Are the calculations somewhat accurate?

twosons08
twosons08 Posts: 46 Member
edited December 27 in Fitness and Exercise
When I work out on cardio equipment, it gives number of calories burned. But that number doesn't match the MFP number? Which should I use here?

Replies

  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Neither. MFP tends to over estimate sometimes by nearly half. cardio equipment doesn't know you're makeup...but I'd go with that before mfp if you're attached to some kind of probe via skin. The other problem is if you stop moving your arms to hold the 'probes' then you're burning less calories.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Your post is labeled perfectly. The calculations are *somewhat* accurate. I always use MFP, mostly from convenience but if I used the same machine every day and didn't have to put my stats in at the beginning of the workout every time I might use the machine. It doesn't really matter. Either calculation is a guess, and both are somewhat accurate.

    This thread is going to fill up with people telling you to get a HRM. What they won't tell you is that for calories, HRMs are only *somewhat* accurate too, and are also using an algorithm to formulate a guess. Don't spend $100 to get a third opinion on what you burned. You've got numbers that will work.

    No one needs to know the exact calories burned to lose weight. Get a number that's close, use common sense, and watch the number on the scale go down.
  • AlexPawley
    AlexPawley Posts: 9 Member
    have you got a HR monitor? you'll get a better idea using one if you do. Both the cardio machines and MFP hugely underestimate mine. Everyones different tho :)
  • neverstray
    neverstray Posts: 3,845 Member
    I just don't understand why people say MFP is inaccurate. I find it amazingly right on with my HRM. I say use the MFP calculations. It's always within 100 cals, but usually much closer than that. It's never been off by half. That's crazy. I'm not sure what's up with other people, but mine have always been pretty tight.
  • NoxDineen
    NoxDineen Posts: 497 Member
    Neither. MFP tends to over estimate sometimes by nearly half. cardio equipment doesn't know you're makeup...but I'd go with that before mfp if you're attached to some kind of probe via skin. The other problem is if you stop moving your arms to hold the 'probes' then you're burning less calories.
    I actually find MFP is usually within 10 calories of my Polar FT7 HRM (specifically for activities like running and circuit training, it's under on yoga since I do pretty exuberant vinyasa yoga).

    Side note: Love seeing another female programmer (I assume so based on your username). 40-ish person dev team at work, 2 women. :(
  • gramacanada
    gramacanada Posts: 557 Member
    They give you a rough estimate. Don't put a lot of faith in either. Just know you're burning some, All these sights have people focused on the technical, which most people will never understand and don't need to. We don't Need too know down to the last calorie. Even MFPs food calorie counts often don't match the manufacturer's. Doesn't matter. What's 100 or 2 either way? Diddly Squat.
  • twosons08
    twosons08 Posts: 46 Member
    I guess it matters today because I just did 45 minutes elliptical, and worked my a** off. The machine says 300 calories (I did not hold the heart monitr and kep my hands on the moving arms). MFP says 626 calories. I desperately want to believe MFP :wink: but don't want to overestimate by so much either!
  • SpecialKitty7
    SpecialKitty7 Posts: 678 Member
    i find my hrm can be nearly double what mfp suggests. mfp assumes if you're fat, you're not fit, where my hrm had to be trained to my resting heart rate. neither the treadmill nor mfp can also compute how hard you work. i can go the same speed while dogging it or working my *kitten* off, only the hrm can tell the difference. i use what the hrm says, i suppose you just have to pick one and stick with it. on a side note, my treadmill and mfp are usually w/in 10 calories.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Neither. MFP tends to over estimate sometimes by nearly half. cardio equipment doesn't know you're makeup...but I'd go with that before mfp if you're attached to some kind of probe via skin. The other problem is if you stop moving your arms to hold the 'probes' then you're burning less calories.
    I actually find MFP is usually within 10 calories of my Polar FT7 HRM (specifically for activities like running and circuit training, it's under on yoga since I do pretty exuberant vinyasa yoga).

    Side note: Love seeing another female programmer (I assume so based on your username). 40-ish person dev team at work, 2 women. :(

    I've had a couple friends spit out their polar numbers at me and they were about half. It really varies from person to person. And yep! We also have 2 women haha.
  • Brent_J
    Brent_J Posts: 54
    Are both calculations taking into account your weight, height and BMR? I know the MFP number is. But most exercise equipment is not. So I go with the MFP number as it has a better chance of being more accurate.
    When I work out on cardio equipment, it gives number of calories burned. But that number doesn't match the MFP number? Which should I use here?
  • Brent_J
    Brent_J Posts: 54
    Did you have to enter your height and weight on the machine before you started? If not, got with the MFP number. To be honest I would probably round down to 600.
    I guess it matters today because I just did 45 minutes elliptical, and worked my a** off. The machine says 300 calories (I did not hold the heart monitr and kep my hands on the moving arms). MFP says 626 calories. I desperately want to believe MFP :wink: but don't want to overestimate by so much either!
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Are both calculations taking into account your weight, height and BMR? I know the MFP number is. But most exercise equipment is not. So I go with the MFP number as it has a better chance of being more accurate.
    Not really as it has no idea how hard you're working compared to the next joe of your height and weight who did the same thing.
  • Brent_J
    Brent_J Posts: 54
    I agree with this. I still want a HRM, just because I like toys, but I think this is a fair assessment.
    Your post is labeled perfectly. The calculations are *somewhat* accurate. I always use MFP, mostly from convenience but if I used the same machine every day and didn't have to put my stats in at the beginning of the workout every time I might use the machine. It doesn't really matter. Either calculation is a guess, and both are somewhat accurate.

    This thread is going to fill up with people telling you to get a HRM. What they won't tell you is that for calories, HRMs are only *somewhat* accurate too, and are also using an algorithm to formulate a guess. Don't spend $100 to get a third opinion on what you burned. You've got numbers that will work.

    No one needs to know the exact calories burned to lose weight. Get a number that's close, use common sense, and watch the number on the scale go down.
  • megancarlotta
    megancarlotta Posts: 36
    I have a heart rate monitor, (my trainer actually gave it to me) and I strictly use it to monitor my heart rate for cardio and making sure my heart rate is up and I also use it when I am running. I use it sporadically and I don't use it to measure how many calories I am burning.

    As for the calories burned on the machines VS MFP, I log the numbers from MFP because it already has my data (height and current weight) but I typically do not eat back all of the calories from my exercise just because I am not sure how accurate it is. Just as some of the foods we log may be inaccruate, calories burned during exericse may also be inaccurate.

    As for the Elliptical, I know MPF does not take into account what level you are on and whether you did straightforward workout or if you chose to do a course. Today I did 10 mins on the elliptical as a warm up, and the numbers are dramatically different from the machine to MPF, but my treadmill numbers are a lot closer.

    I say log it, but only eat back half the calories. :)
  • megancarlotta
    megancarlotta Posts: 36
    It is nice having one, but I still haven't had a chance to sit down and figure out all the bells and whistles! Di ck's Sporting Goods has a good selection!

    *edited because MFP decided to censor Dic k's. I was not being fresh :P
    I agree with this. I still want a HRM, just because I like toys, but I think this is a fair assessment.
  • lehmann75
    lehmann75 Posts: 27
    I find similar discrepencies between MFP and my Runtastic app. My solution is to err on the side of caution and go with whichever number is lower.

    Additionally, I try to offset this by setting my weight loss goal to 2 lbs per week so that if I miscalculate and end up over my daily calorie goal or under my daily exercise goal then I'm still in a weight loss zone.
  • trs80
    trs80 Posts: 15 Member
    I asked a similar question a couple of days ago.

    I have been riding a stationary bike for about a month now, 60-65mins. @12-13mph.
    I thought i was doing good, it reported 700 cals. burned.

    Problem was I didn't feel like I was working hard enough to burn that many cals.

    MFP shows stationary biking-moderate @ 660 cals.

    I went out a couple of days ago and picked up a HRM watch and found out that
    my heart rate was only 75 bpm and that my bike session was only worth 426 cals.

    I increased the tension to get my heart rate up to about 125-130 and now get
    about 400 cals. for 45 minutes.

    Point is...... I don't know WHAT my point is, just an observation.
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    To give you some indication of how far out the MFP calculator is, I did 80 mins of circuits today, MFP set me at 901 calories, my HRM said 523.
  • drgndancer
    drgndancer Posts: 426 Member
    Your post is labeled perfectly. The calculations are *somewhat* accurate. I always use MFP, mostly from convenience but if I used the same machine every day and didn't have to put my stats in at the beginning of the workout every time I might use the machine. It doesn't really matter. Either calculation is a guess, and both are somewhat accurate.

    This thread is going to fill up with people telling you to get a HRM. What they won't tell you is that for calories, HRMs are only *somewhat* accurate too, and are also using an algorithm to formulate a guess. Don't spend $100 to get a third opinion on what you burned. You've got numbers that will work.

    No one needs to know the exact calories burned to lose weight. Get a number that's close, use common sense, and watch the number on the scale go down.

    The guess on an HRM is going to be a *lot* closer on average than either MFP or the machine though. It can make a really good guess if it has your height, weight, and heart rate to work from. MFP uses none of that info and the machine has your weight only at best. By feat of chance and the law of averages, MFP is actually really close to accurate for me (my HRM and MFP are usually within 15-25 calories of each other), but I just happen to be roughly the height, weight, and fitness level that the MFP guesses are based on.
    As for the calories burned on the machines VS MFP, I log the numbers from MFP because it already has my data (height and current weight) but I typically do not eat back all of the calories from my exercise just because I am not sure how accurate it is. Just as some of the foods we log may be inaccruate, calories burned during exericse may also be inaccurate.

