calories burned...

io_ragazza
io_ragazza Posts: 23
edited September 19 in Fitness and Exercise
How accurate is MFP in calculating calories burned? I just feel that it can sometimes be excessive. E.g it tells me I burned 762 calories on a 4.5 mile run today, and as I only weigh 133lb it seems too much - most running sites estimate 115 calories per mile for a 150lb runner, so I was estimating my burn at about 450 cals...

I dont want to overestimate what I've burnt and eat it all back lol!

Replies

  • xRhiannonPricex
    xRhiannonPricex Posts: 5
    A Heart Rate Monitor (HRM) that measures the amount of Calories burned would be your most accurate way of measuring, I recently bought one and I find it to be a really good motivation tool as if I feel like stopping and I'm at say 220 cals burned I'll keep going until I reach 300 etc

    :smile:
  • Alafia22
    Alafia22 Posts: 112
    I have the same problem... I did light housework for about 4 1/2 hours one day (painting a bedroom) and my estimated burn was 900 calories. It seemed like way too much. So I'd like to know the same thing..
  • BrenNew
    BrenNew Posts: 3,420 Member
    If you can't afford an HMR, like I can't, check out this site, maybe it'll be more accurate for you than MFP.

    http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php
  • mrsyac2
    mrsyac2 Posts: 2,784 Member
    No MFP isn't accurate in calories burned everyone needs to remember that MFP is just a guide-
  • benmarcum
    benmarcum Posts: 132 Member
    i picked up the polar F6 and i love it. it has shown me that i can push harder than i thought and i love seeing the calories. i often find myself going past my "workout time" because i go...well, i can do another 50 cals!
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    yeah, depending on how far you are from the person that entered the calories (in body type, fitness level, weight, height, age...etc) it can be REAAALY far off.

    For instance, I ran about 4 miles today and burned about 450 calories, but I did it in about 30 minutes (29 minutes 35 seconds to be exact, yes I track my mile times :tongue: ) and averaged about 78% Max HR, but for someone else, that might be a TON more calories or a ton less, depending on where their weight is, how much fat they have, how good their VO2 max is ...etc. The only way to get accurate is to have an HRM, better to have one that allows you to enter VO2 max (polar F6 and higher does this).
  • femmerides
    femmerides Posts: 843 Member
    so i logged in my run as a 5mph run for 30 mins and on MFP it's 337 cals burned. on the calorie website it's 450 cals. so for me MFP is underestimating (which is good for me). so i don't see much of a problem.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    So that site had me burning 582 calories in 32 minutes, my HRM has me at 450.
  • mrsyac2
    mrsyac2 Posts: 2,784 Member
    The only way to know is to get a HRM- ALL websites and machines are just rough estimates-
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    so i logged in my run as a 5mph run for 30 mins and on MFP it's 337 cals burned. on the calorie website it's 450 cals. so for me MFP is underestimating (which is good for me). so i don't see much of a problem.

    At your weight (83.4 kg) and your running speed, the estimated number of calories burned in your 30 min run is 360-365. That's according to the ACSM metabolic calculations for running on a flat surface.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories