Overestimating Calorie Burn?

Options
arshness
arshness Posts: 60
in Fitness and Exercise
So MFP says that at 60 minutes of swimming leisurely I'm burning 870 calories.
Swimming moderate: 580 (wtf?) and
Swimming vigorous: 1451

... not only do those numbers not increase in a linear fashion... But...

According to sites basing the calorie burns off of heart rate...
Getting my heart rate to 150 for 60 minutes... I'd burn only 435 calories.

... So it seems MFP either MASSIVELY overestimates calorie burn... like super badly... Or I'm missing something.
Does the type of activity effect my burn or just the heart rate over the number of minutes?

Replies

  • elysianashes
    elysianashes Posts: 100
    Options
    Bumping, I'm curious too.
  • arshness
    arshness Posts: 60
    Options
    Does anyone know?
  • Glucocorticoid
    Glucocorticoid Posts: 867 Member
    Options
    MFP is wrong. Don't follow any of its recommendations, use it solely as a tool to count your calories.

    Also, there is no need for you to count how many calories that you burn, and just as an FYI if you still feel inclined to do so:
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/normal-weight-men-and-women-overestimate-energy-expenditure-research-review.html
  • Di3012
    Di3012 Posts: 2,250 Member
    Options
    So MFP says that at 60 minutes of swimming leisurely I'm burning 870 calories.
    Swimming moderate: 580 (wtf?) and
    Swimming vigorous: 1451

    ... not only do those numbers not increase in a linear fashion... But...

    According to sites basing the calorie burns off of heart rate...
    Getting my heart rate to 150 for 60 minutes... I'd burn only 435 calories.

    ... So it seems MFP either MASSIVELY overestimates calorie burn... like super badly... Or I'm missing something.
    Does the type of activity effect my burn or just the heart rate over the number of minutes?

    An hours worth of swimming breaststroke, burns approx 600 calories.

    I find the calorie burns on MFP, which incidentally, have been added by other users, are overestimated, some quite severely.
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,134 Member
    Options
    When I'm logging in exercises, I only believe I've worked off half the calories MFP says. Today I supposedly burned 271 lifting free weights and as much as I'd like to believe it, I don't think I did.
  • arshness
    arshness Posts: 60
    Options
    Then why does MFP try to estimate these calories so high? Why don't they use a formula closer to what I see on other sites? Why keep this if everyone knows it fails?

    Why confuse and undermine unwitting users' resutls?

    I mean... the numbers here to the numbers on some other sites sure make the difference of whether all that work is worth it or whether I'd succeed better by adjusting diet more instead. :/
  • foxyforce
    foxyforce Posts: 3,078 Member
    Options
    bump!!!! cause i know they overestimate >:/
  • earthsember
    earthsember Posts: 435 Member
    Options
    Overestimate to serious degrees - I just got a HRM a few days ago, did 30DS and my HRM tells me 188cals, if I logged it as circuit training (which is what most people log it as) MFP would tell me 393 cals for the same workout.
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    Options
    Eh, I think they underestimate it a bit actually. Especially strength training. The weight lifting entry is laughably low.

    I've always based my calorie goals on results and counted exercise calories (been at this almost a year, cut, maintain, and bulk). If MFP's workout calories (and not conservative either) are too low, I've got an absurdly high metabolism that goes way up with exercise. This isn't the case though, for me the workout calories are close but a little low.

    FYI that question earier regarding swimming, swimming burns a ton of calories because your body also has to burn a lot more calories to maintain your temperture. Water is significantly more efficient at cooling than air.
  • hastinbe
    hastinbe Posts: 130 Member
    Options
    When MFP says you burn more calories on a leisure bike ride < 10mph compared to 20 minutes of jogging >7 mph something is wrong. lmao
  • suzesymon
    suzesymon Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    I find that the calories MFP gives for exercise are always significantly higher than my HRM. I trust my polar burn.
  • scowil03xx
    scowil03xx Posts: 45 Member
    Options
    Interested in this also. I use a HRM, sports tracker, and MFP when estimating calories burned during exercise. MFP is usually in the middle with the sports tracker estimating highest and HRM lowest.
  • tameko2
    tameko2 Posts: 31,634 Member
    Options
    The problem with the estimates is that they make an assumption that you are maintaining that intensity for an ENTIRE hour, which frankly you are probably NOT unless you're a serious athlete.

    Some things are estimated better than others - it really depends on you though.

    Can you maintain a high/moderate intensity of swimming for a full hour? If so I don't think that number is all that out of whack - but most people who are not in good shape couldn't - they stop and take little breaks, or slow down for part of the time, or both. So that number is too high for them.

    I find MFP is fairly close for me, on most things, but it wont' be able to take into account minor variations such as someone very athletic or very out of shape (someone very out of shape will find a 3.0 mph walk VERY intense, someone in good shape will not, but MFP would give them teh same number if they weigh the same amount) or the time you may THINK you are swimming intensely but have actually slowed down because you're naturally tired.

    If you think the numbers are wrong, take 20% off. If you think the numbers are REALLY wrong, you're probably not logging the right thing.
  • Qskim
    Qskim Posts: 1,145 Member
    Options
    I always shave 5 - 10 min off workout. Maybe I did burn that amount but I'd rather b under than over if I end up eating it.. I have fitbit too which misses cardio burn but I'm still surprised that it is fairly close to MFP calculations. But the uncertainty is there nonetheless.
  • KALMdown
    KALMdown Posts: 211 Member
    Options
    Yesterday I used my Timex HRM while goofing off in the pool. It says I burned over 800 calories for 2 hours of leisurely swimming. My heart rate fluctuated between 75 to 130 depending on what I was doing. Granted I swam about 200 meters doing freestyle, but the rest was just gently treading and swimming to and fro with my kid. Now I know my Timex gives me high burns so I always enter it at half what it says. I entered it according to MFP as 45 minutes of leisurely swimming for 430 burn.

    If the calorie burn seems to good to be true, it most likely is.
  • jibbala
    jibbala Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    Ive found some calories burns very low..some crazy high. I used to use a body bug and saved calories counts for work outs I do and many MFP are low...the hikes we go on mfp underestimates by close to 300 calories. It grossly over estimates my time on the stairmill. I make changes accordingly when I log activity to the best of my knowledge. I figure Ive been dropping lbs so I must be doing something right.

Categories