Are the MFP Excersize burned calories real?

bperkins88
bperkins88 Posts: 357 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Is that really how many calories your burning? is there a HRM that you guys would recommend?

Replies

  • GradatimFerociter
    GradatimFerociter Posts: 296 Member
    Almost certainly not, and no idea.
  • eldamiano
    eldamiano Posts: 2,667 Member
    Probably a rough guideline but never really going to be 100%. What else can you do when exercise is so personalised?
  • DeadsAndDoritos
    DeadsAndDoritos Posts: 267 Member
    I use a Polar FT7 HRM and would recommend it.
  • LindseySprake
    LindseySprake Posts: 333 Member
    I find MFP over estimates cals burned: I use a HRM.

    Polar HRM's are the best IMO and pretty user friendly too.

    Hope this helps :flowerforyou:
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    they're estimates. If you're doing steady state cardio (running, whatever) a HRM will help. If you're not doing cardio, don't stress about getting a HRM.
  • benefiting
    benefiting Posts: 795 Member
    The last few times I've logged using just MFP seem to be close or very close but obviously a HRM is going to be more accurate. I have a Polar FT80, it has so many features and there is cheaper ones if you don't need it all - like the FT7 which I also have. If you want basic heart rate/calories burnt than go with the FT7. :)
  • Samstan101
    Samstan101 Posts: 699 Member
    I use a Garmin Forerunner & HRM and have found that MFP consistently over-estimates my calorie burn by 20-40% eg today I did a 34min windup run MFP=555cals, HRM 465cals. Comparing elliptical trainer sessions its about 25% too high compared to my HRM. I include exercise calorie burn in my average TDEE cals which I base my alowance o and its working so far so I assume that for 'steady stae' cardio my HRM is pretty accurate.
  • hammondo
    hammondo Posts: 43 Member
    I use the runtastic app on my iPhone, and that syncs with MFP. As long as you keep your stats updated as you lose weight, it seems to be pretty good IMHO.
  • FattyFatsoMcTubby
    FattyFatsoMcTubby Posts: 170 Member
    MFP, workout apps on smart phones, and HRMs are all estimating your calorie burn. None of them are exact. By the way, the calorie counts on packaged foods are only estimates also, and they usually are under estimated. Calories are the key do weight loss, but there's no easy way to track them accurately.
  • kenthepainter
    kenthepainter Posts: 195 Member
    I think they are highly inflated, even if you go by half of what you did. I don't trust them . I want everyday to count with my weight loss, if I eat extra calories because my exercise adds to my max allowed, I feel my weight loss will stall. If I shovel snow for 1 hour I'm calling that 100 calories burned, Probably less than actual but I'm gonna error on the side of caution !!
  • groomchick
    groomchick Posts: 610 Member
    Absolutely NOT! But neither is ANY other device. Even the best HRM, Fitbits, BMF or machines are off. Everything is just an estimate. However….the more personal information your HRM gets in it the closer you are.
  • hammondo
    hammondo Posts: 43 Member
    I think they are highly inflated, even if you go by half of what you did. I don't trust them . I want everyday to count with my weight loss, if I eat extra calories because my exercise adds to my max allowed, I feel my weight loss will stall. If I shovel snow for 1 hour I'm calling that 100 calories burned, Probably less than actual but I'm gonna error on the side of caution !!

    Spot on! I have never used my exercise calories as an excuse to eat more than I would!
  • sruvane
    sruvane Posts: 65 Member
    I think they are high, also, so tend to use them as a guideline...eating up to 75% of the additional calories earned, if I feel hungry, but not more.

    You have all inspired me to crack my HRM back out. It really does tell the truth :noway:
  • kuger4119
    kuger4119 Posts: 213 Member
    Some estimates are pretty good. Others are not. For me, it slightly overestimates calories burned while running but probably only by 5%. It severely underestimates what I burn while working out. It significantly overestimates what I burn on a stationary bike. At the end of the day, if you just use their numbers, stick to your calorie goals on food and be honest with yourself when filling out your diary, you're going to see great results.

    In the long run, it really isn't that important if you burned 300 real calories or 360 estimated calories. If you are running a 500 calorie deficit, all it really means is that over the course of the year, you would lose 46 lbs instead of 52 lbs. There are other variables in your life that will have far more impact. A 3000 calorie Thanksgiving meal will have more impact than a month of calorie estimate errors.

    Don't worry about it.
  • Wenchiness
    Wenchiness Posts: 126 Member
    If they were real I would be losing 10 lbs per week, and most of them I have automatically halved. However, I have nothing better to use, and my Dr. does not allow me to eat my calories back, so for me, it's more a log of times spent, as well as allowing me more sodium and sugar in my diet so I rarely see the awful red numbers.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    The MFP numbers aren't bad, for the most part. They are, however, generally misused. "Vigourous" does not mean "sweating buckets", it means "I'm already super fit and leaving Shaun T in the dust".

    The numbers also don't back out BMR/RMR, so there is some double counting going on if people aren't paying attention.
  • Chelfit
    Chelfit Posts: 36 Member
    I just started using a HRM this week because I thought MFP was overestimating my calories burned.

    MFP Circuit Training, 30 min = 330 cals. When I used my HRM it said I burned only 184 cals. I was shocked to say the least, especially since I was eating some of my cals back.


    MFP Spinning, 45 min = 441. HRM = 443, so that is pretty accurate.

    Go with a HRM.
  • jigsaw_me
    jigsaw_me Posts: 616 Member
    I found MFP's burn rates about double what my HRM (Polar) gives me.
  • Fit4_Life
    Fit4_Life Posts: 828 Member
    To me, I think MFP is based on a certain weight to get the calories burned. Because I burn more than what is listed as. I have 2 HRM, One is the Polar FT7 and the other one is my Motorola , which I like, cuz' it plays music (which I download my favs of music from the computer), radio and it takes incoming calls. Has a GPS. Top it off, it's a touch screen. I got mine at the Verizon store.
  • carolemorden9
    carolemorden9 Posts: 284 Member
    It really depends on the activity. I use a Polar FT4 now, and I burn fewer calories than MFP says for Zumba, but more calories than what MFP says for cleaning or walking. It really all depends on how fast you get your heart rate.
  • besaro
    besaro Posts: 1,858 Member
    i use a HRM and i havent seen a huge discrepancy but others claim to.
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    It really depends on the activity. I use a Polar FT4 now, and I burn fewer calories than MFP says for Zumba, but more calories than what MFP says for cleaning or walking. It really all depends on how fast you get your heart rate.
    HRM's aren't meant for counting while cleaning. They're for steady state cardio activity.

Categories