Calories from Exercise by MFP is incorrect?

Options
Richa_S
Richa_S Posts: 78 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I have recently been told my few friends that the calories calculated by MFP is incorrect and the difference pointed out was almost double (in comparison of HRM)..

I am not really frenzy bout my actual calories earned from exercise if the difference is about 10%-15% but if its almost double :-\

I visited other online calorie calculators but its almost similar to MFP..

P.S. I do walking mostly. MFP tracked my calories earned approx 500 for 180 min (2.5 mph) walk & I am 130 pounds
«1

Replies

  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    bump
  • waveindigo
    waveindigo Posts: 39 Member
    Options
    The longer the exercise the more MFP is out.. mainly because it includes the calories you would have burned in that time if you were doing nothing.
    For example, if I say I did 180 minutes walking at 2.5 m/per hour, MFP says I've burned 512 calories.. however if I was sitting on my backside for 180 minutes I would have burned 210 anyway, so in fact the walking only accounts for 302 calories.

    I take this into account with exercise that goes for longer than 40 minutes and adjust my entry accordingly, but don't bother with the shorter workouts as the suggested amount seems closer to actual burn.
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    .
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    The longer the exercise the more MFP is out.. mainly because it includes the calories you would have burned in that time if you were doing nothing.
    For example, if I say I did 180 minutes walking at 2.5 m/per hour, MFP says I've burned 512 calories.. however if I was sitting on my backside for 180 minutes I would have burned 210 anyway, so in fact the walking only accounts for 302 calories.

    I take this into account with exercise that goes for longer than 40 minutes and adjust my entry accordingly, but don't bother with the shorter workouts as the suggested amount seems closer to actual burn.

    So are you telling me that when I go out for a 1.5 - 2 hour walk and log that the calories MFP says I've earned back are way over?? Oh ffs! I've been walking longer and longer each day just to get some cals in the bank when all along I'd probably be better off walking half the distance for the same calories, is that right? :huh

    Hang on though, surely by the fact that I'm not just sat on my *kitten* doing nothing I MUST have burned more calories that 302 (in your example)??
  • Courtney_7790
    Courtney_7790 Posts: 56
    Options
    I have also heard this alot however i disagree i dont think its that far off, for instance today MFP told me i burned 845 calories with all my workouts and i actually burned 835....so not too big a difference at all. and its generally not far off at all.
  • Pebble321
    Pebble321 Posts: 6,554 Member
    Options
    It's an estimate...just as an HRM gives an estimate.
    Don't stress about it, just try those numbers out and see how your body responds.
  • PJ_73
    PJ_73 Posts: 331 Member
    Options
    I use my Polar FT4 HRM instead of MFP as it is pretty inaccurate with calories burned. I am not sure how accurate the HRM is but it seems more realistic to me!

    I suppose it only really becomes an issue if you start to eat them back and you are overeating! So far I don't eat back, so for me it's a moot point if I am overestimating.
  • birdieaz
    birdieaz Posts: 448 Member
    Options
    The longer the exercise the more MFP is out.. mainly because it includes the calories you would have burned in that time if you were doing nothing.
    For example, if I say I did 180 minutes walking at 2.5 m/per hour, MFP says I've burned 512 calories.. however if I was sitting on my backside for 180 minutes I would have burned 210 anyway, so in fact the walking only accounts for 302 calories.

    I take this into account with exercise that goes for longer than 40 minutes and adjust my entry accordingly, but don't bother with the shorter workouts as the suggested amount seems closer to actual burn.

    So are you telling me that when I go out for a 1.5 - 2 hour walk and log that the calories MFP says I've earned back are way over?? Oh ffs! I've been walking longer and longer each day just to get some cals in the bank when all along I'd probably be better off walking half the distance for the same calories, is that right? :huh:

    I found them to be over by a lot after I got my HRM. Also as the previous poster said, you would have burned calories during that same 2hr period sitting on your tush at home. Those calories have to be taken out of the equation but MFP doesn't do that. The longer the activity lasts, the higher the error rate.
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    The longer the exercise the more MFP is out.. mainly because it includes the calories you would have burned in that time if you were doing nothing.
    For example, if I say I did 180 minutes walking at 2.5 m/per hour, MFP says I've burned 512 calories.. however if I was sitting on my backside for 180 minutes I would have burned 210 anyway, so in fact the walking only accounts for 302 calories.

    I take this into account with exercise that goes for longer than 40 minutes and adjust my entry accordingly, but don't bother with the shorter workouts as the suggested amount seems closer to actual burn.

    So are you telling me that when I go out for a 1.5 - 2 hour walk and log that the calories MFP says I've earned back are way over?? Oh ffs! I've been walking longer and longer each day just to get some cals in the bank when all along I'd probably be better off walking half the distance for the same calories, is that right? :huh:

    I found them to be over by a lot after I got my HRM. Also as the previous poster said, you would have burned calories during that same 2hr period sitting on your tush at home. Those calories have to be taken out of the equation but MFP doesn't do that. The longer the activity lasts, the higher the error rate.

