MFP exercise calories - a warning

aflane

I feel compelled to issue a warning/heads-up to my MFP friends.

Please, please, PLEASE, do not trust the numbers that MFP gives you for your exercise. The numbers that come up are so grossly out of whack that they are almost useless. Especially, when MFP tells you to eat back your exercise calories. I would hate to see all of the hard work that my MFP friends put into their workouts being ruined by the inflated numbers given by MFP.

Here's my latest example: I used the elliptical last night at a good pace for 30 mins (averaging 140-150 steps per min, lvl 10 incline).
- The machine said I burned 360 cals (not too far off).
- My HRM said 310 (went with that number).
- MFP said that I burned 690.

If I had trusted the MFP numbers I would have just wasted a workout by eating back over TWICE the calories that I actually spent.

So, please... DO NOT TRUST THE MFP WORKOUT NUMBERS!!!

sche1amy

All the calories the MFP says I got for working out I never eat. I completely ignore them. Thanks for the info.

GamecockFan14

i agree. I did 15 min of eliptical today and it said i burned 290 calories!! i changed it, but can you imagine if I ate back those calories when in reality I only burned 150?

Lets_Do_It

I figured that they were off, I went swimming last week and it said I burned 1200 calories. I highly doubt that.

pander101

Yeah I have noticed it a lot too, but I managed to get the calories more in range when I adjusted my weight loss settings so they were more up to date. Now MFP is only about 10-15 calories off from what the machine says.

absolament

Excellent advice. That's why heart rate monitors that track calories are a great investment.

destined2bthin

I agree, although I love, love, love this site, my hrm and exercise machines are way less than what mfp gives me. I think it's just an estimation they use and may not consider the intensity especially in elliptical trainer. there are so many different paces and resistence levels that can be used, and mfp just has one option for elliptical. Once again, this site is awesome but I agree about exercise calories being a bit too much. i was gaining tons of weight by eating them all back before getting a heart rate monitor

funkyspunky871

Hmm... MFP always underestimates for me. Not a big deal though because I also have a HRM.

SimplyDeLish

In addition, many of the calorie values listed are crazy high or crazy low (I found mashed potatoes with skim milk 1 cup for like 35 cals - way too low) and today raw zuchinni for 76 per cup...way too high.

I love MFP, but I agree that the numbers you are relying on aren't reliable!

rileamoyer

MFP calories burned are a general estimate. However I used them for 8 months and had plenty of success before I got my HRM. In my case I found them under stated more often than not. So-as in anything made for general use, take it with a grain of salt and use it as a guideline.

TiffyCooper

I have noticed the same, but never thought about it. I just always put in my calorie burn reading off of my HRM.

vold94

I've always wondered about that. I really thought the numbers given on MFP seemed high. I've always been one that has never really eaten back all of my exercise calories anyway, but thanks for the heads up. Just another reason why I really need to get a HRM.

MrsRobertson1005

For me it was opposite, I burn more according to my HRM than MFP tells me, so I haven't been eating enough

MrsRobertson1005

In addition, many of the calorie values listed are crazy high or crazy low (I found mashed potatoes with skim milk 1 cup for like 35 cals - way too low) and today raw zuchinni for 76 per cup...way too high.

I love MFP, but I agree that the numbers you are relying on aren't reliable!

Lots of that is what individual users enter though, I always double check them if I can so I know I'm using the right ones.

rileamoyer

Yeah I have noticed it a lot too, but I managed to get the calories more in range when I adjusted my weight loss settings so they were more up to date. Now MFP is only about 10-15 calories off from what the machine says.

True, it is important to keey your data up to date. also consider the the resistance, intensity etc. of the machine you are using.

jaimejean478

I wish more people would realize this too. I cringe every time I see someone post a 750 calorie elliptical workout in 45 minutes or something random like that. I purchased a HRM monitor for this reason alone. I love me some elliptical cardio, but don't want to sabotage myself! I never eat back all exercise calories anyway. I never let my food calories go below 1200, and stick to 1500 or so if I have a good workout. Some days I'll use all exercise calories, but rarely.

aflane

Don't get me wrong... I absolutely ADORE this site. I recommend it to everyone that asks me how I'm losing weight (recommended it to someone just last night at the gym). It's a SUPERB tool. It just has one grossly inaccurate aspect.... the calories burned entries. I have a heart rate monitor, that I use religiously... even when I'm just biking around the neighborhood. Thank goodness I rely on the HRM numbers instead of the MFP numbers.

nananie2

Of course the numbers will be off... As the exercise are put in by the users, you can imagine that not everybody burns the same amount of calories. If you weigh 250 pounds, you'll burn far more calories than someone who weighs 150.

So yes, use them carefully!

I personally always have my hrm on when I workout. It's the only safe way to have a straight answer! :-)

waterjogger

I was wondering about that myself, but I don't have a HRM to check it with. I never eat my exercise points though because I've got a bunch of pounds that need to come off.

