Calorie Burn Overestimation...?

epj78

It depends on the exercise whether its low or high for me. For example, walking it is way high - because walking just doesn't get my heart rate up. But for running, it's way low. So the HRM is the only way to go for me. I think if you log anything that doesn't make you sweat, you are going to get poor calorie count.

All-in-all, I think we go with our best guesses because nothing is perfect and adjust from there.

otr12

According to my Polar HRM, MFP is low FOR ME in caloric burns.

Edit: Just to prove erickirb's point.

Me too. I have the Polar FT7 and it gives me higher calories than MFP. But the more times I do exactly the same thing with my Polar, the less calories it says I'm burning. So I put in my Polar numbers since it seems to know that I'm getting in better shape and the workouts are getting easier for me.
Don't know if that's right but it makes sense to me.

chrisyoung0422

I always have to throttle the amount of calories burned on MFP. It seems to always give me more than I burn per the eliptical or treatmill. I use the heart rate monitors on the machines because I feel they are more accurate. I ran say 43 min @ an average speed of 8.5-9.5 with a resistance of 12-13 and MFP gives me 600+ calories burned easy when the machine says mid to high 400's. If the difference was 20-30 cal I would not care but this is a lot.

What gives?

I just got a forerunner 405 with the band and it barely fits my chest (barrel chested FTL!) so I am hoping that will give me a more accurate reading.

zoom2

All-in-all, I think we go with our best guesses because nothing is perfect and adjust from there.

Methinks this is the real key, here. Our instincts are probably closer to reality than anything. I think I'm simply going to make sure that I have a 100-200 allotted calorie remainder every day for awhile and adjust from there.

Septembergirl23

According to my Polar HRM, MFP is low FOR ME in caloric burns.

Edit: Just to prove erickirb's point.

I completely agree! My HRM is in general more than what MFP states. MFP is a general "guesstimation" from what I have seen so far. Dancing is a great example. MFP says 300 calories power but my HRM is never less than 400 because I put my whole body into the workout.

Mahlissa

I agree, the more fit you are the more efficient you will be at burning calories. I know I burn less calories running for an hour than someone who just started.

I never use the calories MFP shows. Sometimes it's pretty close, other times it's way off.

Like all the information this topic is generating. Great post.

jrusso28

I have found that MFP has been more accurate than my machines (treadmill/stationary bike).
Ever since I have gotten my HRM I have been checking and I burn more calories than my machine and MFP are listing.

Onesnap

Look online. For example I wanted to find out what I burned with a power yoga DVD so I could log it. I looked online and added it to MFP. My workouts and calories burned are based on me and my weight, gender etc.

I would never suggest following what the cardio machine says. It's getting your heart rate from your hands and you need an HRM to get an actual heart rate that is real. Ignore what the machine says and look online to find out what is real for you. Log it and you'll always have those workouts in your MFP list!

jessecates

Are you sure you aren't overestimating how fast you run? (for example)

Nope, I run and bike with a Garmin Forerunner and the speed/pace it shows is reasonably accurate.

Agree. My Garmin Forerunner and the MFP calorie estimates for running give almost identical numbers everytime (difference of about 10 calories).

tabbychiro

eta: I got a New Leaf profile uploaded into my Garmin so that it would use HR to calculate calorie burn.

Ahhh...where did you find this?

Just one of the many services that the gym (Life Time Fitness) tries to sell.
It was about $100 for the test itself plus another $40 for the mask, which I got to keep and can use again should I ever want to do the test again. I don't think you have to be a member to do the test.

eta: New Leaf website http://www.newleaffitness.com/

sh0ck

All-in-all, I think we go with our best guesses because nothing is perfect and adjust from there.

Precisely.

