Why the hate for MFP and machine calorie burn estimates?

stumblinthrulife

I see a lot of hate for the MFP calorie burn estimates, and for the estimates given by ellipticals/treadmills etc...

What's that all about? People proclaim it as some sort of universal truth that they are inaccurate. I presume that I'm not the only one that's never been part of a clinical study of calories burned during exercise, so where do you get your comparison to proclaim so confidently that the estimates are wrong?

And if it's an HRM, you do realize that those are estimates too, right? How do you grade one estimate 'good' and the other 'bad'? Or are you just choosing the number that fits best with your preconceived ideas? "I think MFP over estimates, so if my HRM gives a lower number, it must be right. Therefore I was right that MFP over estimates." Circular thinking.

Personally, I've been using the figures from treadmills and ellipticals for months, along with MFP's estimates for weight lifting, and I've been losing weight at exactly the rate my calorie deficit would predict. Which tells me the estimates are about right - for me at least. I'm careful to always enter my weight into the machines before I start, perhaps that's the difference?

dpollet2

I don't assume that anything is totally accurate so I always underestimate my calories burned and over estimate how many calories I eat to make sure I'm under. I'm losing pretty steadily so it seems to be working.

Katina3333

I'm right there with you right now... I'm tired of all these conflicting numbers. I get one number from my new HRM, another from my treadmill (admittedly it doesn't have my weight or height in it) but then my runtastic has a third number which is close to the treadmill and about 3 times higher than my new HRM.... UGH!

I don't want to go over my calories so if I eat back any that I workout I might be going over. MFP has me a 1200 without any exercise, so maybe I should just eat that & still exercise... that doesn't seem right but shoot I dunno anymore!

Seraphemz

Wouldnt it make sense to take the number of something that is actually taking your heart rate ( HRM ) than a machine that is guessing how hard you are pushing yourself?

You can acutally go really slow for an hour, hardly get your heart rate up and it will still give you the same amount as if you worked really hard for that hour.
That doesnt make sense to me. I use my HRM.

stumblinthrulife

You can acutally go really slow for an hour, hardly get your heart rate up and it will still give you the same amount as if you worked really hard for that hour.

No, it won't. That's just plain wrong.

dbmata

Why the love for posting about the hate?

dbmata

You can acutally go really slow for an hour, hardly get your heart rate up and it will still give you the same amount as if you worked really hard for that hour.

No, it won't. That's just plain wrong.

Yes it will. HRM would be more accurate, as far as consumer grade toys can be, of course.

Seraphemz

You can acutally go really slow for an hour, hardly get your heart rate up and it will still give you the same amount as if you worked really hard for that hour.

No, it won't. That's just plain wrong.

When you enter the time that you worked out for on MFP, it will just give you a flat amount of calories. It WILL NOT adjust to the level that you have exercised.

Francl27

No hate here, just being objective.

stumblinthrulife

You can acutally go really slow for an hour, hardly get your heart rate up and it will still give you the same amount as if you worked really hard for that hour.

No, it won't. That's just plain wrong.

When you enter the time that you worked out for on MFP, it will just give you a flat amount of calories. It WILL NOT adjust to the level that you have exercised.

But that's not what you said. You said that if you go slow for an hour, MFP will give you the same calories as if you worked really hard. Put 30 minutes walking @2.5mph into MFP and it will give a very different calorie count than if you put 30 minutes of running @ 7.5mph.

If you feel more comfortable with a heart rate monitor, that's fine. I certainly won't tell you that you are wrong. But realize that there isn't a simple relationship between heart rate and calories burned, and that an HRM is just giving an estimate also. It's just an estimate based on different assumptions.

Kimaw65

what about those treadmills that have heart rate monitors on them? Mine measures my heart rate so whatever calories it tells me I burned, that's how many I enter in MFP. I put my time in and then I manually change the calories burned to match what the treadmill told me I burned

sevsmom

I'll take the reading from the item which has the most personalized details plugged in. . .for me, that the HRM. MFP was usually close to my HRM, but the HRM was a little lower. And the machines at my disposal are usually WAAAAAY off. . .so, for me, as for most people, it's a learning process. Which set of numbers is helping you get to where you want to go?

What bugs me now is that running 4 miles now takes me less time that it did 6 months ago and I burn fewer calories doing it as I've gotten more cardiovascular fitness. Ah well. . .4 miles is an easy day for me now.

Use the numbers that give you the results you want. Ignore the haters. Besides, do you really know any of us or seriously care what we think??

meaningful99

And why is so much of the hate directed at other people's exercise? Some of these rants make it seem like the ranters think people are trying to rig the system to try to get more calories or lie in their news feeds. No one would do that. Some people are just heavier and burn more calories. And like you said, even HRM estimates are just estimates.

