Should I trust MFP's calorie burn calculations?

PrinnyMartel

So I spent 40 minutes on the elliptical this morning. The machine said I burnt 402 cals, but when I logged it into MFP it said I burned 647.

I'm just over 240lbs at the moment, and the the few times I did hold still for the handlebars, my heart rate reading was around 150-160 ( I just spend the last 3 months recovering from surgery and am crazy out of shape.) If i had to guess, I'd say my speed averaged around 3.6

How accurate have MFP's calculations been for you? I kind of want to go with the lower number to be safe.

19TaraLynn84

Always go with the lower number! And if you can, purchase a heart rate monitor.

LindseyAlyssa

As a short gal (5'2"), MFPs calorie burns are nearly always higher than what I'd realistically burn. I second the suggestion to get a good HRM monitor.

Ctrum69

So I spent 40 minutes on the elliptical this morning. The machine said I burnt 402 cals, but when I logged it into MFP it said I burned 647.

I'm just over 240lbs at the moment, and the the few times I did hold still for the handlebars, my heart rate reading was around 150-160 ( I just spend the last 3 months recovering from surgery and am crazy out of shape.) If i had to guess, I'd say my speed averaged around 3.6

How accurate have MFP's calculations been for you? I kind of want to go with the lower number to be safe.

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

Plug in your details there and compare. Machines in gyms are notoriously low at figuring it out.

MFP is notoriously high.

Siobhan108

I would check other sites on the web, especially ones for your age and weight. I usually use those.

ashleearoha

Get a heart rate monitor. They are motivating and you know exactly how many calories you have burnt.

jennycina93

I have a Jawbone UP band and it usually says about 100 calories below MFP. You have to remember that MFP doesn't know how hard you worked, but for me it is typically too high. I am 5'1 and 159 pounds (if that matters).

TravelDog14

Nope, I don't trust MFPs burn numbers they're always on the high side.
I use an online treadmill calculator and another calories burned one for other cardio activities where it allows me to enter my gender, height, weight, minutes exercised, and age.
Even then I low ball the calories burned number I enter on MFP just to be on the safe side.

Cal28

If you can I'd also really suggest investing in a HRM. Neither are really 'correct' as everyone differs so much.
What a 5ft shortie like me would burn in comparison to my 6ft 2" OH would be a massive difference, so they're all just 'averages'.

Look at a Polar FT4 or if you can stretch your budget a Polar FT60. x

joehempel

no, not at all.

seamonster1203

I log the elliptical as walking slow 3mph

scubasuenc

I've found MFP to be consistently high, but how high depends on the activity. For stationary bike riding it is off by a factor of 2. For snorkeling is is off by a factor of 3. If you want to get a real feel for the calories you burn, invest in a heart rate monitor.

Without an HRM I would recommend eating only 1/2 to 2/3 of your exercise calories back.

ebayaddict0127

I did 25 minutes on the elliptical last week and the machine said I burned 40 calories (are you kidding me????) and MFP said 200. I went with 200 based on how sweaty I was and how little I could breathe.

I'm looking into getting a Fit Bit or something similar because I honestly don't trust these randomly calculated numbers.

Cal28

Fitbit is great but I don't use it for the gym, just day to day to see how much/little I move (desk jobs are not good for weight loss!)
A HRM is the best best for gym sessions (IMO)

hilts1969

So I spent 40 minutes on the elliptical this morning. The machine said I burnt 402 cals, but when I logged it into MFP it said I burned 647.

I'm just over 240lbs at the moment, and the the few times I did hold still for the handlebars, my heart rate reading was around 150-160 ( I just spend the last 3 months recovering from surgery and am crazy out of shape.) If i had to guess, I'd say my speed averaged around 3.6

How accurate have MFP's calculations been for you? I kind of want to go with the lower number to be safe.

I use this method

minutes exercising times speed plus weight in pounds divided by heart rate and minus temperature, take this figure and add it your TDEE minus your BMR, write this down on a piece of paper in capital letters, underline it in red marker pen and throw it in the nearest bin and get on with your life

In your case it was 474.98767564232 calories burnt give or take 400 calories either way due to abnormal conditions

michable

I have a HRM, and always compare it to MFPs figures after running. I have been pleasantly surprised at how closely my HRM and MFPs figures correspond for running. This is for running only. I would not trust MFP figures for anything else. Actually, I don't even trust my HRM for anything besides running, because I think that's what they (HRMs) are most accurate for.

I have lately started to use a MET calculation for other activities (e.g. squash, strength training). I got this from the New Rules of Lifting for Women. The trouble is, you have to find a good MET table that lists a lot of activities to find the MET value for your activity. I found a pretty good list here: http://www.topendsports.com/weight-loss/energy-met.htm

The calculation is as follows:

Total cals burned = duration in minutes x (MET x 3.5 x weight in kg / 200)

So, for running, it gives a MET value of 10 for running at 10 minute mile pace, so for my long run this morning we have:

67 mins x (10 x 3.5 x 50kg / 200) = 586.25 cals

For comparison, my HRM said 582 cals

And MFP said 565 cals.

Don't you love when a few different methods of calculation arrive at similar conclusions?

For squash, the list gives a MET value range of 7-12, so I usually use 8 to get a conservative estimate of my calorie burn. I might use a higher MET value if I had a particularly hard game, but I probably wouldn't use higher than 9, because I don't think I work as hard in a game of squash as on a run. So, the calculation for squash is:

35 mins x (8 x 3.5 x 50kg / 200) = 245 cals

My HRM gave me 265 cals for a 36 minute game, which is pretty close to the MET calculation, although, as I said, I don't trust the HRM for anything besides running.

MFP gives 354 cals (big difference to my mind), which is what I would get if I used a MET value between 11 and 12. This is at the top of the MET value range for squash, and so I don't use MFPs estimate for squash.

I don't know if this was helpful or not, but it's quite interesting to me at the moment, as I want to get the most accurate calorie burn estimates I can.

hilts1969

I've found MFP to be consistently high, but how high depends on the activity. For stationary bike riding it is off by a factor of 2. For snorkeling is is off by a factor of 3. If you want to get a real feel for the calories you burn, invest in a heart rate monitor.

Without an HRM I would recommend eating only 1/2 to 2/3 of your exercise calories back.

I add a 20kg weight to my hrm gadget before i strap it to my chest, looks a bit silly walking around the supermarket but it burns 20 more calories per meat aisle, that is an extra 1lb per year, winner winner low fat chicken dinner

michable

Edited to lol @ Hilts

vamred

Well today I did 52 minutes on an Elliptical and the Machine said 600 calories.
I was wearing a Polar heart monitor which gives an accurate heartbeat and calories burned, it said 835 calories and MFP was saying 925 calories.

So.. I would stick with the Polar count

NianMaya

I don't eat my exercise calories so I just log and keep it moving!

hilts1969

I don't eat my exercise calories so I just log and keep it moving!

Thank god for that another normal person, well done you, i would add you as a friend but don't have a scooby do(cockney rhyming slang for our american cousins) how to do it