Calories from Exercise by MFP is incorrect?

Options
2»

Replies

  • jamface11
    jamface11 Posts: 87
    Options
    The longer the exercise the more MFP is out.. mainly because it includes the calories you would have burned in that time if you were doing nothing.
    For example, if I say I did 180 minutes walking at 2.5 m/per hour, MFP says I've burned 512 calories.. however if I was sitting on my backside for 180 minutes I would have burned 210 anyway, so in fact the walking only accounts for 302 calories.

    I take this into account with exercise that goes for longer than 40 minutes and adjust my entry accordingly, but don't bother with the shorter workouts as the suggested amount seems closer to actual burn.

    So are you telling me that when I go out for a 1.5 - 2 hour walk and log that the calories MFP says I've earned back are way over?? Oh ffs! I've been walking longer and longer each day just to get some cals in the bank when all along I'd probably be better off walking half the distance for the same calories, is that right? :huh

    Hang on though, surely by the fact that I'm not just sat on my *kitten* doing nothing I MUST have burned more calories that 302 (in your example)??

    I think they are saying that you did burn the 512, but if you'd done nothing you would have burned 210 anyway so you burnt an extra 302 by doing the walking. If you were going to eat them back those 210 are already counted in your daily activity, so you would be eating them twice.

    Oh flip! :grumble:

    I know how you feel, sometimes I'll do a good workout then go to log it seems pretty unsubstantial. I went for a 1hour walk today, walked 3miles and it worked out as 120calories!
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    The longer the exercise the more MFP is out.. mainly because it includes the calories you would have burned in that time if you were doing nothing.
    For example, if I say I did 180 minutes walking at 2.5 m/per hour, MFP says I've burned 512 calories.. however if I was sitting on my backside for 180 minutes I would have burned 210 anyway, so in fact the walking only accounts for 302 calories.

    I take this into account with exercise that goes for longer than 40 minutes and adjust my entry accordingly, but don't bother with the shorter workouts as the suggested amount seems closer to actual burn.

    So are you telling me that when I go out for a 1.5 - 2 hour walk and log that the calories MFP says I've earned back are way over?? Oh ffs! I've been walking longer and longer each day just to get some cals in the bank when all along I'd probably be better off walking half the distance for the same calories, is that right? :huh

    Hang on though, surely by the fact that I'm not just sat on my *kitten* doing nothing I MUST have burned more calories that 302 (in your example)??

    I think they are saying that you did burn the 512, but if you'd done nothing you would have burned 210 anyway so you burnt an extra 302 by doing the walking. If you were going to eat them back those 210 are already counted in your daily activity, so you would be eating them twice.

    Oh flip! :grumble:

    I know how you feel, sometimes I'll do a good workout then go to log it seems pretty unsubstantial. I went for a 1hour walk today, walked 3miles and it worked out as 120calories!

    That's why I've been pushing myself to go faster and for longer each day, my poor dogs legs are about 4 inches shorter now, lol! :laugh:

    I'll have to remember to subtract a good chunk of calories from the total MFP gives me for long walks now.
    As I say, I only eat back 50% but I'd prefer to eat 50% of the correct number.
    I'm going shopping soon, I may look for a HRM while I'm out! :wink:
  • amnsetie
    amnsetie Posts: 666 Member
    Options
    sitting on yr backside can't possibly burn 150 per hour or i would burn 2700 for sitting 18 hours and something more for sleeping for 6 hours. ridiculous - sorry
    maybe if your tdee is that high you could have that problem, but then walking would burn even more

    hell lady, just walk and never mind the doomsayers!!
  • jamface11
    jamface11 Posts: 87
    Options
    sitting on yr backside can't possibly burn 150 per hour or i would burn 2700 for sitting 18 hours and something more for sleeping for 6 hours. ridiculous - sorry
    maybe if your tdee is that high you could have that problem, but then walking would burn even more

    hell lady, just walk and never mind the doomsayers!!

    That's a point...if your set for a sedentary TDEE which was 1700, that's only around 70 calories an hour that you'd need to take away :D
  • lauren3101
    lauren3101 Posts: 1,853 Member
    Options
    I actually prefer this site. It doesn't list as many exercises as MPF but I think it gives a more realistic number of calories burned.

    http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calories_burned.htm
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    sitting on yr backside can't possibly burn 150 per hour or i would burn 2700 for sitting 18 hours and something more for sleeping for 6 hours. ridiculous - sorry
    maybe if your tdee is that high you could have that problem, but then walking would burn even more

    hell lady, just walk and never mind the doomsayers!!