Shirley61

Thanks for the tip, I thought it was out of whack.
I don't have an HRM and use their figures.
I don't eat back the calories anyway.

Amybcb

Wow those numbers are WAY off! I think part of the problem is they aren't factoring in weight when they calculate calories burned on mfp. At least at the gym the elliptical or treadmill has you put in your weight and age to calculate what is burned. I've been thinking of getting a HRM though... what kind do you use?

MartiJJohnston

:noway: Well cr@p!! Maybe that's why I am not losing weight very fast at all. I eat back my exercise calories (as few as I get, since I'm partially disabled) because I've read on this site over-and-over again to "EAT BACK YOUR EXERCISE CALORIES". And I do NOT have a HRM.

Thank you for posting this!!

aflane

Wow those numbers are WAY off! I think part of the problem is they aren't factoring in weight when they calculate calories burned on mfp. At least at the gym the elliptical or treadmill has you put in your weight and age to calculate what is burned. I've been thinking of getting a HRM though... what kind do you use?

If anything, MFP should be UNDER estimating my caloric burn based on my weight (which is entered in the elliptical machine and my HRM). I'm not a small person (yet). Most workout machines readings are based on an average user weight of 150 lbs.... I'm almost twice that. And MFP has my weight entered, I update it every Saturday.

As to the machine being accurate, not really. I got annoyed that the elliptical's numbers were so much more than what my HRM was saying, so when I enter the weight, instead of putting in 294 (my actual weight), I put in 225. When I enter 294, it gives me readings that are in the mid-high 400s.

Now about HRMs. I use the Polar FT60. It was a little more expensive, but I kept getting bad units when I tried the FT7. I figured it was worth more to me to get fairly accurate readings.

slim_photographer

Thanks for the heads up. And keep in mind that this problem is not exclusive to MFP or that they somehow want you to believe you burned more. They probably go with generic databases somewhere.
In my case the MFP estimates are lower than my HRM says. However is you don't have anything else to go by, a HRM, you must see the estimate with skepticism and just keep going.

tlems

I think that the exercise calories are calculated based on ONE individual. For example, Mary who is 36 (5'8", 350lbs) may burn 300 calories by 30 Minutes of "Walking, moderate pace" a pretty generic entry. Nancy (15) sees that entry and enters 30 minutes and it enters 600 calories into her database however she is only 5'1" and 150lbs, and only burned 200 calories. There is a big difference in the age and other factors, including the individuals definition of "Moderate" Heart rate is also another factor MFP can't account for.

You can create your own exercise, and do a benchmark test and time. For example, my HRM says I burn 829 calories during my treadmill class, weight lifting and elliptical in 90 minutes. So I enter that workout into MFP and the next time I repeat that workout with a different time (105 Minutes) the calories adjust accordingly up to 950, which is always closer than MFP.

So, do not depend on MFP entries for exercise unless they are your own, and also, I think that eating back your exercise calories is bunk. Starvation mode in my opinion, does not apply to those who have weight to lose.

trysixty

Highly dependent on exertion level. The running ones (6 min/mile-12 min/mile) seem pretty close as do the biking, However I had to add additional ones like running at 5:30/mile and biking 23-25 mph. Also really had to beef up the swimming exercise base from just "swimming freestyle"......

All in all, still the best and easist to use.............if your hung up on the exact numbers you've missed the whole point I think. A simple way I use this is......use there numbers for food and exercise............lock in on the deficit in food intake calories which maintains your weigh, lose weight, or starve.

For instance if I keep my nominal daily intake + exercise calories 500-1500 over my food intake, weigh stays about same.
If I keep it 1500-2500 over my food intake I lose weight.
If I keep above 2500 over my food intake, i starve and feel like crap when swimming,biking or running.
These numbers may seem high to you, but I typical eat and burn between 4000-6000 calories a day. adjust yours accordingly )

BradNC

That's a little odd. "Elliptical Trainer" on my MFP says (by default) that 30mins is good for 436 cals. The elliptical (every one is different, even among the same brand) will normally tell me 370ish (28mins, weightloss setting, varies between lvl3 and lvl10), and my Polar HRM tells me about 425ish.

In my experience, MFP exercise is close - but I agree overall, just be careful with generically trusting MFP. I definitely suggest a HRM.

kklindsey

The MFP numbers are based on your weight. I have my 12 year old son on here and he gets 300 calories for 30 minutes of leisurely swimming and I only get 200. He weighs more than me, obviously. I have no idea as to the accuracy of the calories given but they are adjusting for your weight at least.

AngieM76

I dont ever eat my exercise calories so it doesnt really effect me. I just use whatever MFP says just so I can track the exercise I did. Unless I am on a machine that tells me but even then the machine isnt accurate because I always do manual settings so I dont enter my height/weight.

deb_rn

My friend and I walk together. I am taller and weigh more than her. I get credit for burning a few more calories when we walk than she does. So, I just figured that MFP used our stats to estimate the calories burned.