Estimated calories on mfp are sooo off!

angel101netta
angel101netta Posts: 152 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I got a heart rate monitor and I find I burn 100 calories less to what it estimates on mfp. Anyone else find this problem too?
«1

Replies

  • Hmwarren84
    Hmwarren84 Posts: 45 Member
    I discovered that too. I think the problem lies in that a HRM can tell how hard you are working and MFP can only guess. Plus, specific exercises are not available and you have to guess as to what to categorize some workouts. I now only log what my heart rate monitor says since it is the lower number and probably more accurate.
  • Lina4Lina
    Lina4Lina Posts: 712 Member
    I look at it as just an estimate but I also don't eat back my calories.
  • sgarrard01
    sgarrard01 Posts: 213 Member
    You are correct, but 100kcal out of say 800kcal when people are eating in a calorie defasit anyway is not the end of the world! And i dont know many people who eat them all back.... i usually leave 100-200 free just as a double rewared, i get to eat more and loose more!
  • dswolverine
    dswolverine Posts: 246 Member
    Yea i don't eat back all of my exercise calories because i assume the numbers are off....i need to get a heart monitor!
  • pamela_77
    pamela_77 Posts: 2 Member
    Interesting...!
  • mollypcv
    mollypcv Posts: 13 Member
    I've heard this a lot and it makes me question my HRM because MFP's estimates usually match what my HRM says. I have a polar FT4 and love it. Anyone get this too?
  • cherbapp
    cherbapp Posts: 322
    My bodybugg is right on mfp estimates for most things I do...except biking...it's higher than mfp. I think it all depends on Individual effort.
  • Dee_84
    Dee_84 Posts: 431 Member
    My HRM always shows a higher burn than MFP estimates for me, but my heart rate goes through the roof when I exercise that could be the reason why.
  • rmhand
    rmhand Posts: 1,067 Member
    My HRM is usually higher than MFP.
  • zCarsAndCaloriesz
    zCarsAndCaloriesz Posts: 348
    I look at it as just an estimate but I also don't eat back my calories.

    This is exactly what I do most days.
    I can't afford a hrm, so I find this has been working for me.
  • AdrienneKaren
    AdrienneKaren Posts: 168 Member
    My HRM says I burn a ton more than MFP tells me. My heart rate goes up quick and stays there. MFP can't gauge our heart rates so it has to use an average system. I'd stick with what your HRM is telling you.
  • CynthiaElise
    CynthiaElise Posts: 262 Member
    I've heard this a lot and it makes me question my HRM because MFP's estimates usually match what my HRM says. I have a polar FT4 and love it. Anyone get this too?

    Mine are about the same or more... I have a Polar FT4 as well. But you have to keep inmind, everyone is at a different fitness level, height, weight... An HRM takes all of these factors into affect. It all also depends on how hard you push yourself during your workouts :) A workout is good no matter the calorie burn so keep it up, maybe try and push yourself harder the next time. I have heard that as you lose weight and update your HRM every 5lbs or so the calories burned do also get less and less based on your fitness level.
  • Vince_1964
    Vince_1964 Posts: 359 Member
    Your HRM is always going to be a more accurate measure of calories burned. MFP (just like the calories burned monitors on various exercise machines) gives you a "best guess" or average, based on your weight, level of effort, etc. They're not horribly wrong, but they are off a bit. But if you've set up your MFP profile correctly, you should already be consuming at a calorie deficit on a daily basis - and even if you eat back most of your exercise calories burned, you should still be OK.
  • angel101netta
    angel101netta Posts: 152 Member
    Bump
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Wait, so are we assuming the HRM is gospel? How do we know if either one of these tools is providing an accurate count?
  • tipadoo
    tipadoo Posts: 104 Member
    Just google calorie burner calculators...there are a million of them on the internet. I googled a whole bunch of different versions for the exercises I do and then took a low average so I don't over estimate.
  • MB_Positif
    MB_Positif Posts: 8,897 Member
    Sooo...I lost all of my weight on MFP without using an HRM, using MFP's calorie burns and eating ALL of my calories like a champ. None of the numbers are exact from the food we eat to the exercise we do. Eat less, be more active. It's simple really. I feel like the more you obsess over all the numbers the more difficult this seems. I have had SO many people in my life say, "Wow, you must have worked so hard!!!" And I say, "Nah, not really."
  • velsbree
    velsbree Posts: 69
    I have not gotten one yet, i know there are days that I work out for 1 hour and burn alot of calories and other days same workout i am distracted not into it and burn far less. I Eat back 200 calories on days that i workout
  • eduardoschoen
    eduardoschoen Posts: 56
    Exactly. That is one reason I love wearing my HRM (Polar 300x) when I strength train and do my cardio workouts. I get an fairly accurate picture of my calories burned as opposed to the guess created by MFP.

