Ridiculous calorie burn for running

Options
gappletree
gappletree Posts: 10
in Fitness and Exercise
I just entered a run into my exercise diary and the calorie burn shows over twice what it should be! I calculated mph, etc... Now I feel like I can't trust the program to monitor myself. Any one else experience the same?

Replies

  • MysticRealm
    MysticRealm Posts: 1,264 Member
    Options
    If you know what it should be just change the calories to that.
  • gappletree
    gappletree Posts: 10
    Options
    I'm new at this, I'll see if I can do that. It bugs me though, that the program overestimates so much. If I do some other kind of activity that I'm not as familiar with as running, I wont' be able to trust it.
  • cyberiarob
    cyberiarob Posts: 229 Member
    Options
    I highly suggest an HRM for accurate results. If that's not an option, I would say put in a fraction (1/2 maybe) of what MFP says.
  • NyimaR
    NyimaR Posts: 108 Member
    Options
    It's generally accepted that the exercise calories on here aren't perfect. I usually aim to eat back about half to three quarters of my exercise calories and that seems to work pretty well.
  • MyOwnSunshine
    MyOwnSunshine Posts: 1,312 Member
    Options
    I would highly recommend that you buy a heart rate monitor if you want an accurate calorie burn estimate. In my experience, MFP grossly exaggerates the calorie burn for exercise compared to my Polar FT7 HRM.
  • gappletree
    gappletree Posts: 10
    Options
    I used Polar F6 for a couple years which is how I know I burn about 75-85 calories/mile running. when the battery ran out I was kind of sick of strapping it on and never replaced it. Maybe it's time if I'm going to count calories like this. I found this article which has a good calorie calculator at the end:
    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning-0?page=single
  • shanmackie
    shanmackie Posts: 194 Member
    Options
    HRM, and change the results to something more accurate. Echoing everybody else. :)
  • jellybeanmusic
    jellybeanmusic Posts: 161 Member
    Options
    The numbers on here are averages, but if you're a short woman or a tall man, you're going to have different burns.

    You can use this as a guide, but best thing to do is to get a heart rate monitor if you can.
  • barbhale
    barbhale Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    I used Polar F6 for a couple years which is how I know I burn about 75-85 calories/mile running. when the battery ran out I was kind of sick of strapping it on and never replaced it. Maybe it's time if I'm going to count calories like this. I found this article which has a good calorie calculator at the end:
    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning-0?page=single

    Super helpful thread and article, thanks.
  • Cheval13
    Cheval13 Posts: 392 Member
    Options
    I highly suggest an HRM for accurate results. If that's not an option, I would say put in a fraction (1/2 maybe) of what MFP says.

    Get a good heart rate monitor. You must be smarter than the machine. Some heart rate monitors are better than others. A Polar heart rate monitor may be better than say, Timex, which usually overestimates my workout by 100-200 calories.

    The energy output of a person varies from person to person (based on fitness, age, weight, sex) and from day to day for a given person (based on tiredness, form, the particular effort put into the workout that day, etc.).

    MFP gives me pretty accurate results for my runs, but I am 5'6 and a woman. For someone else, the results may be off. If the machine at the gym allows you to input your weight and age, that will be fairly accurate. However, it won't take into account your level of fitness. If you are very fit and used to the specific exercise, the calorie burn is likely less than someone who is not so fit. However, as a fit person, the intensity at which the exercise is done is usually higher, thus equaling the workout out again.

    It all comes down to whether you want to be honest with yourself, and experimenting with food-input and exercise. If you find yourself not getting the results you want even though you are "burning" 600+ calories, maybe you aren't really burning that much. Estimates for food calories are estimates too. Not everything you log is 100% the amount of calories that you log, and you don't try to get exactly what your daily limit on MFP is, right?

    A good way to guess your net calorie burn per mile for running is .63 x your weight.
  • Play_outside
    Play_outside Posts: 528 Member
    Options
    If you cant' do a HRM but have a smart phone, you could try using runkeeper. You input your weight, and then it uses your phone's gps to track your run/walk/whatever and I think it is more accurate than MFP's estimations (I do not have a HRM to compare to, but I am losing weight and getting smaller so it seems to be working).
  • gappletree
    gappletree Posts: 10
    Options
    .63 is what I decided to use according to the article I posted above.

    I am not short or tall or over or underweight. I am 5'5" and 129 lbs. How much more average could I be? For MFP to give me over 1000 calories for a one-hour run at 5.5 mph is ridiculous. I do hope someone from the site evaluates this. In the meantime I'll calculate it myself. Though I don't know how I'll estimate calories for boot camp class.

    Thanks for all the help. I hadn't even noticed I could change the calories burned manually.

Categories