MyFitnessPal realllllly over estimates on calories..

cwolfman13

Nobody is burning 900 calories walking for an hour...sorry people.

1princesswarrior

I had to laugh when I entered a jog last week, I used my hrm to actually track the calories but found the entry in mfp. MFP automatically had my burn at over 1400 when my hrm had it at 380 something, my speed averaged 4 miles/hour and I jogged for 33 minutes.

ETA: I had to walk through the icy mud and up the icy hills.

jwdieter

I checked 3 walking exercise entries, and all were reasonable. Nothing close to 900 (or even 500) for an hour.

3dogsrunning

I checked 3 walking exercise entries, and all were reasonable. Nothing close to 900 (or even 500) for an hour.

Maybe its just mine although I have never entered these in. I don't use MPH.

If I go to exercise, then to database and type in walking, I get a whole list.

If I choose "Walking, 4.0 mph", I get 739 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.
If I choose" Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace", I get 340 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.

There are a few entries like this.

squiggysmama

I use MFP for my exercise log, and I'm still losing inches and weight. I don't eat all my exercise calories back though.

I do the same. I assume exercise calories are over estimated, and calories consumed are under estimated, (when I can't measure exactly). It may not be completely accurate, but as long as the overall effect is a loss in pounds and inches, I'm happy.

JoRocka

To be on the safe side, I always just use 2/3 of the amount MFP suggests. That shouldn't be enough to send me into "starvation" mode but it's enough that I don't get derailed from overestimating my burn.

never a bad idea

I always do about this- and then over estimate calories- instead of the opposite of what most people do- which is over estimate burn and under estimate food.

factor of safety people. Use it.

_lyndseybrooke_

Woah. I'm 5'5" 140 lbs and MFP says I'd burn about 315 calories from walking at a pace of 4.0 mph for 60 minutes. Your friend says he or she burned 3 times that? It's true that the bigger you are, the more calories your body will burn, but 3 times that amount seems like a gross miscalculation and I doubt that's an MFP issue. He or she probably manually put in the amount burned.

momof5

I always do the same as well... I overestimate calories consumed and underestimate calories burned. But sometimes it seems the figures are a lot more off than what I would have normally compensated for this way. I think personally I will start to compare on other sites for exercise calories burned.

TeamCassieCass

I agree that I believe the app overestimates calories. It told me I burned nearly 200 calories just walking my dog at a very leisurely pace. However, if you spend any time at all working out on machines that track your calories or have a fitness you should have a general idea about how many calories you're burning for a particular activity. I have been shaving time off an activity to help compensate for this. For example, if my Zumba class is 55 minutes, I'll enter 40 minutes. Just a thought. I just started with the app this week so I'm feeling it out.

parkscs

I find it slightly overestimates for me but not by a ton. I don't bother logging things like walking or cleaning, but it sounds like there are some erroneous entries out there for some activities.

mamaleftwich

For me to burn 900 calories walking, I have to walk for about 2 1/2 - 3 hours!

Galatea_Stone

I checked 3 walking exercise entries, and all were reasonable. Nothing close to 900 (or even 500) for an hour.

Maybe its just mine although I have never entered these in. I don't use MPH.

If I go to exercise, then to database and type in walking, I get a whole list.

If I choose "Walking, 4.0 mph", I get 739 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.
If I choose" Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace", I get 340 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.

There are a few entries like this.

Quoting because this answers it.

broox80

I always log about 10-15 minutes less than what I actually do.

rml_16

Just saw from a friend they burned almost 900 calories for walking for a little over an hour... hmmm doesn't seem right.

Weight, height, pace?

I find that (based on an HRM calculation) MFP underestimates my walks (I walk hills and my pace varies, so it's difficult to input exact numbers) and is pretty much right on for my elliptical workouts.

rml_16

NM

Misread.

suzikay12

I checked 3 walking exercise entries, and all were reasonable. Nothing close to 900 (or even 500) for an hour.

Maybe its just mine although I have never entered these in. I don't use MPH.

If I go to exercise, then to database and type in walking, I get a whole list.

If I choose "Walking, 4.0 mph", I get 739 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.
If I choose" Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace", I get 340 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.

There are a few entries like this.

Quoting because this answers it.

Yep, Walking, 4.0mph, very brisk pace is pretty close to accurate give or take a bit (I can only speak for myself since I know my calories burned) but the Walking 4.0mph one is way off.

spfldpam

I forgot to mention I don't eat back my exercise calories normally either so for me it is more of a record tracking thing with exercise cals burned and not a factor with what I can or can't eat. Sometimes I will go over my alloted cals I give myself but that is rare as I am usually under them and again don't eat back cals burned off either. I don't record household cleaning or stuff like that either. Mowing yard, leave raking yes I do log those since it is exercise I feel and it is usually those days I can't get to the gym cause I am mowing yard or raking leaves!

It depends on the walking pace and weight of the person really. I burned more cals when I weighed 270 pounds than I do now when doing any type of exercise. I have a Polar FT7 I use for workouts and really MFP isn't off much from some of the cals it says I should burn vs what my Polar FT7 says, in fact MFP is actually lower by 30 cals on some exercises. It depends on the persons size and their heart rate really.
Best and most accurate is to buy a HRM with a chest strap. I recommend Polar. I wear mine in the pool to so it is great!
Good luck!

knra_grl

I noticed that when I entered walks twice in one day the calorie burn was cumulative but the time entry was only for the last entry. Looked like I had a mega burn for a 48 min walk but really it was the burn for two walks in one day.

If you make multiple entries under "cardio" it is cumulative - the calories burned increase but the length of time posted is the amount of time entered for the most recent entry - so if I did say 30 mins of aerobics and entered it, it posts that calorie burn then later in the day if I enter walking for 60 mins, the calorie burn accumulates and posts as the total burn for both exercises but the post will say xxx amount of calories burned for 60 mins walking when in reality it was the xxx calories burned for both activities.

sccet

In addition to other variables, what about ELEVATION?

While I use Runkeeper and not MFP for my exercise cals, the burn varies greatly with the elevation climb.

I ran 7 miles this morning at 8.5 min miles and burned over 1,000... and I'm about 166.

I could see a large man walking at 4+ mph for an hour burning 900 kcals in an hour.

jwdieter

Ok, these are bad walking entries:

"Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace, w"
"Walking, 4.0 mph,"

Someone forgot to add additional explanatory text. Like "with 60-lb backpack" or "with a burpee every 5 steps".