GillianMowrey

As they say, "The proof is in the pudding." If you use the calories burned according to your machine and you are losing the weight, what difference can it possibly make? I have been doing just that for 18 months. I have lost over 65 pounds and stayed in my goal weight range for the past 6 months. The numbers can't be far off or I would not be maintaining my weight. Don't let the naysayers bother you. Do what works for you!

kistockman

I've not had much weight to lose here, but as much as I would love to have a hrm (I really like gadgets), I just figure whatever number I use, as long as I am consistent with the source, my maintenance and weight loss stays consistent. The one thing that keeps me from buying an hrm is that's just another set of numbers to juggle.

I'm no expert at all, but it seems to me if you use numbers from various different places, your fitness plan may be inaccurate resulting in no weight loss or perhaps weight gain. Too many sets of numbers may permit you to lie to yourself about what you are really accomplishing.

Again, I say, choose one source from where you count your calories and stick with it for an honest fitness plan.

Mmmmona

Because a person who weighs 150 pounds and a person who weighs 250 pounds both doing the same exercise will burn different amounts of calories.

Contrarian

I think "hate" is a little strong. Maybe disbelief.

lveh8lve

You can acutally go really slow for an hour, hardly get your heart rate up and it will still give you the same amount as if you worked really hard for that hour.

No, it won't. That's just plain wrong.

When you enter the time that you worked out for on MFP, it will just give you a flat amount of calories. It WILL NOT adjust to the level that you have exercised.

But that's not what you said. You said that if you go slow for an hour, MFP will give you the same calories as if you worked really hard. Put 30 minutes walking @2.5mph into MFP and it will give a very different calorie count than if you put 30 minutes of running @ 7.5mph.

If you feel more comfortable with a heart rate monitor, that's fine. I certainly won't tell you that you are wrong. But realize that there isn't a simple relationship between heart rate and calories burned, and that an HRM is just giving an estimate also. It's just an estimate based on different assumptions.

I can be "Running" on the treadmill at 4.5 and my HRM will Read 160. My friend next to me lightly jogging at 4.5 is reading 135. She has trained more for endurance then I have. Therefore she needs to work harder to get the same calorie burn as I would since her body needs more of a workout then mine. According to the MFP estimates, we would be treated exactly the same.

I have used an HRM since I started. And not once (even in my grueling workouts) have I even come close to what the MFP estimates said. Sometimes I get frustrated because I work incredibly hard, incredibly early in the morning and post my workout. Then someone burns 700 calories in an hour. I've never hit that. I've hit 500 at my best. It's very defeating

Azdak

This is one of those subjects where there is a big disconnect between what people think they know and what they actually know.

I answer some of those questions here:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

And a little more here:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041

Bottom line: there is no one method that is consistently more accurate than another. Some machines (treadmill walking w/out handrail support on a commercial treadmill allows weight input, for example) will give you as accurate a reading as you can get. Others--and many cross trainers fall into this category--significantly overestimate calories.

Databases such as MFP work OK for simple activities like walking and running when you can input your EXACT workload (distance, time, speed, elevation, etc--not "brisk", "easy", "moderate" --those terms are meaningless). When used for many work, daily living, or recreational activities, they are awful.

HRMs can be useful for aerobic-based group exercise classes and other types of steady-state, but unstructured movement activities. However, most people don't have them set up properly (with actual HRmax and actual VO2max), so they often give just general estimates. And HRMs are useless for things like strength training, yoga, hot yoga (especially), circuit training, HIIT, etc.

The fact that someone uses a certain method and "loses weight" does not prove the reliability or accuracy of that method. It is just as likely random chance that the numbers "work"--often the person is either underestimating intake or underestimating activity calories (or both).

bonniecarbs

For the first time in my life, I tried the HRM. I was shocked at the amount of calories it said I had . I'm not mildly shocked but holy smoke shocked. If in fact I was burning all those calories, then what the &&#%^! is wrong? I go by MFP and the machines even though they seem a little high. I deduct a little from those numbers.

hungryhobbit1

I don't believe MFP's numbers because they don't take into account intensity at all, and they are just so darned high all the time.

I'm in the market for an HRM, but at the moment I'm using the calorie totals from the machines (when I use machines) because they vary according to the intensity of my workout and seem a lot more accurate.

mockchoc

I used the MFP estimate for brisk walking and lost just fine and I ate every single exercise calorie back too.

stumblinthrulife

Because a person who weighs 150 pounds and a person who weighs 250 pounds both doing the same exercise will burn different amounts of calories.

Both MFP and most machines take that into account - assuming you take 10 seconds to enter the number into the machine. My calorie burns according to the treadmill have been steadily dropping as I lose weight.

I guess my ultimate point is that whatever number you use, you are just choosing an estimate. As a poster above has pointed out - an HRM is just as likely to wrong, especially if you haven't taken the time to set it up right.