How do we know calories burned are accurate?

Options
coachkaren71
coachkaren71 Posts: 7
in Health and Weight Loss
I worry that when I enter the calories burned from those recommended on the site, that they are not correct? Let's say that I think (according to the site) that I burned 300 calories doing 30 min of aerobics. How is that 300 determined? It's not determined by my personal information (height, weight, age, etc.). So what if I eat those extra 300 calories, but I really only burned 200 calories? Then I'm 100 calories over. Am I being paranoid? :huh:
«1

Replies

  • hiyomi
    hiyomi Posts: 906 Member
    Options
    You don't and just hope they are! >.< Or buy a heart rate monitor :D
  • OddChoices
    OddChoices Posts: 244 Member
    Options
    I worry that when I enter the calories burned from those recommended on the site, that they are not correct? Let's say that I think (according to the site) that I burned 300 calories doing 30 min of aerobics. How is that 300 determined? It's not determined by my personal information (height, weight, age, etc.). So what if I eat those extra 300 calories, but I really only burned 200 calories? Then I'm 100 calories over. Am I being paranoid? :huh:

    They are guesstimates and definitely not accurate. Get a HRM that also captures exercise calories...
  • RAREBIRDART
    RAREBIRDART Posts: 100 Member
    Options
    It is based on your height and weight. My boyfriend and i will exercise together and enter the same amount of time for the same exercise and it will give us two different results. But again, we do not know if they are infact what exactly we loss, so we do not fully eat our full exercise calories. But half of them.
  • newmuslimwife
    newmuslimwife Posts: 2
    Options
    MFP does take your height and weight into account (you had to enter them when you signed up, so if those are accurate then you're OK)

    For example me and my husband both did the same workout yesterday, 30 min of circuit training. MFP says based on my height and weight that I burned 236 calories while for the same exercise on my husband's account it shows a burn of 408 calories.
  • nvrgvup12
    nvrgvup12 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    I invested in a heart rate monitor with a chest strap. It's a New Balance from Target and was really affordable (about $70-$80). My experience has been that MFP has a slightly higher calorie burn that I actually have.
  • donnacervelli11
    donnacervelli11 Posts: 109 Member
    Options
    I wondered the same thing since. I know calorie expenditure is largely based on your height, and weight and I was worried I wasn't getting an accurate read from MFP.

    I ended up getting a BodyMedia Fit band just so I could be sure. I've been wearing it for a little more than two weeks, and what I've found to be accurate calorie burn wise is:

    1 mile run (or walk at 3.5 mph) roughly equals 100 calories
    45 minutes of kettlebells roughly equals 350 calories
    3.5 mile hike, moderate terrain 21:22 pace burns roughly 500 calories

    Those were close, (only slighly lower) than calorie burn numbers recommended by the site.

    Giving myself a 100 - 200 calorie buffer helped. I figured I was probably overestimating calorie burn and underestimating intake anways.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    You don't and just hope they are! >.< Or buy a heart rate monitor :D
    And even HRMs are not completely accurate. There is truly no way to ever know with 100% certianty what a calorie burn is.
  • anasantos61
    anasantos61 Posts: 86 Member
    Options
    You dont that is why i got a HRM that said even the HRM is not 100% accurate. I have my HRM set up at 10lbs lighter then what I am.

    I was surprised by the difference between the HRM and the numbers on the treadmill or eliptical it was a big difference.
  • coachkaren71
    coachkaren71 Posts: 7
    Options
    Thank you all, these responses are very helpful. I didn't realize that it does take into account your height and weight. I still think I may invest in a HRM - probably good to have anyway.
  • concordancia
    concordancia Posts: 5,320 Member
    Options
    Psssst: your food calories aren't all that accurate either. It just seems to all work out in the end.

