How true are MFP's Exercise Calories Burned?

13»

Replies

  • wavdawg4
    wavdawg4 Posts: 139 Member
    I like em, cause I can flick my toes for 5 minutes and it will say I burned 12,000 calories =]

    are you serious? .... oh man.. the amount of movement I do at work, just because I can't ever sit still.. would be a rediculous amount of calories..
    that's silly..
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I did buy a HRM and I like using it and getting more accurate data because on different days, even weather affects my cals burned. For instance if it's hot out, I will burn up to 200 more cals on one bike ride and the more it cools off the lower that number gets.

    Thank you, you just brought up the best example of where a HRM fails in estimating exercise calories for folks to know about.

    You comment that you burn 200 more in hot weather.

    When you are hot, more blood flowing, meaning higher HR, is used for cooling the body.

    Has nothing to do with you actually working harder, needing more oxygen, burning more energy, ect. Strictly for assisting with cooling. Now of course being hot, may indeed feel like more work.

    That is called a heat-elevated HR. Can also be stress-elevated. Like bad nights sleep and wake-up with restingHR about 10 beats higher, and it maintains that in your workout too.

    So the calorie count during that time - while showing 200 more - is not correct and inflated. You did not burn more. You were just hotter.

    That is exactly why the HRM calorie burn estimate should be taken with grain of salt, sometimes teaspoon, maybe tablespoon.
    There is a weak correlation between HR and calorie burn, but it's about the best you can get without more expensive unit, or more gear.

    Add to that the fact if the HRM estimate of your HRmax (220-age) is no where near accurate, you will be getting vastly incorrect calorie burn estimates too.

    What appears to be more effort and therefore receive a higher calorie burn estimate?
    Hitting 160 avg and HRmax is 170, or hitting 160 avg and HRmax is really 190?
    That's 94% of max or 84% of max, pretty big difference.

    Then there is the VO2max figure, that almost units is guessed at from age and HRmax and weight. That has big bearing too. If you are cardiovascularly fit with high VO2max, you burn more calories at lower HR than you would get credit for, because you are supplying more oxygen for energy burn.

    Everyone that does treadmill walking should test that just once. Since you have a past workout to use calorie count on already, you can experiment just once.
    Lower the HRM HRmax stat in your personal stats 20 bpm lower, or higher, and see what the calorie estimate is for exact same walk you've done before. And compare to what the treadmill says.
  • neverstray
    neverstray Posts: 3,845 Member
    Word.
    I did buy a HRM and I like using it and getting more accurate data because on different days, even weather affects my cals burned. For instance if it's hot out, I will burn up to 200 more cals on one bike ride and the more it cools off the lower that number gets.

    Thank you, you just brought up the best example of where a HRM fails in estimating exercise calories for folks to know about.

    You comment that you burn 200 more in hot weather.

    When you are hot, more blood flowing, meaning higher HR, is used for cooling the body.

    Has nothing to do with you actually working harder, needing more oxygen, burning more energy, ect. Strictly for assisting with cooling. Now of course being hot, may indeed feel like more work.

    That is called a heat-elevated HR. Can also be stress-elevated. Like bad nights sleep and wake-up with restingHR about 10 beats higher, and it maintains that in your workout too.

    So the calorie count during that time - while showing 200 more - is not correct and inflated. You did not burn more. You were just hotter.

    That is exactly why the HRM calorie burn estimate should be taken with grain of salt, sometimes teaspoon, maybe tablespoon.
    There is a weak correlation between HR and calorie burn, but it's about the best you can get without more expensive unit, or more gear.

    Add to that the fact if the HRM estimate of your HRmax (220-age) is no where near accurate, you will be getting vastly incorrect calorie burn estimates too.

    What appears to be more effort and therefore receive a higher calorie burn estimate?
    Hitting 160 avg and HRmax is 170, or hitting 160 avg and HRmax is really 190?
    That's 94% of max or 84% of max, pretty big difference.

    Then there is the VO2max figure, that almost units is guessed at from age and HRmax and weight. That has big bearing too. If you are cardiovascularly fit with high VO2max, you burn more calories at lower HR than you would get credit for, because you are supplying more oxygen for energy burn.

    Everyone that does treadmill walking should test that just once. Since you have a past workout to use calorie count on already, you can experiment just once.
    Lower the HRM HRmax stat in your personal stats 20 bpm lower, or higher, and see what the calorie estimate is for exact same walk you've done before. And compare to what the treadmill says.
  • caitlinen
    caitlinen Posts: 36 Member
    In my experience MFP underestimates them by ALOT according to my heart rate monitor (Polar FT7).
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    In my experience MFP underestimates them by ALOT according to my heart rate monitor (Polar FT7).

    Well, that clearly means you are pushing yourself too hard and burning more!

    Good job. Some workouts it's easier than others to be over on.

    Well, actually, see above regarding the HRmax stat, that would be the other reason it underestimates them a lot compared to HRM. Your HRM thinks your HRmax is lower and it's really higher.

    And you are knocking the workout hard too!
  • marieautumn
    marieautumn Posts: 928 Member
    I found that they over estimated as far as i was concerned, so i bought a HRM to calculate my calories burned. best investment ever. i finally saw results after doing this.
  • alison0511
    alison0511 Posts: 32
    I haven't invested in an HRM yet, but so far treating MFPs numbers as estimates has been working for me, and I've been losing steadily. If that changes, then I'll probably have to change my methods, but I've been pleased so far, so that can't be too far off for me. :)
  • roguestates
    roguestates Posts: 223
    It's about right. Who cares anyway, it's a benchmark, not an actual measurment. If you're not losing, eat less or workout more. Doesn't matter at all. I wish people wouldn't get so hung up on it. NOTHING is accurate. It's all a big giant guessing game. Calories on food are off by at least 20%. Your scale is off by a few lbs give or take 5 lbs. Who cares? All that matters is consistency. Always use the same method, scale, and measurment technique and it will all be relative.

    Also, and this bugs the holy crap out of me, if a 100 calorie food is 100 calories, do you think that means the same thing to everyone? Does an 80-year-old inactive woman process that 100 calories the same as a 20-year-old male athelete, or a 3 year-old kid. Of course not. It's all just a big estaimate. nothing is that accurate. HRM's are not all that either. Biggest scam in the world. People here cling to them like they are the holy grail, and then use them wrong by walking around at work with them on. LOL. Not what they are designed to do, and they are wrong when you do that. Plus, all they know is that your heart is beating, thus the name Heart Rate Monitor, they have no idea how many calories you burn. LOL.

    TRUTH. I have worried about the accuracy of burns in the past, but now I just focus on how I feel and eat enough back to feel energized/sated.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories