a warning for calories burned

ducktasim

I have just purchased a heart rate watch that gives me calories burned at the end of each session, and I assumed that the calories burned on MFP was approximate, BUT..... I did not expect such a HUGE difference.

It is my first day testing out all the workouts I did, i went off the time frame for each workout, then the calories burned, and then compared MFP calories burned to the heart rate watch.

While the calories burned approximate on MFP was sometimes under estimating, by small numbers, more often I am finding it has been giving me a false sense of security, by over estimating sometimes by 80 or more calories.

Now I know that MFP is an APPROXIMATE for calories burned, but since it gave me the security of "hey that workout burned alot of calories I can afford to eat that" or " its cool that workout was enough I burned alot off today, I can skip the next one".
Because of this factor I think many other people might be getting stuck into that trap as well and I want to help warn people that just because its on an application doesn't mean that the calories burned are accurate.

Now you may be thinking that of course they are not accurate, they are a guide, but it was so easy for me to get stuck into the trap of thinking I was doing so well, when in actual fact I was really stuck in a rut.

The heart rate watch has been so great so far, I still have other workouts to track but the trend has set in.

I like seeing how I well or poorly I am doing, gives me more motivation and drive to be better.

The watch gives me goals, shows me how I am improving, calories burned.

I recommend to all to get yourself a heart rate watch so you can track your calories more accurately and know just where your at, what you can give yourself leeway on, what you need to improve on ect...

I still have a long way to go, and am learning more and more each step, wishing everyone luck with there journey.

xoxo

WaimanaloMan

I experienced a similar thing, MFP would say my kettle bell workout burned 500 calories for a 25min workout, when in reality my heart rate monitor said it was more like 250-300. The estimated calorie burns on MFP are definitely more of a guide than a number you can reliable work with. I want to stay within my calorie allowance and having an accurate calories burned number helps so much with this. I've seen many of my friends on MFP note the same thing. Good luck!

pinkraynedropjacki

And that's why I don't take MFP calories anymore. Well not since about this time last year when I got my 1st HRM. Ever since then I've lost weight better. I never use MFP for anything other than logging food

anniemarianas

I figured this when I went to my third or fourth RPM class at my old gym. They'd gotten new bikes with calorie counters and at the end of the workout it said i burnt 450 calories (roughly, i can't really remember), when on MFP it said i burnt 600.

I go to the gym three times a week and it tells me how many calories i burn on the machines, but i have a 20 minute medium intensity aerobic workout think twice a day when i wake up and when i go to bed and i'm still not sure how much it burns but i judged it based on how much my running burns and i have totally given up on relying on my exercises to earn me extra daily calories and instead am only eating as many as i feel COMPLETELY secure eating.

marcvandenberg

The nummers is For average people, we are not.
So if u can measure it do it.
Or look some numbers up For your sex lenght weight and age

BubbaKingDing

I like to use the MFP calories burned as more of an incentive than a way to eat extra calories. I stay at or under my allotted 1600 calories for the day and look at the calories burned as "Wow, i exercised today !"

acpgee

I always found that MFP grossly inflated calories burned for my typical workout (elliptical trainer, 65 mins, targeting a heart rate of 140). The database would give me 926, whereas the machine would say around 780. Recently bought a polar FT4 which gives me around 580.

Velum_cado

Yep, I was so annoyed after my first workout with my HRM and discovered I had only burned something like 250 calories, when MFP was telling me I'd burn around 600 doing the same workout. For anyone who is logging calories, a HRM is a good idea.

jennifer_417

I'm not sure how much MFP is off generally, but if I'm doing exercise that's not on a machine that can record cals burned, then I only enter about 2/3 of what I actually do.

pinkraynedropjacki

I figured this when I went to my third or fourth RPM class at my old gym. They'd gotten new bikes with calorie counters and at the end of the workout it said i burnt 450 calories (roughly, i can't really remember), when on MFP it said i burnt 600.

I go to the gym three times a week and it tells me how many calories i burn on the machines, but i have a 20 minute medium intensity aerobic workout think twice a day when i wake up and when i go to bed and i'm still not sure how much it burns but i judged it based on how much my running burns and i have totally given up on relying on my exercises to earn me extra daily calories and instead am only eating as many as i feel COMPLETELY secure eating.