    Must be magic!
  • WEB3
    WEB3 Posts: 121 Member
    Options
    I have a HRM and I find that when I bust my butt I can burn 10 calories per minute. But that is high intensity-non stop. My usual workout in 30 minutes burns 200 cals, roughly 7 cals per minute.
    Best investment ever was buying a HRM because the site gives incorrect numbers.
    Unless you are extremely overweight, go with 6-8 calories burned per minute for moderate intensity cardio unitl you can get a HRM.
  • Smackemdanno
    Smackemdanno Posts: 83 Member
    Options
    That is why I only eat half of my calories back.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    Calories burned on MFP are most likely incorrect..... as well as many machine readings.

    Height, weight, age, gender, exertion level are all factors for calorie burn.

    If you want the most accurate account (outside of a laboratory) .... get a heart rate monitor .... that uses a chest strap. Wrist only HRMs are less accurate as they measure your pulse from time to time.... not all the time.

    If you don't want the expense of an HRM .... eat a portion of your calories back (75% maybe) .... then keep an eye on your progress and up (or lower) calories as needed.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    Invest in a HRM...burns in the data base are just estimates based on averages. They may be correct, more, less...who knows. When I got my HRM I found most of the MFP burns to be low for me because I was so incredibly out of shape.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    Invest in a HRM...burns in the data base are just estimates based on averages. They may be correct, more, less...who knows. When I got my HRM I found most of the MFP burns to be low for me because I was so incredibly out of shape.

    The key for an HRM to be as accurate as possible is that it should be one with it's own fitness test. You need to be able to determine your VO2 max to have it be accurate in addition to adding in the age/ weight data. Then that should be retested every once in a while. As you get more fit, your heart rate will be lower at the same level of work, but calorie burn won't.

    The accuracy issue with HRMs is that they are designed to extrapolate energy cost by using heart rate but without knowing VO2 max for the individual, it's just a crapshoot.
  • Confuzzled4ever
    Confuzzled4ever Posts: 2,860 Member
    Options
    I read that you burn approx 100 calories in 10 minutes of moderate exercise.. is that accurate? I have no idea.. BUT.. it seems to be what the machines at the gym are set at and many of the preset calories burns for other activites seem to use this number. It's just an average.
  • abbyrae1
    abbyrae1 Posts: 265 Member
    Options
    get a HRM, i just bought the Polar FT 7 and I love it, it is a heart rate monitor with watch. you set it up to have your heigh, weight, age, sex, and then it will track your workout based off time, HR and give you calories burned, this will be more accurate than workout machines at the gym or math calculations because it is considering how hard our heart is working, instead of what activity you are doing. I bought mine from Amazon, depending on the color you want, they run between $67-85 on there.
  • lauractemple85
    lauractemple85 Posts: 109 Member
    Options
    Buy a heart rate monitor. They are so worth it. However, make sure you buy a decent one. I had a cheap one that OVER calculated my calories burned...I didn't lose weight. I splurged and bought one with features like:

    In depth info: you height, current weight, gender etc
    It ask for your goals
    It has a "fit test" on it.

    Every week it asks me update my weight for accuracy, it also wants me to take the fit test again every week but I do that more like once a month. Good Luck!

    PS. I have a Polar HRM
  • CollegiateGrief
    CollegiateGrief Posts: 552 Member
    Options
    They are completely inaccurate and overestimate. It seems most people's HRMs overestimate too. If you can monitor your heart rate on a machine or use a HRM, then you can use this website to calculator your NET calories burned: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

    It's a wonderful tool.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    get a HRM, i just bought the Polar FT 7 and I love it, it is a heart rate monitor with watch. you set it up to have your heigh, weight, age, sex, and then it will track your workout based off time, HR and give you calories burned, this will be more accurate than workout machines at the gym or math calculations because it is considering how hard our heart is working, instead of what activity you are doing. I bought mine from Amazon, depending on the color you want, they run between $67-85 on there.

    See my post above. It is not nessesarily more accurate than machines if you do not determine VO2 max. As a matter of fact, a machine that is measuring METs would likely more accurate as it is measuring acutal work. Heart Rate in and of itself is not a definitive measure of work. It's just a prediction based on a set of assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, the data is bad.

Categories