calorie counters and why are they so off?

mindymoe1

So i have a Wii fit plus and a pedometer. i wore the pedometer while using the wii fit and the calories burned were very different. the wii fit said 168 but my pedometer said 320. im so confused. why are they so different. both things have my correct weight. has anyone else noticed this? im starting to wonder if im really buring as many calories as things on mfp,wii and my pedometer are saying. HELP

Hughes39

So i have a Wii fit plus and a pedometer. i wore the pedometer while using the wii fit and the calories burned were very different. the wii fit said 168 but my pedometer said 320. im so confused. why are they so different. both things have my correct weight. has anyone else noticed this? im starting to wonder if im really buring as many calories as things on mfp,wii and my pedometer are saying. HELP

I dont have a pedometer, so no, i havent noticed. but im curious now too

Mindful_Trent

The problem with all of these is that they are estimates. All of these tools use different generic calculations to come up with calories burned. I personally wouldn't put much stock in a step counter - it uses weight, gender (maybe?) and number of steps taken. The wii fit might possibly be more accurate if it bases it off the speed/effort involved. MFP estmiates and gym machine estimates really aren't much better either - they're generic estimates.

I use a bodybugg type device, which is still an estimate, but bases it off of various readings (movement, skin temperature, etc.) and is scientifically proven to be within +/- 5% for exercise calories and +/- 10% for non-exercise calories. HRM's are good for estimating exercise calories as well, but not really non-exercise calories.

I'd recommend investing in a cheap HRM if that's all you can afford, or a nicer HRM or bodybugg type device if you have the funds.

mindymoe1

thanks everyone

AnnaPixie

MFP estmiates and gym machine estimates really aren't much better either - they're generic estimates.

I use a bodybugg type device, which is still an estimate, but bases it off of various readings (movement, skin temperature, etc.) and is scientifically proven to be within +/- 5% for exercise calories and +/- 10% for non-exercise calories. HRM's are good for estimating exercise calories as well, but not really non-exercise calories.

Hi there

Just wondering HOW innacurate MFP are??? I dont like to eat too much into my exercise calories as I kinda had a feeling they were over generous. Have you done any kind of comparison to your bug thingy??

Thanks :drinker:

Mindful_Trent

MFP estmiates and gym machine estimates really aren't much better either - they're generic estimates.

I use a bodybugg type device, which is still an estimate, but bases it off of various readings (movement, skin temperature, etc.) and is scientifically proven to be within +/- 5% for exercise calories and +/- 10% for non-exercise calories. HRM's are good for estimating exercise calories as well, but not really non-exercise calories.

Hi there

Just wondering HOW innacurate MFP are??? I dont like to eat too much into my exercise calories as I kinda had a feeling they were over generous. Have you done any kind of comparison to your bug thingy??

Thanks :drinker:

Really, it's going to vary quite considerably for each individual. I know some people find that the machines at the gym UNDERestimate based on what their bodybugg tells them, and others (like me) typically get the opposite finding. But even then, it varies based on the activity and the day. MFP makes assumptions about your effort when it gives general calorie calculations - some days my GoWearFit (it's the same thing as a bodybugg, but different brand) gives closer readings to MFP's estimates than others - it just depends on how closely my effort matches that which the MFP calculation is based on.

Some examples (which you can see swing both ways as far as if MFP over/under estimates):

Walking 50 minutes, 4 mph - MFP: 381 calories, my GWF: 520ish (big difference due to the fact that I wasn't just walking 4 mph the whole time - I jogged part of the time, walked part - 4mph was the closest MFP exercise that matched my average speed)

Jump Rope - 15 minutes, moderate effort - MFP: 228, my GWF: 100ish (difference is probably due to the fact that I wasn't jumping the ENTIRE time - I would jump about 50 times and rest for 30 seconds or so, then jump again)

Stationary Rowing - 12 minutes, moderate effort - MFP: 128 calories, my GWF: 150ish

Elliptical - 30 minutes - MFP: 411 calories, my GWF: 200ish

Mindful_Trent

One more note (a little off topic, but I thought it is relevant) - the main reason why I got the GoWearFit instead of a HRM is because the GWF is designed to be worn all day and is fairly accurate in measuring non-exercise calories, which HRM's aren't meant to do. My profile is set at sedentary, because I have a desk job - normally I burn 2100-2300 calories/day before exercise (both MFP and my GWF agree on this) but there are days (usually weekends) where I'm very busy doing shopping/running around and I burn more calories than usual. MFP doesn't really allow you to take this into consideration - it only has you add exercise calories.

The GWF allows me to estimate how many more calories than normal I burn in a busy day, in addition to exercise calories burned. Usually I don't enter the "busy day" calories into MFP, though, unless it's significant (like 300 or 400 extra).

rjadams

I just want to add that intensity really plays into it as well. I can do the same treadmill walk, same speed, same time and burn up to 200 calories difference depending on how much I move my arms and how intense I am into it. this is especially true with aerobic and workout videos. Major differences depending on how into it I am. I would strongly suggest an HRM or other device if you want to really know a better estimate of what you are burning.

AnnaPixie

Thanks guys, that makes perfect sense. :flowerforyou:

I'm sure I had a HRM years ago. Will have to dig it out and make a comparison.

ATB

Anna :bigsmile: