Calories from Exercise by MFP is incorrect?

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.

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)??

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.

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.

MFP is remarkably close when it comes to calories burned from running, for me, at my speed, for my weight,

This is a far more accurate site just for exercise burns: http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc hope it helps

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.

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)

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 :-)

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:

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:

I know how you feel, sometimes I'll do a good workout then go to log it seems pretty unsubstantial. I went for a 1hour walk today, walked 3miles and it worked out as 120calories!

That's why I've been pushing myself to go faster and for longer each day, my poor dogs legs are about 4 inches shorter now, lol! :laugh:

I'll have to remember to subtract a good chunk of calories from the total MFP gives me for long walks now.
As I say, I only eat back 50% but I'd prefer to eat 50% of the correct number.
I'm going shopping soon, I may look for a HRM while I'm out!

sitting on yr backside can't possibly burn 150 per hour or i would burn 2700 for sitting 18 hours and something more for sleeping for 6 hours. ridiculous - sorry
maybe if your tdee is that high you could have that problem, but then walking would burn even more

hell lady, just walk and never mind the doomsayers!!

That's a point...if your set for a sedentary TDEE which was 1700, that's only around 70 calories an hour that you'd need to take away

sitting on yr backside can't possibly burn 150 per hour or i would burn 2700 for sitting 18 hours and something more for sleeping for 6 hours. ridiculous - sorry
maybe if your tdee is that high you could have that problem, but then walking would burn even more

hell lady, just walk and never mind the doomsayers!!

That's a point...if your set for a sedentary TDEE which was 1700, that's only around 70 calories an hour that you'd need to take away

I'm set at sedentary, that's why I log and use the exercise calories.
I'm 5'4", 108.25lb, 44yrs old so how many calories do you think I should subtract from the total MFP gives me for, say a 90 minute walk @ 3.5mph?

sitting on yr backside can't possibly burn 150 per hour or i would burn 2700 for sitting 18 hours and something more for sleeping for 6 hours. ridiculous - sorry
maybe if your tdee is that high you could have that problem, but then walking would burn even more

hell lady, just walk and never mind the doomsayers!!

That's a point...if your set for a sedentary TDEE which was 1700, that's only around 70 calories an hour that you'd need to take away

I'm set at sedentary, that's why I log and use the exercise calories.
I'm 5'4", 108.25lb, 44yrs old so how many calories do you think I should subtract from the total MFP gives me for, say a 90 minute walk @ 3.5mph?

Under the goals tab, it should tell you approximately your normal daily activity. I just divided this by 24 and would do that amount per hour. Mine is 1770 (i'm 5'7 and 134) so per hour is 70calories, i normally round up slightly (80-90) just to give myself a cushion. Your amount will prob be a bit lower. Hope this helps, don't stress about it too much, if your only eating half back anyway that helps take it into account.

For myself i use that formula (0.3xweightxmiles) for walking, and then anything i burn on a machine, or have to estimate on MFP i would halve before adding it and then I can eat the whole amount back.