I have a question about the accuracy of the "calories burned

keatonjazz

I have a treadmill in my house (thank goodness) and it's my favorite way to exercise that I've found... besides maybe swimming by the beach! Anyhow, if I work out for any length of time and then try to enter that information in here on MFP, the estimate for calories from my machine is always WAY lower than what appears here. For instance, on a day when I walked for an hour at a quick pace (3-4 mph for me) at the highest incline possible for the machine, this site would guess I've burned about 463 calories. The treadmill says it's more like 400. Today when I did intervals of walking/running for 30 minutes (c25k), I felt like I must have burned off more than the 200 calories the machine professed. I tend to record the lower number, though.

SO: Is the treadmill I own inaccurate, or is this site just really generous with it's calorie estimations?

sadielane

I find mine to be the opposite. I'll be interested to hear everyone else's thoughts.

AHealthierRhonda

My elliptical was the complete opposite. It more than doubled the number of cals I actually burn! Most would say to err on the side of caution and input the lower cals. I agree with that. IF you really burned more, you just gave yourself a larger cushion!!

Andybeth

I think the site must be very generous. I use a Polar HRM and the calories are always much lower that what the site offers. I use the HRM value.

Mrs_TrimWaistFatWallet

Both are inaccurate probably. I use a BodyMedia, which will usually quotes half of what MFP says and is way more reasonable for me..

Des92

mine's the opposite! If my treadmill says i burned 400-500, MFP says 190! HUGE difference. I just do the same, record the lower number.

iamjustcindy

http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_net.php

bethdris

The site numbers as I have learned are "estimates". I also go by what the machine says. (I have a treadmill and used to have an elliptical). I'd like to get an HRM and see what that says when I walk outside. For an example:

I mow our grass. It s .25 acres and I use a push mower. It takes between 30 and 35 mins. MFP says I burn 232 cals during that time. I just cut it in half and take that. Since I workout on top of that, even if its still not right, its' never hurt my weight loss.

sarahsmom1

I have a treadmill in my house (thank goodness) and it's my favorite way to exercise that I've found... besides maybe swimming by the beach! Anyhow, if I work out for any length of time and then try to enter that information in here on MFP, the estimate for calories from my machine is always WAY lower than what appears here. For instance, on a day when I walked for an hour at a quick pace (3-4 mph for me) at the highest incline possible for the machine, this site would guess I've burned about 463 calories. The treadmill says it's more like 400. Today when I did intervals of walking/running for 30 minutes (c25k), I felt like I must have burned off more than the 200 calories the machine professed. I tend to record the lower number, though.

SO: Is the treadmill I own inaccurate, or is this site just really generous with it's calorie estimations?

Does you treadmill let you enter your weight? I find MFP is higher I would use the lower amount

tammykoon

I never count my whole workout. If I do cardio for say 40 minutes, then I will log it at 30. I figure I'd rather guess wrong lower. This is really imporatant if you eat back your exercise calories. (Not to start a debate) If you over estimate then eat it all back... well that wouldn't be very smart.

nancydrew8

NM

findingfit23

The treadmill I use is always a lot lower than my HRM, it seems to only account for speed and not the incline. Since I walk slow at a very high incline, it is never right for me.

findingfit23

I'm quite confused about this as well. My friend and I are the same size, and we are doing the same workouts. She uses a heart rate monitor, and I don't. Her HRM says she is burning 2x as many calorie as MFP says I am burning. Yet many of you are claiming to see the opposite. I have to wonder which is accurate, and how it would be possible to prove accuracy?

Just because you are the same size does not mean you are in the same cardiovascular shape.

auntiebabs

I've heard both that the burn calories are way too high and way too low.

The machines at the gym make me input my weight and age and usually come out much lower than MFP. So use those numbers.

I don't think MFP burn calories account for age & weight.
Do they? (they've got our info, but my guess is that'd be some pretty challenging programming work.)

Someone 300 lbs walking 3 miles is expending more energy and is going to burn a lot more than, someone 130 walking 3 miles.

So the calories are probably way high for the skinny-minis here to firm up or to lose a few vanity pounds.
While, as one friend of my calls himself, the super-economy size folks the calories are probably on the low side. I wonder what the magic in between number is that the calorie burns are based on?

Mommawarrior

I find that the site is GENEROUS compared to my treadmill or the gyms fancy treadmill.

Kristina0202

My elliptical always says I burned like 100 calories less than MFP. It doesn't let me enter my weight though, so it would say the same thing for a 130 lb girl. I know it's probably not the right thing to do, but I just average the two numbers out. I rarely eat my calories back anyway.

chardcastle2011

My elliptical is pretty close to MFP, but my elliptical doesn't take in consideration of age and weight either, so maybe that's is the reason for the ones that differ

perne11

I've heard both that the burn calories are way too high and way too low.

The machines at the gym make me input my weight and age and usually come out much lower than MFP. So use those numbers.

I don't think MFP burn calories account for age & weight.
Do they? (they've got our info, but my guess is that'd be some pretty challenging programming work.)

Someone 300 lbs walking 3 miles is expending more energy and is going to burn a lot more than, someone 130 walking 3 miles.

So the calories are probably way high for the skinny-minis here to firm up or to lose a few vanity pounds.
While, as one friend of my calls himself, the super-economy size folks the calories are probably on the low side. I wonder what the
magic in between number is that the calorie burns are based on?

MFP takes into account your weight and age when it assigns calorie burn. My daughter and I are doing this together and even if we do the same exercise for the same amount of time MFP gives us different calorie burn.

keatonjazz

Wow, already a lot of replies, thank you! Ummm I do wonder if my treadmill can let you put in your age and weight- if I remember correctly you can, I just don't remember ever doing it. It sounds like I would really benefit from a heart rate monitor. Are those fairly accurate? I don't know how they work other than... obviously to monitor your heart rate. :P One of the things I REALLY like about this site is the community and the therefore the large amount of food data already in the system so I can be as accurate as possible.

mamagooskie

I found the site to be more accurate than the machines.

k2quiere

Wow...I've had this question going on in my head too. Thank you all for the reminder that MFP does put all of our personal information into the equation. I know the machines at my gym have the capability to be programmed for that info, but I'm not sure how to do it, so I don't bother. The discrepancy, however, between the machine and MFP is astronomical. I just try not to eat back all of my exercise calories just in case

LorinaLynn

I don't think MFP burn calories account for age & weight.
Do they? (they've got our info, but my guess is that'd be some pretty challenging programming work.)

MFP does take your weight into account. I burn less calories doing the same thing now as I did 20-some pounds ago. And you can see for yourself if you look at the database, what the burns will be at various weights.

I don't have a HRM, other than the one that's part of my EA Active Sports "game," but I go by either the gym machines (when I enter my weight), MFP estimates, or runkeeper estimates and have had pretty good success with my weight loss.

It depends on how precise the exercise is. Walking, cycling or running is broken down by your speed. Elliptical or stair climber is vague. I can haul *kitten* on those things, or take it easy. And I typically burn a higher amount via the machines than by MFP estimates. In that case, I go by the machine, since it has my resistance and incline factored in.

happyfeet262

I'm new to MFP. I'm in my 4th week. Orginally, the MFP plan said if I would reach my goal in 5 wks. While I have lost some weight, I will not meet my goal next week, but I have been at, or under my calories almost every day. I think I have stabilized and will have to eat fewer calories, or more exercise to meet my goal.

I'm thinking that MFP is overestimating the calories I burn during cardio. (note: I am an avid exerciser, so my body may have become more efficient than the typical exerciser) This week I started reducing the calories listed for cardio. I think I will have to reduce the calories gained through exercise, and eat within those new limits to achieve my goal. I may take the IronLadies tip and cut the cardio calories in half. I HATE having to do that, but I am determined to meet my goal.

ShannonMpls

I think the site must be very generous. I use a Polar HRM and the calories are always much lower that what the site offers. I use the HRM value.

This. For example, for my cardio today (55 minutes on the elliptical, medium to high intensity), MFP would have given me over 1,000 calories burned. The machine (with weight/age entered) gave almost 700. My Polar FT60? 452.

I typically do eat back at least some of my exercise calories and I think it would hinder me if I were eating back 1,000 calories when I believe my HRM to be most accurate.

auntiebabs

I've heard both that the burn calories are way too high and way too low.

The machines at the gym make me input my weight and age and usually come out much lower than MFP. So use those numbers.

I don't think MFP burn calories account for age & weight.
Do they? (they've got our info, but my guess is that'd be some pretty challenging programming work.)

Someone 300 lbs walking 3 miles is expending more energy and is going to burn a lot more than, someone 130 walking 3 miles.

So the calories are probably way high for the skinny-minis here to firm up or to lose a few vanity pounds.
While, as one friend of my calls himself, the super-economy size folks the calories are probably on the low side. I wonder what the
magic in between number is that the calorie burns are based on?

MFP takes into account your weight and age when it assigns calorie burn. My daughter and I are doing this together and even if we do the same exercise for the same amount of time MFP gives us different calorie burn.

Good to know!

dustyhockeymom

I found my stationary bike and MFP to be pretty consistent, and then when I got my HRM I was surprised to learn I was burning about half of what they were giving me.

Its so frustrating to watch everyone else post these amazing calorie burns from their exercise, and I could do the same thing and not burn anywhere near that many. And I am not a little ft person. I do consider my HRM to be pretty accurate though, as the burns have gotten even less as I have gotten in better shape.

I am glad though that I wasn't eating all those calories back when I first started or I wouldn't have been nearly as successful.

BaileyBoo13524

Your treadmill is definitely inaccurate! I have a heart rate monitor and I burn at least 2X more than what my treadmill says...so to be accurate I would suggest picking up a heart rate monitor!!

keatonjazz

I see that most people are just taking the lowest estimate and being safe, that's probably a good idea. I also know that my height has a liiittle bit to do with it as far as the treadmill goes, too. I'm 5'8" but have long legs for my frame; I could still be walking briskly at the same speed where my mom (5'5") would have to break into a run. It seems like it would be really difficult for ANY sytem to measure all this stuff accurately. I'm glad I've been going with the lower numbers. I think I WILL look into a HRM though.

kendrafallon

Until I got a HRM I would log the calories burned as what MFP provided and err on the side of caution when it came to eating those calories back. Now with a HRM, the calories burned are accurate (relatively) and I'm not so wary about eating calories back; which I do if I'm hungry or in the mood for a little extra.

bassettpig

Agreeing with those who use a heart rate monitor. It may not be absolutely perfect, but it will be much more accurate than either a machine or the estimates here. I find the estimates here EXTREMELY high and machines also quite high compared to my HRM. When I was first losing weight several years ago, the online numbers were closer but as I got in better shape, I burned far less calories doing the same activities, partly thru being smaller and partly thru being more efficient.

Here's an interesting article w/a calorie calculator at the end from Runner's World magazine: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

OneLostSock

I def think the site is really generous with it's calorie estimations - i've made a post today asking in the 'feedback/suggestions' section if we can track food and exercise separately because i honestly dont trust it.

I've done weight watchers online and i had to work a lot harder to get points back. If i wanted to work for a bottle of wine, then i had to work extremely hard - here it's far too easy.

I think we should have the option here to track food/ exercise separately.