We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Inaccuracies when using MFP for exercise

Lrdoflamancha
Lrdoflamancha Posts: 1,280 Member
edited January 1 in Fitness and Exercise
I have made a test of the accuracy of MFP to record calories burned during exercise. Today I rode a bicycle 98 minutes at 7.27 MPH. According to MFP my calories burned was 707. I then checked my Polar FT7 HRM. It showed 1042 calories burned. Then I checked that to Map My Ride it showed 1114 calories burned. Finally I checked my Fitbit it showed .... well I am not sure what it showed.
MFP >10 MPH 707
MFP 10-12 MPH 1061
Polar HRM 1042
Map My Ride 1114
Fitbit maybe 1007
I am going to go with the HRM recording. But I am concerned that if you are using MFP as your only way to track calories burned then if presented with 2 possibilities, it is best to take the lower one and then only eat half of your calories burned. I adjusted the MFP total to reflect the HRM total.

Replies

  • diligentjosh
    diligentjosh Posts: 274
    It all depends on body type, but I would say that your machines are a bit inaccurate, to the plus side. I just cycled for over 1 hour, at an average of 17 mph, and used my meter to measure 825 (mfp had it at about 1200 burned). I always go with my cyclometer on my bike (BELL brand, 15 bucks at Target). Even then, judgment is used, as the meter cannot detect hills and pedal speed.
  • diligentjosh
    diligentjosh Posts: 274
    I have confirmed the cyclometer to be accurate (+ / - 100) by a few sources. So I would look into that. 7 mph is relatively slow, and not much effort is needed, commonly. So I find it hard to believe you lost 1000 calories. But I could be wrong....age/weight play a factor
  • pixietoes
    pixietoes Posts: 1,591 Member
    I trust my HRM more than what I find on MFP which is information based on other people. I use the MFP info if I forgot to wear my HRM and can't find a similar workout in my past to use instead.
  • Lrdoflamancha
    Lrdoflamancha Posts: 1,280 Member
    I have confirmed the cyclometer to be accurate (+ / - 100) by a few sources. So I would look into that. 7 mph is relatively slow, and not much effort is needed, commonly. So I find it hard to believe you lost 1000 calories. But I could be wrong....age/weight play a factor

    AGE 62
    WEIGHT 236
    Route was 11.4 miles 7 miles up hill with a 20 MPH head wind.
  • needamulligan
    needamulligan Posts: 558 Member
    My tests have shown that MFP tells me I burned far more than my HRM! So, I have been overestimating my calories burned! I'm going with my HRM!
  • diligentjosh
    diligentjosh Posts: 274
    I have confirmed the cyclometer to be accurate (+ / - 100) by a few sources. So I would look into that. 7 mph is relatively slow, and not much effort is needed, commonly. So I find it hard to believe you lost 1000 calories. But I could be wrong....age/weight play a factor

    AGE 62
    WEIGHT 236
    Route was 11.4 miles 7 miles up hill with a 20 MPH head wind.

    lol.....yeah, resistance also is a big part of it...seems pretty accurate to me, then! Of course, it also depends on what you are hauling up the hill.
  • SyllyThings
    SyllyThings Posts: 15 Member
    There is a difference between gross and net calories burned. This link explains it well. I think MFP uses net and exercise equipment use gross.
    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/articles/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn.aspx
  • iamnotjerry
    iamnotjerry Posts: 17 Member
    I have made a test of the accuracy of MFP to record calories burned during exercise. Today I rode a bicycle 98 minutes at 7.27 MPH. According to MFP my calories burned was 707. I then checked my Polar FT7 HRM. It showed 1042 calories burned. Then I checked that to Map My Ride it showed 1114 calories burned. Finally I checked my Fitbit it showed .... well I am not sure what it showed.
    MFP >10 MPH 707
    MFP 10-12 MPH 1061
    Polar HRM 1042
    Map My Ride 1114
    Fitbit maybe 1007
    I am going to go with the HRM recording. But I am concerned that if you are using MFP as your only way to track calories burned then if presented with 2 possibilities, it is best to take the lower one and then only eat half of your calories burned. I adjusted the MFP total to reflect the HRM total.

    Appreciate your efforts today. However, I remain confused as to what Fitbit states on MFP as opposed to the FB site.
    For me I will continue to log my exercise routine as best I can on MFP and monitor the info from FB site.

    I do not add a lot of calories that I need to burn, even at week's end. In fact I am usually way under according to what I eat, which is very low in calories. At this point I loose weight at least every other day if not everyday I drop a little. I will have to get a better take on the use of my Fitbit.
    Thanks
  • Lrdoflamancha
    Lrdoflamancha Posts: 1,280 Member
    There is a difference between gross and net calories burned. This link explains it well. I think MFP uses net and exercise equipment use gross.
    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/articles/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn.aspx

    This is an excellent explanation. But how do you know which equipment tells you gross or net calories? . For instance does MFP report gross or net calories? How about my Polar FT7 HRM? I guess that until we know that we will have to guess. This is one of the reasons that I suggest that you only consume 1/2 of your exercise calories.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories