MFP accuracy for calories burned?

adpollard001

Has anyone else thought the totals for some of the exercises are a little sketchy? It may be completely accurate, I'm not sure, but I went for a hike yesterday, and when I plugged in my info (220lbs and 210 mins of "Hiking with <10lbs load") it told me I burned almost 2500 calories. That seem a bit weird to you?

lisy28

No get a heart rate montior i just got one and it is surprising how off this site is no wonder i have plateaued i have been overeating my calories!!!

but it is all good now and i really cant complain with 35 pounds down

good luck but def get a HRM

Even my machines at the gym were WAYYYYY off

carrie_eggo

Yeah, that's why I don't eat all my exercise calories. (slaps self on the hand)

myurk

When I got my HRM I found that the site was pretty accurate (but I was always modest when entering my exercise in). But if you want accuracy make sure to get a heart rate monitor. Made me feel more confident in how many calories I could consume.

jamiesgotagun

The site was not very accurate compared to my HRM

JRhinoC

It's an average based off of your age, sex, height, and weight. It doesn't take your fitness level into account, which will be the major deciding factor in calories burned. Personally, I wouldn't even use it as a guide. And word of advice, anything that gives you your calories burned but isn't actively monitoring your heart rate is inaccurate.

Like2workout

I would recommend a "Bodybugg" it can determine the amount of calories that you are burning with 90% accuracy. It is the best.

amysj303

I thought it was the same as the HRM for, like, treadmill and stationary bike. But I don't know about hiking, I don't think it could know how hard or easy your elevation, pace etc.

jmvh59

Hiking is definitely high on the burned calories scale. It presumes you are carrying a pack and climbing/descending hills. It doesn't seem to care about your pace at all. I could hike a trail one day and then hike it again the next day but take an hour longer and burn 600 or so more calories going the same distance! So there's the loophole...

At least walking allows you to pick a rate of speed for better accuracy. If you're really stuck on getting exact numbers, your best bet is to get a geo-pedometer type app for a smart phone or get a heart rate moniter. For me, I'm seeing decent weight loss results using close approximations on calories consumed and burned.

JipsyJudy

I was using LoseIt before I joined here, and I keep my LoseIt app to check stuff like that. LoseIt says you would burn 1600-something pounds just walking with your backpack or 1800-something if you were climbing.

mrandolph69

My Polar FT7 HRM gives me credit for well under 1/2 of what MFP says for my bike riding. I always go with the HRM. You should really get one if you are eating back your exercise calories.

tawny9753

Here's what I do, pick the one you like best.

1. Don't eat your exercise calories at all, just count exercise as a boost to your weight loss.
2. Only eat half your exercise calories as calculated by MFP.
3. Only enter half your exercise time in MFP so you can eat all your exercise calories but it will be more accurate.

Another trick is to underestimate the speed. I know it takes me 45 minutes to walk 2 miles. That is closer to 2.0 miles per hour (slow walking) than it is to 3.0 miles per hour (walk the dog). That speed calculation makes a big difference.

Anyone know how to just enter the miles you logged instead of the time. I think it's more accurate by miles and my phone has a "my tracks" app that uses GPS to track my miles and my path.