    But like I said, as I wasn't sitting on my backside surely I burned more calories?
    I'm confused, I don't know whether to shorten my walks now??
  • 714rah714
    714rah714 Posts: 759 Member
    Options
    MFP is remarkably close when it comes to calories burned from running, for me, at my speed, for my weight,
  • jamface11
    jamface11 Posts: 87
    Options
    I use this to calculate how many calories i burned walking 0.3*weight(lbs)*miles (from http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html). I seems pretty stingy, but as I eat back my exercise calories I would rather underestimate. I think it also gives a nice explanation of gross vs net calories if you need one.
  • chipmunkcheeks76
    chipmunkcheeks76 Posts: 19
    Options
    This is a far more accurate site just for exercise burns: http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc hope it helps
  • jamface11
    jamface11 Posts: 87
    Options
    The longer the exercise the more MFP is out.. mainly because it includes the calories you would have burned in that time if you were doing nothing.
    For example, if I say I did 180 minutes walking at 2.5 m/per hour, MFP says I've burned 512 calories.. however if I was sitting on my backside for 180 minutes I would have burned 210 anyway, so in fact the walking only accounts for 302 calories.

    I take this into account with exercise that goes for longer than 40 minutes and adjust my entry accordingly, but don't bother with the shorter workouts as the suggested amount seems closer to actual burn.

    So are you telling me that when I go out for a 1.5 - 2 hour walk and log that the calories MFP says I've earned back are way over?? Oh ffs! I've been walking longer and longer each day just to get some cals in the bank when all along I'd probably be better off walking half the distance for the same calories, is that right? :huh

    Hang on though, surely by the fact that I'm not just sat on my *kitten* doing nothing I MUST have burned more calories that 302 (in your example)??

    I think they are saying that you did burn the 512, but if you'd done nothing you would have burned 210 anyway so you burnt an extra 302 by doing the walking. If you were going to eat them back those 210 are already counted in your daily activity, so you would be eating them twice.
  • birdieaz
    birdieaz Posts: 448 Member
    Options
    The longer the exercise the more MFP is out.. mainly because it includes the calories you would have burned in that time if you were doing nothing.
    For example, if I say I did 180 minutes walking at 2.5 m/per hour, MFP says I've burned 512 calories.. however if I was sitting on my backside for 180 minutes I would have burned 210 anyway, so in fact the walking only accounts for 302 calories.

    I take this into account with exercise that goes for longer than 40 minutes and adjust my entry accordingly, but don't bother with the shorter workouts as the suggested amount seems closer to actual burn.

    So are you telling me that when I go out for a 1.5 - 2 hour walk and log that the calories MFP says I've earned back are way over?? Oh ffs! I've been walking longer and longer each day just to get some cals in the bank when all along I'd probably be better off walking half the distance for the same calories, is that right? :huh:

    I found them to be over by a lot after I got my HRM. Also as the previous poster said, you would have burned calories during that same 2hr period sitting on your tush at home. Those calories have to be taken out of the equation but MFP doesn't do that. The longer the activity lasts, the higher the error rate.

    But like I said, as I wasn't sitting on my backside surely I burned more calories?
    I'm confused, I don't know whether to shorten my walks now??

    Don't shorten your walks if you are happy and benefiting from them. just take into consideration that the calorie calculator overestimates and then deduct a reasonable percentage. i found for me the calculator was off by at least 20%..higher for activities with longer durations.
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    This is a far more accurate site just for exercise burns: http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc hope it helps

    I've just entered 50 minutes @ 4mph as an example and this site gives 211 calories, MFP gives 206.
  • NyimaR
    NyimaR Posts: 108 Member
    Options
    The longer the exercise the more MFP is out.. mainly because it includes the calories you would have burned in that time if you were doing nothing.
    For example, if I say I did 180 minutes walking at 2.5 m/per hour, MFP says I've burned 512 calories.. however if I was sitting on my backside for 180 minutes I would have burned 210 anyway, so in fact the walking only accounts for 302 calories.

    I take this into account with exercise that goes for longer than 40 minutes and adjust my entry accordingly, but don't bother with the shorter workouts as the suggested amount seems closer to actual burn.

    So are you telling me that when I go out for a 1.5 - 2 hour walk and log that the calories MFP says I've earned back are way over?? Oh ffs! I've been walking longer and longer each day just to get some cals in the bank when all along I'd probably be better off walking half the distance for the same calories, is that right? :huh:

    I found them to be over by a lot after I got my HRM. Also as the previous poster said, you would have burned calories during that same 2hr period sitting on your tush at home. Those calories have to be taken out of the equation but MFP doesn't do that. The longer the activity lasts, the higher the error rate.

    But like I said, as I wasn't sitting on my backside surely I burned more calories?
    I'm confused, I don't know whether to shorten my walks now??

    If we say an hour of sitting on your backside is 150 calories and an hour of walking is 400 calories. Then MFP will add 400 calories without taking into account the fact that you would have burnt 150 anyway. The extra calories that you have exercised off are only 250. If you eat all 400 of the extra calories that MFP has given you, then you will actually be over by 150 calories.

