Does MFP really over estimate exercise calories?

ninjakowski

I'm a newbie and have been trawling through a few topics, and noticed that quite a few times people have mentioned that MFP generally over estimates calories burned during exercise. I got a bit worried about eating back calories I didnt actually burn and did a bit of searching on the net - and almost every website has given me an answer very close to what MFP is telling me.

For example, if I jog 10 minutes at about 6mph - MFP tells me this is 103 calories. Lowest other estimation I could find online was the spark people website which estimated 96....not a significant difference. A few others estimated around 99/100.

A bit confused now, do others accept the figure MFP calculates for you or work it out on your own in another way?

paulwgun

I always use a Heart Rate Monitor a polar ft4 which is the most accurate way and during a spin class can burn between 500 - 710 calories depending on intensity and effort

meerkat70

Some people find it accurate, others (like me) find it overestimates, others find it underestimates.

Based just on anecdotal evidence and observation, I'd suggest it particularly overestimates for us larger people who also happen to be pretty fit. The formula it uses seems to assume that if you're big and run, it's going to take you close to death, in heart rate terms... :-D

kendrafallon

For me, it depends on the activity, walking for example, MFP is pretty much spot on. But for Tae Kwon Do, it was hugely out - at least double or even triple the value recorded by my HRM.

sandrajune72

i also wear my HRM (polar FT4) whenever I exercise. For me, MFP pretty much always UNDERestimates.

SomeoneSomeplace

It depends for me. Running is underestimates. Elliptical it's actually semi accurate (the machines however are WAY off). But my first experience with an HRM was today and I was actually shocked to discover how many calories I was actually burning as I thought I was burning far less then what I was. I'm wondering however if my HRM over-estimates a bit. I normally just auto fill in something in the middle of both numbers.

Kanlassak

MFP (and all the other sites you looked at) are using estimates based on the average for people of that size/height/gender. Which means they'll all be fairly similar to each other, but that if you're not burning like the average it will be off for you. So for some people it'll be high and for others low. And for a lot of people it'll be close enough.

This is why people recommend heart rate monitors. They have more information about how hard you as an individual are working. It's also still an estimate and could be off, but it's got more data to work with.

dvisser1

I'm a newbie and have been trawling through a few topics, and noticed that quite a few times people have mentioned that MFP generally over estimates calories burned during exercise. I got a bit worried about eating back calories I didnt actually burn and did a bit of searching on the net - and almost every website has given me an answer very close to what MFP is telling me.

For example, if I jog 10 minutes at about 6mph - MFP tells me this is 103 calories. Lowest other estimation I could find online was the spark people website which estimated 96....not a significant difference. A few others estimated around 99/100.

A bit confused now, do others accept the figure MFP calculates for you or work it out on your own in another way?

I have found for me it really depends on the exercise. Walking & running, the MFP estimate is a little lower than what my HRM (Garmin FR60) calculates. Elliptical, stair mill, stationary bike in the gym the MFP estimate is over both the gym machine and my HRM. After getting my HRM and carrying a notebook in the gym to record everything I do there, I made the conscious decision to log the lowest of the 2 or 3 possible readings I had (MFP & HRM and possibly gym equipment). On the elliptical, the machine started as the lowest but now my HRM is the lowest as I have gotten in better shape.

Definitely recommend getting a decent HRM. Polar FT4 and FT7 are popular, solid devices and I really like my Garmin FR60. The garmin HRM chest strap does not pair with gym equipment like the Polar ones do.

piratesaregrand

Today the machines added up to 450, mfp said 580, hrm said 707. I just use the middle number