MFP estimated calories burned

Gettingbettereveryday

When I first started on MFP, around six weeks ago, I noticed that, for me at least, the estimated calories burned that MFP showed for an activity, say static bike for example, was way over the actual calories the equipment at the gym had registered. I didn't think too much about it, just manually put in what the reading had been at the gym and have continued in that way ever since. I have since started using a heart monitor at the gym so I'm happy with the accuracy of the readings I'm now showing.
As a rule with the exercise mullarkey I tend to only register specific gym sessions, I put in the actual readings from days when I follow my programme and then an estimate on days when I have a personal training session as that tends to go a bit off piste - so I enter a lowish estimate under general circuit training.
Today, I've been out for an amble round the shops and thought I'd see what MFP came up with for walking slow pace, 120 minutes; the answer was over four hundred calories... On a normal gym session with 30-45 mins cardio the most I've burned is about 300 so the MFP estimate seems a bit optimistic. I'm not saying they're completely wrong, I just think that my starting point of being extremely unfit means that it would take a lot more effort on my part to burn the amount they're estimating. What do people think on this and do you have any suggestions as to how I can come up with a more accurate estimate - suppose I could break out the pedometer...

hufflepuffin

Sorry I don't have an answer, but I'm curious about this too ... especially since they're telling us to EAT our exercise calories! I'm going to have to get a monitor myself. Hope I can find one that works and isn't insanely expensive...

kwaz29

the estimate does seem a little high, but generally overweight or unfit people burn more calories than fit people because they are exerting more effort to move more weight around. you will notice as you become more fit and lose weight, your calories burned will start to drop, and you will have to work harder to burn the same amount of calories as you are now. your best bet is to go by what your HRM says though, that's usually the most accurate, and i know that some people even take 10% or so off of that number just to be safe and not overestimate.

Tivo8MyNeighbors

When this has come up for me, I use a website called www.caloriesperhour.com to help me get a more accurate idea of my caloric output. It takes your weight into consideration in the calculation, so it's going to be a lot more accurate for you, individually.

I hope this helps

tigersword

Everything is an estimate. MFP is an estimate, gym machines are an estimate, even an HRM is just an estimate (only about 80-90% accurate.) Unless you're inside a calorimeter 24/7 it's impossible to know exactly how many calories you are burning. So take it all with a grain of salt. Personally I don't see enough of a difference between HRM's gum machines, and MFP estimates for it to make a difference to me, and just to mention,for me personally, the MFP estimates are usually the lowest, and the HRM is usually the highest.

I personally don't trust HRM's as they rely solely on what they read your heart rate to estimate the effort of an activity, but if you've done anything that could artificially raise or lower your heart rate (caffeine, beta blockers, etc) then the HRM is not going to be accurate at all. Also, any kind of electronic interference that may interfere with the HRM will throw the reading way off as well.

Gettingbettereveryday

Thanks, will check out caloriesperhour... Meanwhile I think I've probably had a sensible approach (go me! lol)

Gettingbettereveryday

Thanks tigersword - I appreciate everything's an estimate, obviously so long as we're taking action to use more calories than we take in then we should manage to lose the weight regardless of what the different bits of equipment say. So far, for me at least, things have been going well so I guess I'll continue as I've been doing so far and maybe just stick to logging the gym sessions. I am interested in what you say about the effect of caffeine on hrm's though - I suppose caffeine does affect the adrenal system and so is likely to have an effect on heart rate so maybe I should make sure I give it a reasonable gap before my sessions...

garlic7girl

I like you TigerWord! Twice I have read your sound advice. Straight and to the point..my kind of person. I was wondering the same thing. I thought the calories burned was a little high. Then I stopped worrying and said the point is I get out and get this ole body moving!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!

tigersword

That's exactly how it works. Even the food you eat is at best an estimate. Companies use representative samples of their foods and products to determine calorie and nutrition content, but they're all averages. As long as you make the conscious effort to stick to what you're doing and work on improving yourself, you're doing it right. If the calorie counts are off by 100 here or there once in a while, no big deal, the margin of error is most likely at least that much anyway. For example, that "100 calorie snack pack?" You might pull out a pack that's actually 115 calories, or one that's only 90 calories. Without scientifically testing absolutely everything, there's no way to be 100% accurate. The best you can do is get as close as you can. If you see it working, great. If it isn't working, then make small adjustments until you get the results you want.

calliope_music

i find MFP way overestimates for me, i rely on my HRM.