Calories burned???

ashleey1000

My apps endomondo and digifit always say I burned more calories than mfp when I enter my workouts. Which numbers should I use mfp or my other apps. The other apps r always different numbers too.

For example I just went walking for 42mins. Mfp says I burned 267 cals endomondo says I burned 467 and digifit says I burned 335.

eyeshuh

Everything you use will just be an estimate. The closest you are probably going to get to your actual calorie burn is the Heart Rate Monitor though, so if I were you I would go with the Digifit number.

mwbulechek

I can not speak for the other 2 sites but MFP is higher than what you actually burn. I wear a Mio watch and go by the calorie count that way. MFP is almost always 40-60% higher than what I get off of my Mio.

ashleey1000

Everything you use will just be an estimate. The closest you are probably going to get to your actual calorie burn is the Heart Rate Monitor though, so if I were you I would go with the Digifit number.

Ok thanks

d2footballJRC

To be honest if you goal is to lose weight and you are going to eat back the cals I'd go with the lowest to be safe. I'd look at investing into a HRM or a Bodymedia Device. Something that will give you a bit more accurate numbers.

DantheMan2517

Go with the lower number. It's just an estimation anyway. Undercalculate your calories burned and over calculate your calorie intake. Best rule of thumb.

ashleey1000

To be honest if you goal is to lose weight and you are going to eat back the cals I'd go with the lowest to be safe. I'd look at investing into a HRM or a Bodymedia Device. Something that will give you a bit more accurate numbers.

Yea I plan on getting one of those polar watches. But I just went ahead n went with the mfp number. My goal is weightloss so should i eat back the calories?

kendzini13

I can not speak for the other 2 sites but MFP is higher than what you actually burn. I wear a Mio watch and go by the calorie count that way. MFP is almost always 40-60% higher than what I get off of my Mio.

MFP always far underestimates my burns compared to my heart rate monitor, so I obviously go with the HRM reading.

sathor

MFP is often really low for me. I use a HRM now, attached to my Nike watch, for Cal information. I went from an estimate of 150 Cal on weight training to around 500.

From what I see (outside of HRMs) Nike+ uses distance time and weight, Allsport uses Distance and weight, MFP uses time and weight, and Strava seems to include elevation time in the equation, I am not sure how it is treating the HRM data on strava yet though, havn't used it enough yet since it is kinda cold and I havn't really tested it out in that manner yet.

mwbulechek

Yea I plan on getting one of those polar watches. But I just went ahead n went with the mfp number. My goal is weightloss so should i eat back the calories?

I do not eat mine back. Everyone is different. you just need to go with what works for you.

freindsofmine

267sounds right or close I go for about 45 min and my polar says 266 .

DericktheHutt

MFP is often really low for me. I use a HRM now, attached to my Nike watch, for Cal information. I went from an estimate of 150 Cal on weight training to around 500.

From what I see (outside of HRMs) Nike+ uses distance time and weight, Allsport uses Distance and weight, MFP uses time and weight, and Strava seems to include elevation time in the equation, I am not sure how it is treating the HRM data on strava yet though, havn't used it enough yet since it is kinda cold and I havn't really tested it out in that manner yet.

Strava doesn't use HR in its calculation. It's designed for those who only have a GPS device (mainly the Strava app) and no heartrate monitor. It really bugs me because I get zero for using my stationary trainer indoors. Heartrate information on Strava is used in their "suffer score", but that is a premium feature.


MFP will over estimate for some and underestimate for others because it can't know how hard you are actually working. Somepeople will work harder than others doing the exact same thing do to different fitness levels. I also don't know if it takes age, sex, and weight into the equation. Most general calculators estimate what they think the average person would burn.

cwolfman13

To be honest if you goal is to lose weight and you are going to eat back the cals I'd go with the lowest to be safe. I'd look at investing into a HRM or a Bodymedia Device. Something that will give you a bit more accurate numbers.

Yea I plan on getting one of those polar watches. But I just went ahead n went with the mfp number. My goal is weightloss so should i eat back the calories?

If you're using the MFP method, you are expected to eat back exercise calories because MFP doesn't include exercise in your activity level setting. The calorie goal MFP gives you has all of the deficit necessary to lose weight...you don't even have to exercise to lose weight with the MFP method.

ashleey1000

To be honest if you goal is to lose weight and you are going to eat back the cals I'd go with the lowest to be safe. I'd look at investing into a HRM or a Bodymedia Device. Something that will give you a bit more accurate numbers.

Yea I plan on getting one of those polar watches. But I just went ahead n went with the mfp number. My goal is weightloss so should i eat back the calories?

If you're using the MFP method, you are expected to eat back exercise calories because MFP doesn't include exercise in your activity level setting. The calorie goal MFP gives you has all of the deficit necessary to lose weight...you don't even have to exercise to lose weight with the MFP method.

would exercising "speed up" the weighloss if I eat back the calories or if I dont eat them back or it doesnt matter either way?