You know the machines at gym are just as accurate as MFP. Last time I was on the treadmill at the gym it stated I burnt over 1000 calories in 40 mins of running at 13km/h my MFP basically agreed when I threw it in.... my HRM stated different & way way under what both here & the machine told me. I'll take the lower one.

Lyadeia

And that's why I don't take MFP calories anymore. Well not since about this time last year when I got my 1st HRM. Ever since then I've lost weight better. I never use MFP for anything other than logging food

This.

Ever since I calculated my TDEE and started eating 15-20% less than that no matter what my calories burned estimations have been, I have been losing fat at a steady and healthy pace. I also use MFP solely for logging my food and keeping track of things, but I manually input my goals and ignore what it says when I log exercise. Yes, I log exercise, but only for the sole purpose of keeping me accountable so I can say, yeah, I worked out today.

Lyadeia

I always found that MFP grossly inflated calories burned for my typical workout (elliptical trainer, 65 mins, targeting a heart rate of 140). The database would give me 926, whereas the machine would say around 780. Recently bought a polar FT4 which gives me around 580.

Wow, that's a HUGE difference! If you eat back everything MFP told you that you could, then you would probably just maintain your weight and get frustrated.

Deipneus

I have just purchased a heart rate watch that gives me calories burned at the end of each session, and I assumed that the calories burned on MFP was approximate, BUT..... I did not expect such a HUGE difference.

I would expect the MFP estimate to be crude because we're just plucking numbers off a chart. Everything we enter, however, is still an estimate, even the heart rate monitor calories burned number. It accurately determines your heart rate but then calculates the calories burned using a formula. Different manufacturers use different formulas so results even among hrm's can vary substantially. Consumer's Union product testing organization found that heart rate monitors that use a chest-strap and wrist-monitor configuration provide the most accurate results.

bearwith

That is why it is sensible not to eat all of your exercise calories back. You should only eat as many as you feel you need to to stop yourself feeling too tired.

3dogsrunning

You are doing the same thing so many people here do - you are ASSUMING the HRM is the more accurate number. The accuracy depends on what you are doing. The HRM calorie estimate formulas are based on steady state cardio and there are any number of factors that can affect accuracy of the HRM. Even under ideal circumstances a HRM has a degree of error.
I'm not sayin a HRM isn't useful or that others are necessarily better, but they are all estimates.

80 calories is hardly a large difference. You likely vary that in one meal alone.

Everything is an estimate. Outside of a lab, you can't be exact.

Some interesting blogs on how HRMs actually work
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

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

Regarding data tables like MFP
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041

Factors that affect accuracy
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn

Study on polar accuracy
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

Unknown

This content has been removed.

3dogsrunning

I should add - I've seen cases where HRMs give a lower calorie estimate but I've seen the opposite as well when people are getting huge burns for workouts that should not be producing that high of a burn. Some people still blindly follow their HRM and end up with issues losing weight.

Any estimate should be taken with a grain of salt.

beccybean

Yep, I was so annoyed after my first workout with my HRM and discovered I had only burned something like 250 calories, when MFP was telling me I'd burn around 600 doing the same workout. For anyone who is logging calories, a HRM is a good idea.

I've just had exactly the same after using my HRM for the first time yesterday and then today. Very disheartening, but at least I can be more realistic about calorie consumption now I suppose.

Deipneus

HRM's seem to motivate a lot of people, much as a Fitbit or other exercise gadget does.

""The majority of people simply don't need to monitor their heart rate," Gerald Fletcher, MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., tells WebMD.

Edward F. Coyle, PhD, agrees. He's a professor of kinesiology and health education at the University of Texas at Austin and director of the university's Human Performance Laboratory.

Coyle's work has included studying the muscular efficiency and physiological factors -- including heart rate -- in Lance Armstrong during his acclaimed cycling career. But Coyle says that for most people, it's not essential to track heart rate during exercise.

"If you're exercising for health, the most important thing to do is get off the couch," Coyle says. He says that for most people, the key is to "enjoy their exercise, so they keep doing it.""

"No one really needs a heart rate monitor," Fletcher says. "But some people love to play with these things, and that motivates them to exercise.""

Source: Webmd "The Truth About Heart Rate and Exercise" Link here: http://bit.ly/14dCtMY