MyFitnessPal realllllly over estimates on calories..

2

Replies

  • mamaleftwich
    mamaleftwich Posts: 256 Member
    For me to burn 900 calories walking, I have to walk for about 2 1/2 - 3 hours!
  • Galatea_Stone
    Galatea_Stone Posts: 2,037 Member
    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
    broox80 Posts: 1,195 Member
    I always log about 10-15 minutes less than what I actually do.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    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
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    NM

    Misread.
  • suzikay12
    suzikay12 Posts: 150 Member
    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
    spfldpam Posts: 738 Member
    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
    knra_grl Posts: 1,566 Member
    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
    sccet Posts: 141 Member
    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
    jwdieter Posts: 2,582 Member
    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".
  • Miamiuu
    Miamiuu Posts: 262 Member
    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.

    I doubt a real heavy guy could walk a 4 mph pace without passing out. 4mph isnt an easy pace to just walk.
  • KimJohnsonsmile
    KimJohnsonsmile Posts: 222 Member
    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!

    Agreed. ^^^ I bought a Polar HRM a month ago and found it to be pretty similar to what MFP was giving me for cals burned. Quite a few things MFP actually didn't give me enough. But, I do tend to push myself harder now that I can watch my heart rate and my cal burn numbers as I'm working out.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    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.

    If we are talking about MFP's estimates, most do not account for elevation, which is why I did ask OP what entry the person had chosen.

    Also keep in mind that running burns roughly twice a many calories than walking.
  • anaconda469
    anaconda469 Posts: 3,479 Member
    I find MFP estimates for walking and running to be pretty consistent with my heart rate monitor, actually. Usually the spread is only a few calories if I enter the pace correctly.

    (though the estimates for other exercise - like elliptical, cycling, etc - seems to be quite overestimated compared to my HRM, which of course makes some sense - MFP doesn't know resistance, effort, hills, etc).

    Yes I agree on the estimates for cycling. My HRM gives me a more conservative calorie burn than MFP. I usually go by my HRM for all my walking/biking activities.
  • biffmon
    biffmon Posts: 12 Member
    Just saw from a friend they burned almost 900 calories for walking for a little over an hour... hmmm doesn't seem right.

    I agree, it doesn't seem right. Weight does play a factor but 900 calories for walking is really really high.

    Are you sure it was an MFP entry? You can easily modify the number yourself, even if you use the MFP entry.


    I just did a quick check and holy cow the numbers are all over the board. If I choose walking at 4mph I get over 700 calories ( I don't even get that for running for an hour). If I chose 5mph, I got over 500.
    I'm not sure if it is exactly an overestimate, maybe a glitch.

    I have found that most of the entries like walking and running were fairly reasonable for me. I don't know what's up with that.

    MFP's burned calorie numbers are waaaay out of whack - so much so that I don't enter my exercise in anymore.
  • sccet
    sccet Posts: 141 Member
    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.

    I doubt a real heavy guy could walk a 4 mph pace without passing out. 4mph isnt an easy pace to just walk.

    Agree to disagree. I walk at about 4.2 mph. Could a 400 lb person? Likely not. 250? Sure.
  • sccet
    sccet Posts: 141 Member
    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.

    If we are talking about MFP's estimates, most do not account for elevation, which is why I did ask OP what entry the person had chosen.

    Also keep in mind that running burns roughly twice a many calories than walking.

    Twice as much? based on time, perhaps. Based on distance, no. It is about 2:3.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    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.

    I doubt a real heavy guy could walk a 4 mph pace without passing out. 4mph isnt an easy pace to just walk.

    Agree to disagree. I walk at about 4.2 mph. Could a 400 lb person? Likely not. 250? Sure.

    I'm 5'3" and I walk a 4 MPH pace and barely get out of breath.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    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.

    I doubt a real heavy guy could walk a 4 mph pace without passing out. 4mph isnt an easy pace to just walk.

    Agree to disagree. I walk at about 4.2 mph. Could a 400 lb person? Likely not. 250? Sure.

    A 250lb person will not burn 900 calories in an hour walking at 4.0 mph.

    Regarding the walking vs running, sorry, I didn't specify. I meant in a mile. At least what I have read. But I'm not going to argue 2:3.
  • fordrst
    fordrst Posts: 16
    Could someone please explain why, if I walk for 110 minutes at a brisk pace of 3 mph, I 'gain' 417 calories whereas if I walk for that same 110 minutes at leisurely pace of 1.5 mph I 'gain' a massive 761 calories!!


    Know that I am not the brightest bulb on the tree at times but how can this be true!!??
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Could someone please explain why, if I walk for 110 minutes at a brisk pace of 3 mph, I 'gain' 417 calories whereas if I walk for that same 110 minutes at leisurely pace of 1.5 mph I 'gain' a massive 761 calories!!


    Know that I am not the brightest bulb on the tree at times but how can this be true!!??

    I mentioned that in an earlier post. There seems to either be a glitch or flat out incorrect entries. I didn't think that people could add their own entries into the main exercise database like they can for food but there appears to be duplicate entries, with a slight variation with wording. One is fine, the other gives a huge burn.

    ETA- Here is my list (I emailed tech support, I'm sure they'll get right on it). All entries are the same weight and time. Exact wording from database.

