be decent if a long enough ride. Head/tail wind and up/down hills cancel each other out nicely the longer you go.

Swimming only has 2 levels and can be.

Other stuff with no description of effort or pace can be all over the board, as you have no idea if your effort is matching the average effort of the database person.

Mr_Knight

Yesterday it told me a half hour of kickboxing was over 400 calories. I'd be surprised if I burned quite that much.

Here's a rule of thumb...

Net calories burned from running = 0.63 * weight in pounds * miles run

If you're being told that you burned more calories than you can run, the odds are high that it is an over-estimate. For example, a 160 pound person would need to run around 4 miles (5.5km) to burn 400 calories. If that person can't run 4 miles in 45 minutes (or however long the class took), then it is unlikely they are burning that many calories, and should scale it down accordingly.

What I've found is that when I'm accurate on pace and time, the MFP numbers are actually pretty good for running and walking. Where I've seen the biggest problems is in exercises tagged with descriptors like "vigorous" - "vigorous" doesn't mean "sweating heavy", it means "moving at competitive speeds".

heybales

Yesterday it told me a half hour of kickboxing was over 400 calories. I'd be surprised if I burned quite that much.

Here's a rule of thumb...

Net calories burned from running = 0.63 * weight in pounds * miles run

If you're being told that you burned more calories than you can run, the odds are high that it is an over-estimate. For example, a 160 pound person would need to run around 4 miles (5.5km) to burn 400 calories. If that person can't run 4 miles in 45 minutes (or however long the class took), then it is unlikely they are burning that many calories, and should scale it down accordingly.

What I've found is that when I'm accurate on pace and time, the MFP numbers are actually pretty good for running and walking. Where I've seen the biggest problems is in exercises tagged with descriptors like "vigorous" - "vigorous" doesn't mean "sweating heavy", it means "moving at competitive speeds".

Great point and reminded me of an excellent way to compare those non-descript categories.

Get on the treadmill and walk flat 4mph, or run 5-6 mph, and see what the calorie burn is, and see how fast the heart and breathing is.

That's going to be pretty accurate burn in the database.

Now you can compare it to the gym or DVD workout, or elliptical for that matter.

Because if breathing and HR are about the same, you burned about the same calories.

I will point out, doing a hard class first, and then jumping on the treadmill to see what pace equaled your workout you just did - is bad idea because HR and breathing will likely shoot up more than normal, after a good workout.

rhondatime2chg

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

Agree. Invest in a HRM if you can.

jpw9988

I found it looks over estimated for me compared to what the machines say when I input my weight and age. I decided not to eat back workout calories that way ist a bonus!

Chellellelle

I have a Polar FT4 heart rate monitor and it works great! You can get them for around 60 bucks on a lot of websites. I got mine at hearttrackersusa.com or something like that.

dswolverine

I thought they were off but then I started using a HRM and they're actually closer than i thought. I still never eat back all the exercise calories though

SarahBeth0625

My heartrate monitor (Polar FT4) was a good investment. They are right around $60 and will give you a better estimate as you input weight, height, and it calculates your burn based on your actual heartrate. Also, studies have proven that if you can see where your heartrate is, you will burn more calories to keep yourself burning in the zone you want to be. I found that the elliptical count off the machine was much higher (100 calories higher) than what my heartrate monitor was telling me. Right now I burn anywhere from 340 - 365 cals in 36 minutes (according to the HRM) and the machine will tell me close to 500 cals. I have never really used MFP's calculators.