I usually try to lean more towards underestimation for what I burn during exercising and overestimation for what I eat just to be safe.

zoom2

For now I changed my setting to give me the food calorie recommendation to arrive at a loss of 1.5#/week, instead of just 1. That should make up for any overinflation of calorie-burn.

arc918

All I ever log is my running. This site estimates lower than my Garmin, so I just go with the site. Seems about right for running as someone of my size (~ 180 lbs.) should be burning ~ 125 kcals or so per mile.

zoom2

Ooh...I found something that might explain part of my struggle. Since the site defaults to no lower than 1200 net, it's not really giving me a 500 calorie deficit each day, since that would sometimes go below 1200. I thought I would simply set my loss goal down to 1.5, but it didn't change the calorie recommendations any. As it is, the most I can lose in a week is .9#s if I follow the MFP recommendations to the letter.

dwellsouth

I just read a blog post somewhere that MFP isn't taking into account your normal calorie burn per day in your exercise either, so for me, divide my 1940 calories burned per day (base) by 24 hours = 81 calories per hour I burn doing nothing... So in other words, subtract out 81 calories per hour from any exercise calories I burn because MFP is already counting them. Make sense?

That doesn't handle the wrong exercise burn amounts but it does skew how many calories you GET BACK from exercise on the high side...

zoom2

I just read a blog post somewhere that MFP isn't taking into account your normal calorie burn per day in your exercise either, so for me, divide my 1940 calories burned per day (base) by 24 hours = 81 calories per hour I burn doing nothing... So in other words, subtract out 81 calories per hour from any exercise calories I burn because MFP is already counting them. Make sense?

That doesn't handle the wrong exercise burn amounts but it does skew how many calories you GET BACK from exercise on the high side...

That does make sense. Given I work out an average of an hour+ every day...that adds up, especially if some of my workout burns are being overestimated on top of that.

georgiajuly

As others have pointed out, fitness level and intensity cause variability. For a cyclist, your equipment makes a big difference also. MFP estimated a ride (just under 2 hours at 12-14 mph) more than 50% over my HRM. That might be true if I had been on a Walmart hybrid instead of my Lynskey.
Also, at your age you will not notice this so much, but my maximum heart rate is somewhere in the low 160's, so at my age I can't generate the same level of intensity as a 20 year old could to burn more calories.

zoom2

As others have pointed out, fitness level and intensity cause variability. For a cyclist, your equipment makes a big difference also. MFP estimated a ride (just under 2 hours at 12-14 mph) more than 50% over my HRM. That might be true if I had been on a Walmart hybrid instead of my Lynskey.
Also, at your age you will not notice this so much, but my maximum heart rate is somewhere in the low 160's, so at my age I can't generate the same level of intensity as a 20 year old could to burn more calories.

Ahhh...yes. I have often wondered if the bike estimates are assuming road bike or mtn...or hybrid...? My bike is about 17#s, which would burn fewer calories than the same speed/distance on a 20+# frame, much less an even heavier steel mountain bike or hybrid. Nevermind position on the bike. My bike has relatively aggressive geometry (particularly since we swapped up a couple of spacers and a longer stem). My guess is the calorie count assumes a more upright position, which is less efficient and would burn more calories/time.

dwellsouth

I just read a blog post somewhere that MFP isn't taking into account your normal calorie burn per day in your exercise either, so for me, divide my 1940 calories burned per day (base) by 24 hours = 81 calories per hour I burn doing nothing... So in other words, subtract out 81 calories per hour from any exercise calories I burn because MFP is already counting them. Make sense?

That doesn't handle the wrong exercise burn amounts but it does skew how many calories you GET BACK from exercise on the high side...

That does make sense. Given I work out an average of an hour+ every day...that adds up, especially if some of my workout burns are being overestimated on top of that.

EXACTLY!

georgiajuly

Oooh, something else just bubbled up to the surface of my memories...
I remember reading years ago about a study of calories expended, and the findings were something about how obese women were burning far fewer calories walking than expected, because they had modified their gait so they were lifting their feet less, and circumducting (swinging the feet around to the front) more because of their size. This speaks to the issue of attempting to come up with a general estimate of calorie expenditure for a given activity.
Unfortunately, this memory is tangled up in my brain with something about women walking that way while carrying pots of water on their heads, so I'm not sure what facts there are in there, if any....
Oh, well.