Are the calorie estimates from exercising accurate?

JenniferAHaines

Just curious whether the calories earned from exercise are accurate on MFP. For example, I'll do 1/2 hour on the elliptical, the machine will say 100 calories burned, while MFP will say 350. Is MFP taking into account my weight? Or should I just do an average of the two? Thanks for the help.

hunni70

Bump would also like to know!

privatetime

This is just me, but I find most caloric expenditure estimates to be comically inflated.

When I do an hour on my treadmill, it says I've burned maybe 300 calories. MFP suggests it something like double that. So, I go with my treadmill, and manually enter that.

I do a lot of toning, which is more resistance or "strength"...for which MFP doesn't offer estimates, anyway.

I don't actually care too much about the calories. I'm using MFP to try to help me increase my protein, and lower my total carb's.

juicemoogan

If you really want to be accurate - buy a heart rate monitor.

I find there is a difference in the site and the HRM. and if you want to be more precise, you need to be measuring your body's heart rate and exertion based on your resting heart rate, and weight.

If you aren't too concerned with being dead on and exact.. the MFP is fine..

rebelontherun

I think some of them seem to be accurate, but others are a bit high

Survivor1997

I'm walking 4 miles a day. My pedometer reads anywhere from 360 to 410 calories. I just use that. I don't believe any site is 100% accurate, given everyone's individual metabolism.

Let the scale be your guide.

brittdaw32

When I do an hour on my treadmill, it says I've burned maybe 300 calories. MFP suggests it something like double that. So, I go with my treadmill, and manually enter that.

When you run for an hour you really do burn between 500-600 calories, sometimes more depending on how intense your workout is. My treadmill is never correct on the calorie count and I don't think most machines are because they don't take into account age, weight, and level of exertion you are exhibiting.

I like to run and when I plug it into the MFP thing it comes in fairly close. Not sure about the others but the running and walking is fairly accurate.

traceytnt247

I say I get about a 50% difference from the gym equipment to MFP and its MFP who shows the higher of the two counts. But who's right? Its anyone judge. I base on the lower of the 2 counts.

runnercheryl

For me, MFP is pretty much on target. It calculates about ten calories out. Others find it's hundreds out, though.

onequirkygirl

I own a BodyBugg and a heart rate monitor. The BodyBugg is used by the contestants on Biggest Loser, and is verrrry accurate. I find my heart rate monitor is about right on key with it.

I've honestly never used the estimations on here....

jamiesadler

not even close

irisheyez718

MFP overestimated my burns by a good bit. I think investing in an HRM was the best thing I could have done, so glad I did.

tenala

I believe calorie expenditure is based on your age, sex and current weight. If your trendmill doesn't ask for these parameters, then it is not accurate.

Raychel_P

No, they aren't. All they take into account is your weight and age. There are so many other factors that come in to play- your metabolism, your body composition, your level of fitness, medications you are taking, whether or not you are leaning on the treadmill while you walk/run, intensity level during weighlifting, etc.

Jennloella

I use a Polar HRM and for me the MFP estimates were way way over

hiker282

Probably not. Get a heart rate monitor. It will be one of the greatest investments you'll make.

Shellitz

Since getting my HRM I have found that MFP both overestimates and underestimates on many activities. For walking outside I found once I used my HRM I was burning a lot more than MFP suggested, but the opposite on the elliptical.

I never thought I would be that 'into it' to need or want a HRM, but now that I have one I can't imagine working out without it.

steelersfamily6

I have also been wondering this too ever since I started. I bought a HRM and I spent $60 on it and it wasn;t even close to what everything else was saying (internet, machines, other tools) so I ended up taking it back bc it was too much of a difference. Now I am hoping I can find a better one that will actually be accurate

Buca412

For me, MFP is off/under when I do the elliptical. MFP isn't picking up the intensity of my workout or reading my heart rate. So I go by what the elliptical tells me.

geezer99

The MFP calories tend to agree with other estimates on the web. If the gym machine does not ask for your weight it IS NOT accurate!

lindalee0315

I use a HRM for calculating exercise calories burned, but out of curiosity, compared that to what MFP had as a burn. I found that MFP was generally about 30-50% higher on some exercises, but lower on others (like yoga or stretching). The machines were off as well. I have also read that people nearly always over-estimate their caloric burn and under-estimate their food intake, so it's kind of a double whammy. You think you've exerted more effort than you have and you think you eat less than you did. If you don't want to purchase a HRM, I would say to be safe, reduce the burns MFP gives you by about 30%.

Coyla

It depends on the person. For me, it estimated really, really high, about twice as much as I actually burned. But it takes a bit to get my heart-rate up.

I own a HRM and use that instead.

Best bet is to do what works. If you eat back your exercise calories using MFP's estimates, and you're losing weight (slow and steady, folks), then stick with it. It's working.

TiredOfBeingFAT130

For me, they aren't accurate. Prior to getting a heart-rate monitor, I thought my calorie-burns were much higher than they really were!!

Example...
Zumbacalories.com tells me that I burn 810 calories for an hour of Zumba. I actually only burn 612 (HRM).
I was logging the 30 day shred as circuit training. MFP told me that I would burn 328 calories. I actually only burn 146.
I was logging Richard Simmons as low impact aerobics. MFP told me that I would burn 295 calories. I actually only burn 123.

I have a Polar FT4 with a chest strap, so my HRM is accurate. MFP database is not. At least not for me.

DataBased

I tend to under-report exercise and over-report portion sizes to even out any discrepancies. It must be working because I'm trying to stay in my MFP recommended numbers (eating back calories) and I'm losing pretty well. I never can quite eat back all my calories, though - but I definitely stay at or above my MBR calorie intake.

EricMurano

If you really want to be accurate - buy a heart rate monitor.

I find there is a difference in the site and the HRM. and if you want to be more precise, you need to be measuring your body's heart rate and exertion based on your resting heart rate, and weight.

If you aren't too concerned with being dead on and exact.. the MFP is fine..

Just remember to only use HRMs for calorie estimates when performing aerobic exercise. Using an HRM while lifting weights can give you good info about your heart rate but that heart rate doesn't translate to calories burned.

Sucks.

CarolanneG

I use this site..

http://www.fitwatch.com/database/searchexdb.html

muzmacol

i would knock off 30% off MFP calculations. Running machines and HRM are closer in agreement. Most accurate for certain are heart rate monitors.

MountainMia

I'll take my heart rate 2-3 times throughout my workout and base my calories off of that. I'm not too worried because I don't eat all of them back and if it's off a bit, I'm on the safe side of losing. If you want to be exact, a monitor is your best bet. I just don't find it necessary for me yet.

penrbrown

Not for me they weren't.

I invested in an HRM and when comparing the same workout (no worries, my treadmill was not cross talking with the HRM) the numbers were laughably different. The machine calculated I was burning around a hundred more calories per hour then I was actually burning! MFP was even worse.

Anyway. Not sure if MFP, the treadmill, or my HRM was at fault but I've chosen to go with the HRM. It's numbers were the lowest.

And as a side note, running won't burn THAT much... it does depend on your weight but at 195 pounds I was only burning 130 calories during a 30 minute run. And yes I was running at my max (lots of sweat!). Maybe I have a difficult time burning but I never got big calorie burn from running.

RileeMarie

i just asked this same question in a private message. then came here and you posted the same ?.. if that is the case then my calorie intake should be much lower than what this site is saying. and when i enter my exercise the calories burned is a bit higher than what my treadmill is saying. i need to go get a Calories Burned, BMI, BMR & RMR Calculator

nray3119

I don't think it is so I just dont take those calories off my daily intake.