    Good luck meeting your goals and happy HR monitoring! :)
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    The (flat terrain) running and walking estimates are pretty good- but that's because there's years upon years of research to support the calculation of those numbers, and they take in to account level of effort. Most other activities are extrapolations that assume some generalized level of effort- the research just doesn't exist. How could that be accurate? You should ask for a refund.
  • eduardoschoen
    eduardoschoen Posts: 56
    Wait, so are we assuming the HRM is gospel? How do we know if either one of these tools is providing an accurate count?

    That is a good question.

    In my case I trust the HRM for the following reasons. I did a bmr test and aerobic test at Lifetime Fitness where they hook you up to a mask and computer to measure your breathing at rest. For the rest of the metabolic screening they hooked me up to a mask and computer again and measure oxygen and carbon dioxide while I was on a treadmill. This measured the anaerobic and aerobic threshold. They then took those numbers and input the data into my Polar 300x HRM including specific calculations for each zone 1-5.

    A basic HRM might not be as accurate but the more sophisticated ones that allow for more personal data to be input will be more accurate than a out of left field guess done by MFP.

    Good luck meeting your goals! :)
  • simplydelish2
    simplydelish2 Posts: 726 Member
    I've always thought that MFP was extremely generous on calories burned. However, knowing that it is an estimate across the population I understand it. An HRM gives you your specifics - and yes, it would surprise me if it wasn't less than MFP listings.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    I have no way of knowing for sure, but I keep "shrinking" each week, so I must be doing something right.
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    My HRM says I burn a ton more than MFP tells me. My heart rate goes up quick and stays there. MFP can't gauge our heart rates so it has to use an average system. I'd stick with what your HRM is telling you.

    Just playing devil's advocate here- your heart rate doesn't directly dictate calorie burn at all . It has to do with oxygen exchange based on your VO2max. HR monitors use an algorithm that associates HR and calorie burn based on your VO2Max and maximum HR. If either of those settings are incorrectly input in to your HR monitor, the calorie burns from your HR monitor can be wayyyy off. Plus, the calorie burns for women (as reported by Polar) can be in the range of 30% off for women if it's not calibrated correctly.
  • scottstephens79
    scottstephens79 Posts: 77 Member
    I have a polstar f7 and it has pretty similar numbers to MFP when I do cardio. When I lift weights, my HRM shows me burning more calories than MFP's guess. We are all different peeps.
  • rlmadrid
    rlmadrid Posts: 694 Member
    I agree that it's annoying. I tend to just eat 100-400 below goal on days when I work out. That balances out with the days (usually Saturdays) when I might eat over my goal without having a change to exercise.
    Results in a weekly deficit.
  • Jac118
    Jac118 Posts: 34
    I don't have this problem. My HRM and MFP give me the EXACT same numbers - I ran for 51 minutes one time and my HRM said 524 and MFP said 526 calories. I also tested it for walking and during a yoga class and the numbers were the same (makes me wish I didn't buy a HRM now! haha)

    I am also the type of person who runs at the same exact pace from start to finish and can pretty easily judge my pace (usually 9 min/mile). If you are the type of person who starts off fast/strong and slows down, then MFP's estimates may not work well for you.
  • wewon
    wewon Posts: 838 Member
    Treat everything like an estimate.

    If you can, double check anything that doesn't sound right.
  • ewhitehurst1
    ewhitehurst1 Posts: 178
    I've heard this a lot and it makes me question my HRM because MFP's estimates usually match what my HRM says. I have a polar FT4 and love it. Anyone get this too?

    I have the same experience. I have a polar FT7.
  • jtakingcareofherself
    jtakingcareofherself Posts: 144 Member
    I recently got a HRM also, and also have found that MFP overestimates the calories. Not sure what MFP uses to estimate calories burnt, but I would put my money on an HRM anytime. An HRM takes your age, weight, height, and level of effort into consideration. MFP cannot take level of effort into the equation. I also doubt that the MFP equations used to calculate calories burnt include age, height, and weight variables. In the end, calories burnt are related to how much oxygen you use, which neither method measures, so they are both estimates. But heart rate can be more directly correlated to how much oxygen you use, so an HRM will always be more accurate.

Categories