    If you walk for 2 hours instead of one you will be told you have burnt off an extra 800 calories, when you'd actually only burnt an extra 500. If you ate back all 800 calories then you'd be 300 over.

    You've still burnt off more calories by exercising more but not as many more as MFP might have you believe. Lots of people seem to get round this by eating back about half of their exercise calories.

    Hope this is clearer. (Numbers are for illustration only and have been pulled completely out of thin air)
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    The longer the exercise the more MFP is out.. mainly because it includes the calories you would have burned in that time if you were doing nothing.
    For example, if I say I did 180 minutes walking at 2.5 m/per hour, MFP says I've burned 512 calories.. however if I was sitting on my backside for 180 minutes I would have burned 210 anyway, so in fact the walking only accounts for 302 calories.

    I take this into account with exercise that goes for longer than 40 minutes and adjust my entry accordingly, but don't bother with the shorter workouts as the suggested amount seems closer to actual burn.

    So are you telling me that when I go out for a 1.5 - 2 hour walk and log that the calories MFP says I've earned back are way over?? Oh ffs! I've been walking longer and longer each day just to get some cals in the bank when all along I'd probably be better off walking half the distance for the same calories, is that right? :huh:

    I found them to be over by a lot after I got my HRM. Also as the previous poster said, you would have burned calories during that same 2hr period sitting on your tush at home. Those calories have to be taken out of the equation but MFP doesn't do that. The longer the activity lasts, the higher the error rate.

    But like I said, as I wasn't sitting on my backside surely I burned more calories?
    I'm confused, I don't know whether to shorten my walks now??

    Don't shorten your walks if you are happy and benefiting from them. just take into consideration that the calorie calculator overestimates and then deduct a reasonable percentage. i found for me the calculator was off by at least 20%..higher for activities with longer durations.

    I won't give up but I'm a bit miffed because I eat back 50% of my exercise calories as I'm only on 1200 a day and don't really want to lose much more weight, I know realise I've been eating back more than I should have. :(
  • JeninBelgium
    JeninBelgium Posts: 804 Member
    Options
    MFP says I burn fewer calories than my Polar does (by a fair bit) and MFP says I burn more calories than my Garmin (by a lot)
    My garmin HRM is unreliably low unless i am outdoors (even though my model claims to calculate caloires burned based on Heart rate, time etc, I think it actually relies on distance according tot he gps- in doors I exercise over the same small space)- the garmin manual says nothing about this, but this is what I expect to be true- otherwise I am really irritated that my low impact workout of more than an hour on Wednesday only burnt 35 cals when I was out of breath and sweaty!

    For my Polar, the reason it is off for me (and it even said this in the manual) is that when you are obese you have a lower percentage of muscle then if you were to weigh that same weight but be not overfat (obese) as, pound for pound, muscle burns more calories than fat, the polar states somewhat higher calorie burn because the calories burned are based on a non-obese body type

    When eating my calories back, what I TRY to do is not eat back more than half (try being the word here) the reasons for this are 2:
    the point of burning more calories (besides being more physically fit) is to lose faster and
    2) Weight watchers used to have a formula where 1 point from food was about 50 cals and 1 point earned back from exercise was about 100 calories- since they had this 1:2 ratio (and that seemed to work for me then) I have simply transfered the idea back here
    does it work.? not sure - but at least I tend not to eat back all of my calories and then negates any worries about an overexaggeration on burn :-)
  • birdieaz
    birdieaz Posts: 448 Member
    Options
    I use this to calculate how many calories i burned walking 0.3*weight(lbs)*miles (from http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html). I seems pretty stingy, but as I eat back my exercise calories I would rather underestimate. I think it also gives a nice explanation of gross vs net calories if you need one.

    Thank you, that's a great way of understanding gross vs net.
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    The longer the exercise the more MFP is out.. mainly because it includes the calories you would have burned in that time if you were doing nothing.
    For example, if I say I did 180 minutes walking at 2.5 m/per hour, MFP says I've burned 512 calories.. however if I was sitting on my backside for 180 minutes I would have burned 210 anyway, so in fact the walking only accounts for 302 calories.

    I take this into account with exercise that goes for longer than 40 minutes and adjust my entry accordingly, but don't bother with the shorter workouts as the suggested amount seems closer to actual burn.

    So are you telling me that when I go out for a 1.5 - 2 hour walk and log that the calories MFP says I've earned back are way over?? Oh ffs! I've been walking longer and longer each day just to get some cals in the bank when all along I'd probably be better off walking half the distance for the same calories, is that right? :huh

    Hang on though, surely by the fact that I'm not just sat on my *kitten* doing nothing I MUST have burned more calories that 302 (in your example)??

    I think they are saying that you did burn the 512, but if you'd done nothing you would have burned 210 anyway so you burnt an extra 302 by doing the walking. If you were going to eat them back those 210 are already counted in your daily activity, so you would be eating them twice.

    Oh flip! :grumble:

Categories