Accuracy of exercise calories on MFP?

FattyFeast

I was just wondering whether anybody with a proper monitor for themselves can shed any light on how accurate the MFP calories are. Whilst I want to eat my exercise calories, I feel like they're waaaayyy over-estimated based on various gym equipment I've used over the years and how tired/hungry I personally feel after exercise.

For instance, walking for a few hours at my normal walking pace (around 3mph) claims to be worth 518 calories! I've done exercise on machines at the gym that cost me 500ish calories and it just seems strange to me that I feel wiped out after a gym session but pretty fine after going for a walk. Maybe it's just the form of exercise (I don't usually walk, but I have a bum leg atm) but I just wanted to know whether anybody's tested the accuracy of the measures MFP gives.

It would be really helpful to know because I'd like to get my calories as spot on as possible - but not under-eat!

nytrifisoul

I use a high end hrm and it all depends on how often you exercise and how good your cardio is. I run every day between 6-7mph and i burn alot more on my hrm then mfp estimates.

Ironically my battery needs to be replaced and somedays i notice the cal burn meter isnt going up yet im running with my hr at 160bpm and 5 min went buy and it went up like 2 calories..lol, Yeah i need to get new batterys.

GothyFaery

I don't have a HRM but a lot of people have said that MFP WAY over estimates calories. I typically cut what MFP says in half.

nytrifisoul

I don't have a HRM but a lot of people have said that MFP WAY over estimates calories. I typically cut what MFP says in half.

Depends, I input my actual weight into mfp, but sometimes i run with hand weights or my weight vest which boosts my hr tremendously. mfp doesnt give you an option to input your average hr so for me, it underestimates.

VelveteenArabian

I've always found that MFP way UNDER estimates my calorie burn when I compare it to my HRM (with a chest strap if that matters).

FattyFeast

Cheers guys!

Conflicting information a bit though - has anybody ever tried just looking at walking calories on MFP vs HRM, or is the HRM stuff based purely on big work-outs like running, cycling etc.?

Mr_Knight

I was just wondering whether anybody with a proper monitor for themselves can shed any light on how accurate the MFP calories are.

They're pretty good. For some reason, though, the database is full of gross calorie burns instead of net calorie burns, but that's easy enough to adjust for once you know.

The biggest problem is people don't understand that "vigourous" doesn't mean high heart rate and sweating buckets - it means you're actually going faster and harder than Shaun T (or whoever's video you're following). So lots of people get in trouble with over-estimated burns - but that isn't strictly speaking an MFP problem, that's plain old user error.

PS An HRM would be inappropriate for most exercises in the database. It only really works for very specific types of exercise, and most of the devices are also only really accurate for people in a specific range of fitness (roughly "not too bad" to "not too good"). There are **** tons of people on MFP who swear by vastly over-estimated burns provided for by their HRM...

nytrifisoul

Cheers guys!

Conflicting information a bit though - has anybody ever tried just looking at walking calories on MFP vs HRM, or is the HRM stuff based purely on big work-outs like running, cycling etc.?

Like was already said, it depends on how hard your exercising. MFP cant input HR so it can only go by rough estimates. Doesnt matter if your walking or running. If your walking at an incline your HR is going to be higher, so your burn is going to be higher. MFP doesnt even have input for incline (which is sad).

crystalrose_tina

I see that a couple people are having their calories-burned underestimated by MFP, but my case is completely opposite. My calorie total displayed on my HRM is always a bit/a lot lower than the calories that MFP estimates. Before I got a heart rate monitor I was always going off of what the machines told me I burned, which is why I stopped losing weight because i thought I could eat a lot more than I was actually allowed. Machines always come up with outrageously high calorie burns for my workouts. MFP seems to report burns as high as the machines in my case.

nytrifisoul

There are **** tons of people on MFP who swear by vastly over-estimated burns provided for by their HRM...

Wut?

Explain to me how calculating calories burned by your actual heart rate is inaccurate?

PhearlessPhreaks

Personally, I've found MFP to be pretty accurate; every so often I will compare with other exercise calorie calculators and I don't find much of a disparity. To be on the safe side, I almost never eat back all my exercise calories, and if I'm on the treadmill using a variable incline, I don't try to figure out how that incline affected my burn. I just log the speed and time- that way I know I've burned *at least* those calories.

Mr_Knight

There are **** tons of people on MFP who swear by vastly over-estimated burns provided for by their HRM...

Wut?

Explain to me how calculating calories burned by your actual heart rate is inaccurate?

Heart rate does not correlate well with calorie burn, outside of very specific circumstances and/or person-specific calibrations. There are lots and lots of threads and posts on MFP explaining this at length - the simple version is that the math inside those devices is (effectively) using heart rate as a % of max heart rate as a proxy for V02Max, which is is going to be substantially wrong most of the time, for most people.

The idea that heart rate and burn are correlated is one of the most prevalent (and harmful) myths on MFP.