    Sadly MFP has that info, but doesn't use it for that purpose. The info for exercise calorie burns are just database entries, MFP think that running x speed for 1 minute burns y calories and multiplies that number by however many minutes you enter. My wife (5'7" female, 220 pounds at the time) and myself (6'0" male, 250 pounds at the time) ran the same distance at the same time when we first started MFP, we got the same number of calories burned.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Your post is labeled perfectly. The calculations are *somewhat* accurate. I always use MFP, mostly from convenience but if I used the same machine every day and didn't have to put my stats in at the beginning of the workout every time I might use the machine. It doesn't really matter. Either calculation is a guess, and both are somewhat accurate.

    This thread is going to fill up with people telling you to get a HRM. What they won't tell you is that for calories, HRMs are only *somewhat* accurate too, and are also using an algorithm to formulate a guess. Don't spend $100 to get a third opinion on what you burned. You've got numbers that will work.

    No one needs to know the exact calories burned to lose weight. Get a number that's close, use common sense, and watch the number on the scale go down.

    The guess on an HRM is going to be a *lot* closer on average than either MFP or the machine though. It can make a really good guess if it has your height, weight, and heart rate to work from. MFP uses none of that info and the machine has your weight only at best. By feat of chance and the law of averages, MFP is actually really close to accurate for me (my HRM and MFP are usually within 15-25 calories of each other), but I just happen to be roughly the height, weight, and fitness level that the MFP guesses are based on.
    As for the calories burned on the machines VS MFP, I log the numbers from MFP because it already has my data (height and current weight) but I typically do not eat back all of the calories from my exercise just because I am not sure how accurate it is. Just as some of the foods we log may be inaccruate, calories burned during exericse may also be inaccurate.

    Sadly MFP has that info, but doesn't use it for that purpose. The info for exercise calorie burns are just database entries, MFP think that running x speed for 1 minute burns y calories and multiplies that number by however many minutes you enter. My wife (5'7" female, 220 pounds at the time) and myself (6'0" male, 250 pounds at the time) ran the same distance at the same time when we first started MFP, we got the same number of calories burned.

    MFP absolutely figures your weight into the equation. As my weight has gone done so have the cals burned on equal amounts of exercise. But no matter. I only require a number reasonably in the ball park.

    Truth is HRMs are just as wildly inaccurate as anything else. Especially for women, and worse if any type of strength component (like hills) are involved. People seem to ignore the dozen+ posts every day where people question the reading on their HRM.

    When people say their HRM is more accurate, they have no proof of this at all. They just make a choice to believe it. I suspect having dropped $100 strongly influences which method a person believes in. As if said a hundred times, if HRMs did what people think they do, they would be called Calories Burned Calculators. There is a reason their legal department doesn't let them call them CBMs
  • fpeory
    fpeory Posts: 1 Member
    I can't say about the MFP numbers, but by HRM consistently shows about 15% fewer calories burned than the elliptial machine I use for cardio, even though it too is getting the transmitter signal from my HRM and it also has my personal data. Different algorithms I suppose, but I go with the HRM calorie number because it's more conservative.
  • drgndancer
    drgndancer Posts: 426 Member
    It's a matter of model complexity and data points. A model with more relevant data points is going to be more accurate. HRMs have more data points available than any other source of calorie burn available in a commercial setting. Obviously a medical evaluation model with multiple sensors and a more complex model algorithm will be better, but you can't get that day to day. A heart rate monitor has more data points and therefore more accuracy than any other commonly available model. At least for cardio. Heart rate is not a significant contributor for strength training calorie burn, so obviously an HRM is not as useful there. The model is lacking for that type of activity.

    A heart rate monitor is not a perfect tool, but for cardio it's the best tool you're going to find outside of a medical study. As for the accuracy of MFP and it's use of body weight/height data, all I know I'd that it gave my wife and I the same burn when we were 25 pounds and 4 inches in height different. That doesn't seems like a very fine grained model.
  • WickedPixie1
    WickedPixie1 Posts: 111 Member
    I posted a similar question and one of the posters sent me here:

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/

    I found it useful and it explains gross and net calories which I didn't realise there was. Only problem I found with it was for the exercise I did today, there were 3 calculators, an activity based one, a heart rate based one and a machine specific one...I just used an average of all 3 for today, if I do different exercises or machines, I'll just base it on an average of the first two.
  • natwen
    natwen Posts: 81
    I posted a similar question and one of the posters sent me here:

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/

    I found it useful and it explains gross and net calories which I didn't realise there was. Only problem I found with it was for the exercise I did today, there were 3 calculators, an activity based one, a heart rate based one and a machine specific one...I just used an average of all 3 for today, if I do different exercises or machines, I'll just base it on an average of the first two.

    A lot of people on MFP don't understand the gross vs. net calories. I have tried to explain it but haven't been very successful conveying what I understand. I always subtract 100 calories per hour from what my HRM says I burned to account for this.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories