Can I trust the exercise database?

Options
Alatariel75
Alatariel75 Posts: 17,959 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi,

I walked for 20 mins then 60 mins today. I know I averaged 3.7mph because I worked out the distance and knew the time I walked.

The database tells me I burned 541 calories! I mean, it was a decent walk, and I was a bit buggered after the 60 minuiter because there were hills and the like, but that's more than my average meal! I don't feel like I worked THAT hard.

I'm going to buy a HRM/Pedometer but for right now, I'm in huge deficit for the day but I don't know if I can trust the database.

Any comment/advice?
«1

Replies

  • RotterdamNL
    RotterdamNL Posts: 509 Member
    Options
    No you can not :) get a ecg accurate hrm to be sure
  • ejha77
    ejha77 Posts: 63
    Options
    I find it tends to over-report the amount of calories I've burnt compared to my HRM. Not always, but a lot of the time.
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 17,959 Member
    Options
    Argh! Thanks for that, guys. So how much do I eat back? I don't think I could have worked off even half of that.
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 17,959 Member
    Options
    So I figure that seeing as I can't trust the database and I won't have a HRM for a while I'm only going to eat back what I need to hit my normal daily calorie goal. Does this sound OK?
  • flying_inside
    flying_inside Posts: 67 Member
    Options
    A "trick" I use is lowering my MPH when I log my walking. I walk 3mph and log 2.5mph.
  • MightyDomo
    MightyDomo Posts: 1,265 Member
    Options
    If you have distance, time and speed you can find calculators and see based off your metrics (weight, height, etc.) what you would probably burn and see if it has been accurate if not then maybe it would be a good idea to put that money off to the side for an HRM. The polars I hear are good and they can be relatively cheap :)
  • jivitasa
    jivitasa Posts: 150 Member
    Options
    No, not at all. A heart rate monitor is the only thing you can trust for accuracy.
  • eyeshuh
    eyeshuh Posts: 333
    Options
    I actually found the MFP database to be pretty accurate for walking and running. As another poster suggested though, try finding another calorie estimation site to compare since you know your time and distance.

    From what I've seen, most people who use the MFP numbers tend to eat back only 50-75% of their exercise calories to be on the safe side.
  • EatClean_WashUrNuts
    EatClean_WashUrNuts Posts: 1,590 Member
    Options
    NO.
  • shanster23
    shanster23 Posts: 144 Member
    Options
    I actually found the MFP database to be pretty accurate for walking and running. As another poster suggested though, try finding another calorie estimation site to compare since you know your time and distance.

    From what I've seen, most people who use the MFP numbers tend to eat back only 50-75% of their exercise calories to be on the safe side.

    This.
    I only eat back half of my exercise calories. Better safe than sorry!
    (Unless I'm having a really hungry day. Then I eat them all back and pretend for once that the calculations are accurate lol).
  • ThreasaRenee82
    ThreasaRenee82 Posts: 10
    Options
    As I have the same problem as you and do not have an HRM I try not to eat back my exercise calories, except for when I have REALLY worked out and need an extra boost and then I wouldnt eat more than half of those calories :)
  • MumOfADuo
    MumOfADuo Posts: 294 Member
    Options
    Hi,

    I walked for 20 mins then 60 mins today. I know I averaged 3.7mph because I worked out the distance and knew the time I walked.

    The database tells me I burned 541 calories! I mean, it was a decent walk, and I was a bit buggered after the 60 minuiter because there were hills and the like, but that's more than my average meal! I don't feel like I worked THAT hard.

    I'm going to buy a HRM/Pedometer but for right now, I'm in huge deficit for the day but I don't know if I can trust the database.

    Any comment/advice?

    I would go to a couple websites and check. Self magazine has a good one. You are the only one that knows your 'intensity' level. I know personally for me when I walk at a 4.0 pace for an hour (just over 4 miles) I burn about 500 calories, of course it depends on your weight as well. I would NOT trust the site, just use it as a guideline.....
  • crjohnston12
    crjohnston12 Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    I was just coming on this board to ask the same question. I walked 20 minutes on a treadmill and the treadmill estimated that I burned about 100 calories. When I put it into MFP, it showed over 200 calories burned. Problem is that I often bank on eating back those extra calories and do not want to eat incorrectly. I'm super bummed out...and my hubby will be also.
  • Shoechick5
    Shoechick5 Posts: 221 Member
    Options
    No idea how much you weigh, but I'm 5'5 and 179lbs. I burn around 600 calories for 5.5 mile walk that we do in about 100 minutes. So around a 18 minute mile. That's my HRM reading.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    Maybe yes, maybe no...it really just depends...there are too many variables to really say. Your weight, intensity, distance, general level of fitness will all impact your actual burn. When I first started out, I actually found that my burn was more than what MFP was telling me it was due to being at such a low level of fitness, it really didn't take much to get my HR up to a good burn. Completely different story these days.
  • sleibo87
    sleibo87 Posts: 403 Member
    Options
    Ehh depends. I see some people posting they burned 1000 calories an hour on the elliptical but for me thats not accurate. I burn about 530 jogging for an hour (but im small and short). Walking normal pace I burn like 220 and hour. Some times Mfp is close like on my stationary bike its only off around 20 calories but walk I would say its a little more off.
    I recommend the Polar ft4! Love mine.
    Until you get one I wouldn't eat back all your calories burned
  • slepygrl
    slepygrl Posts: 249 Member
    Options
    NO! NO! NO!!! Buy yourself a HRM!!
  • Sleepynita
    Sleepynita Posts: 82
    Options
    I find it is off by 30% compared to a heart rate monitor, for me anyways.
  • whitmars106
    whitmars106 Posts: 118 Member
    Options
    I honestly don't know if it can be trusted 100%, but I do anyway. I also don't eat back my exercise calories, because through trial and error, I found that I only lost when I didn't eat them back. I maintained my weight when I ate them. (It's all about what works for you!) And obviously what I'm doing now is working well for me, so I'm sticking with it! If you feel more comfortable then get an HRM.
  • SuffolkSally
    SuffolkSally Posts: 964 Member
    Options
    I have an HRM and the MFP estimates are pretty close to the readings I get from it. They are only estimates - but then so are the calorie burns given by HRM's, pedometers, fitbits, websites... you may get a closer estimate, that's all.

    If you are unfit/very overweight you will burn a lot more calories, so depending on the terrain and intensity you may have burnt that much.

    Before I got the HRM I used to eat back anywhere between 1/2 - 3/4 of my exercise calories depending how hungry I was, and lost weight doing this.

    It might be an idea to review what activity level you've set yourself at - if you plan to exercise fairly regularly by walking then set lightly or moderately active. That will give you the exercise cals within your daily target, and you needn't worry about exercise calories in addition.

    The other thing is to have patience and figure out what works for you - everyone's calorie requirements and response to exercise are going to be a bit different.

Categories