    That's a point...if your set for a sedentary TDEE which was 1700, that's only around 70 calories an hour that you'd need to take away :D

    I'm set at sedentary, that's why I log and use the exercise calories.
    I'm 5'4", 108.25lb, 44yrs old so how many calories do you think I should subtract from the total MFP gives me for, say a 90 minute walk @ 3.5mph?
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    I actually prefer this site. It doesn't list as many exercises as MPF but I think it gives a more realistic number of calories burned.

    http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calories_burned.htm

    This is much better for pinpointing the type of walking because I walk hills, rough ground etc so this site is better for me, thanks for that link I've saved it for reference. :flowerforyou:
  • jamface11
    jamface11 Posts: 87
    Options
    sitting on yr backside can't possibly burn 150 per hour or i would burn 2700 for sitting 18 hours and something more for sleeping for 6 hours. ridiculous - sorry
    maybe if your tdee is that high you could have that problem, but then walking would burn even more

    hell lady, just walk and never mind the doomsayers!!

    That's a point...if your set for a sedentary TDEE which was 1700, that's only around 70 calories an hour that you'd need to take away :D

    I'm set at sedentary, that's why I log and use the exercise calories.
    I'm 5'4", 108.25lb, 44yrs old so how many calories do you think I should subtract from the total MFP gives me for, say a 90 minute walk @ 3.5mph?

    Under the goals tab, it should tell you approximately your normal daily activity. I just divided this by 24 and would do that amount per hour. Mine is 1770 (i'm 5'7 and 134) so per hour is 70calories, i normally round up slightly (80-90) just to give myself a cushion. Your amount will prob be a bit lower. Hope this helps, don't stress about it too much, if your only eating half back anyway that helps take it into account. :)

    For myself i use that formula (0.3xweightxmiles) for walking, and then anything i burn on a machine, or have to estimate on MFP i would halve before adding it and then I can eat the whole amount back.
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    sitting on yr backside can't possibly burn 150 per hour or i would burn 2700 for sitting 18 hours and something more for sleeping for 6 hours. ridiculous - sorry
    maybe if your tdee is that high you could have that problem, but then walking would burn even more

    hell lady, just walk and never mind the doomsayers!!

    That's a point...if your set for a sedentary TDEE which was 1700, that's only around 70 calories an hour that you'd need to take away :D

    I'm set at sedentary, that's why I log and use the exercise calories.
    I'm 5'4", 108.25lb, 44yrs old so how many calories do you think I should subtract from the total MFP gives me for, say a 90 minute walk @ 3.5mph?

    Under the goals tab, it should tell you approximately your normal daily activity. I just divided this by 24 and would do that amount per hour. Mine is 1770 (i'm 5'7 and 134) so per hour is 70calories, i normally round up slightly (80-90) just to give myself a cushion. Your amount will prob be a bit lower. Hope this helps, don't stress about it too much, if your only eating half back anyway that helps take it into account. :)

    For myself i use that formula (0.3xweightxmiles) for walking, and then anything i burn on a machine, or have to estimate on MFP i would halve before adding it and then I can eat the whole amount back.

    So my BMR is 1126, divided by 24 is 47 so I'll just subtract 50 calories per hour of walking. That seems easy enough, thanks for that. :flowerforyou:
  • Richa_S
    Richa_S Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    I use this to calculate how many calories i burned walking 0.3*weight(lbs)*miles (from http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html). I seems pretty stingy, but as I eat back my exercise calories I would rather underestimate. I think it also gives a nice explanation of gross vs net calories if you need one.

    ^^ Much clear and better, thanks
  • Richa_S
    Richa_S Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    So... We clear that MFP is showing the higher calorie burn... it screwed my targets, however best time to pick it back..

    I won't eat back my earned calories that for sure..

    Thank you all.. :)
  • bunchesonothing
    bunchesonothing Posts: 1,015 Member
    Options
    This is a far more accurate site just for exercise burns: http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc hope it helps

    This website gave me 20 more calories than MFP for the same 30 minute run.

    For me, MFP numbers, seem to work pretty well. Although, I'm sure there are a lot of confounding factors.
  • bunchesonothing
    bunchesonothing Posts: 1,015 Member
    Options
    I actually prefer this site. It doesn't list as many exercises as MPF but I think it gives a more realistic number of calories burned.

    http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calories_burned.htm

    This is another site that gives me more than mfp.
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    I actually prefer this site. It doesn't list as many exercises as MPF but I think it gives a more realistic number of calories burned.

    http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calories_burned.htm

    This is another site that gives me more than mfp.

    I found that too. I think I'll just stick with MFP and calculate the same way I have been for the last 9 months, it's not done me any harm, lol!

Categories