    "Walking, 1.5 mph, leisurely pa" 423
    "Walking, 2.0 mph, slow pace " 176
    "Walking, 2.5 mph, leisurely pace" 211
    "Walking, 2.5 mph, leisurely pa" 1268
    "Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace " 232
    "Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace, walking dog " 232
    "Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace, w " 557
    "Walking, 3.5 mph, brisk pace" 267
    "Walking, 4.0 mph, " 764
    "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace" 352
    "Walking, 4.5 mph, very, very brisk pace" 443
    "Walking, 5.0 mph " 562
    "Walking, 5.0 mph, fast pace, w " 231
  • bookmaggot
    bookmaggot Posts: 7 Member
    Calorie estimating formulas aren't all that accurate. I don't use a heart rate monitor so this isn't totally scientific, but I usually go by what RunKeeper says rather than MFP. This morning I rode my bike 30.84 miles in 123 minutes at an average speed of 15.1mph (there were some red lights and a pretty good hill).

    Here's what a couple of calorie calculators say:

    RunKeeper- 1080
    MyFitnessPal- 1337
    Bicycling.com- 1337
    HealthStatus.com- 1416
    NutritionData.Self.com- 1568 (!)

    In my experience with my own weight and with calorie counting, the RunKeeper number seems to most accord with reality. If I were actually burning 300-500 more calories per day than I was accounting for in MFP, I'd be losing weight like crazy. Rather, I'm getting results consistent with the goals I set and MFP's forecasts.
  • Holly_Roman_Empire
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    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.

    This is what likely happened. It happens to me all the time. I log 1 calorie for 40 minutes of strength training, and about 30 calories for 10 minutes of spinning.

    It shows up on my news feed like, "Holly burned 31 calories doing 45 minutes of cardio activities, including Spinning." Now if you know anything about spinning, you know spinning burns more than 31 calories for 45 minutes. :tongue:
  • Holly_Roman_Empire
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    Could someone please explain why, if I walk for 110 minutes at a brisk pace of 3 mph, I 'gain' 417 calories whereas if I walk for that same 110 minutes at leisurely pace of 1.5 mph I 'gain' a massive 761 calories!!


    Know that I am not the brightest bulb on the tree at times but how can this be true!!??

    Instead of logging it, just use an app like runkeeper or something. At least then, it would be consistent.
  • LoseYouself
    LoseYouself Posts: 249 Member
    Yeah, kind of like the friend I had that burned 1500+ calories on a 2 hour walk. Um. I burned 850 today RUNNING for 1.5 hours and I'm overweight, and that was by my heart rate monitor. Even the cardio machine says it was 1200! MFP AND machines tend to grossly overestimate, you're right. Even if the person is overweight, that is still accounted for in the wrong estimation on both MFP and machines if the data is entered.
  • fordrst
    fordrst Posts: 16
    Unfortunately, not all of us are fortunate enough to have the equipment required to use an app - I actually do MFP on a pc as I do not have any other type of computer or netbook or laptop or any like device and I do not own a mobile phone.
  • phred_52
    phred_52 Posts: 189 Member
    I agree with CWolfman. 900 calories walking...not. I used to walk for an hour, incline 8 to 12, speeds 3.5 to 4.3, varying both every 5 min. My weight at start was 186, I usually avg'd a tad over 600. Never took calories burned as gospel, so would minus 20%.

    Would also compare exercises on various other sites, and figures were comparable. Have you tried that route?

    Last, not to be a butthead ;), but OP mentions walking, but so many posts go into running. Me thinks, well nevermind.

    Cheerio
  • sccet
    sccet Posts: 141 Member
    Could someone please explain why, if I walk for 110 minutes at a brisk pace of 3 mph, I 'gain' 417 calories whereas if I walk for that same 110 minutes at leisurely pace of 1.5 mph I 'gain' a massive 761 calories!!


    Know that I am not the brightest bulb on the tree at times but how can this be true!!??

    I mentioned that in an earlier post. There seems to either be a glitch or flat out incorrect entries. I didn't think that people could add their own entries into the main exercise database like they can for food but there appears to be duplicate entries, with a slight variation with wording. One is fine, the other gives a huge burn.

    ETA- Here is my list (I emailed tech support, I'm sure they'll get right on it). All entries are the same weight and time. Exact wording from database.

    "Walking, 1.5 mph, leisurely pa" 423
    "Walking, 2.0 mph, slow pace " 176
    "Walking, 2.5 mph, leisurely pace" 211
    "Walking, 2.5 mph, leisurely pa" 1268
    "Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace " 232
    "Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace, walking dog " 232
    "Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace, w " 557
    "Walking, 3.5 mph, brisk pace" 267
    "Walking, 4.0 mph, " 764
    "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace" 352
    "Walking, 4.5 mph, very, very brisk pace" 443
    "Walking, 5.0 mph " 562
    "Walking, 5.0 mph, fast pace, w " 231

    Great catch and thanks for submitting this.
  • determinedbutlazy
    determinedbutlazy Posts: 1,941 Member
    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.

    Who is *walking* at 4mph? That's jogging for me :/
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    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.

    Who is *walking* at 4mph? That's jogging for me :/

    Me too. :laugh:

Categories