Overestimating Exercise Calories?

eclarso
eclarso Posts: 7 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So I've read some internet posts about how MFP overestimates exercise calories. Any insight into this?
«1

Replies

  • jasonp_ritzert
    jasonp_ritzert Posts: 357 Member
    It probably over estimates some, under estimates some. Just use them as an estimate or get a heart rate monitor.
  • rininger85
    rininger85 Posts: 131
    MFP does not take into account your height, weight, body type, muscle content, fat content, heart rate, etc when it estimates calories.... so yes, it's an estimate... if you're uncomfortable with it just log that you did the exercise for less time than you really did and you'll be ok
  • SteelersFan7
    SteelersFan7 Posts: 217 Member
    MFP always says twice as many calories as my HRM.
  • hotjacki85
    hotjacki85 Posts: 287 Member
    i have had the same issue. I use the elliptical... at the gym the elliptical says i burned 400.... MFP says 500. I usually take the average. I want to get a HR monitor that the best way to calculate. but for now I just average it out or take the lower... figure if its wrong itll just benefit me in the end LOL
  • NicLiving
    NicLiving Posts: 261 Member
    MFP does not take into account your height, weight, body type, muscle content, fat content, heart rate, etc when it estimates calories.... so yes, it's an estimate... if you're uncomfortable with it just log that you did the exercise for less time than you really did and you'll be ok

    Uhh yea it does. I entered my height and weight when setting up my goals. But otherwise I do agree that yes it is an "Estimate".
  • Ely82010
    Ely82010 Posts: 1,998 Member
    Yes, they are an estimate but MFP does factor in height, weight and gender because it is recorded in our profile. That is why is important to update the weight as it goes down (or up). Granted that fat and muscle composition is not considered but I doubt it that they are in the HRM calculations (correct me if I am wrong in this assumption)

    When using the machines at the gym, the ones that ask for gender and weight, I take those numbers over MFP, because the machine measures the HR and the intensity of the workout. Having said that, no method is fool proof or perfect.

    I don't have a HRM, and I always logged either gym equipment or MFP values and I didn't have any problem losing weight. I just don't eat all my exercise calories.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    They are estimates. Some will be right for some people, some won't. They are estimates. Treat them as such.
  • doowa
    doowa Posts: 23 Member
    My cardio calories burned are about right on, compared to other online calculators. I rarely eat all my exercise calories, so it's not really an issue for me
  • Zaggytiddies
    Zaggytiddies Posts: 326 Member
    MFP always says twice as many calories as my HRM.

    ^^ this... And it was very disappointing but now I'm just pushing harder.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    MFP always says twice as many calories as my HRM.

    ^^ this... And it was very disappointing but now I'm just pushing harder.

    Why do you assume your HRM is correct?
  • cmcmommy
    cmcmommy Posts: 197 Member
    Dosnt really matter if your not eating them back anyways .
  • RunningMannn
    RunningMannn Posts: 135
    My polar HRM and treadmill display are very far apart when it comes to calories burned..It's probably some where in the middle.
  • now_or_never13
    now_or_never13 Posts: 1,575 Member
    If you select the proper speed and intensity they are closer to what they should be... however a lot of people think they are working out harder than they actually are.

    I have a HRM which I wear when exercising... the burn amounts it gives me are anywhere from double to just a hundred cals more than MFP gives.

    If you don't have a good HRM or can't afford to get one the best thing would be to either only eat back half to 2/3s of what MFP gives you or just change the value to half of what it reads.
  • samanthasimps0n
    samanthasimps0n Posts: 88 Member
    Yes MFP overestimates on some exercises. I have a Heart Rate Monitor which I believe is pretty accurate. It overestimates treadmill workouts but it is pretty accurate with spinning, the stair climber, and elliptical. Sometimes it overestimates my circuit training but sometimes its right on.
  • mzjessicaxo
    mzjessicaxo Posts: 330 Member
    Estimate is the best word! Might be a little over, could be a little under. I know for me, MFP always says that I burned more than what my HRM says, however for a female a HRM can actually over estimate by up to 12% so realistically everything it an "estimate"

    Like others have said, the most accurate will be a HRM, great investment too it motivates me to work harder to see a bigger number (even if its over estimated I still worked harder to get it higher!)
  • Erica_theRedhead
    Erica_theRedhead Posts: 724 Member
    MFP gives me about 25% more than my body media fit. If I don't wear my device, I'll usually take what it gives me, take away about 25%, and not eat the whole thing back. It seems to work so far
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    To estimate calories, you must know the actual intensity of the workload being performed (NOT the heart rate--the actual workload itself).

    Some exercise activities--treadmill walking, for example--are simple, the actual workload is relatively easy to accurately measure, and the equations that estimate calories are also accurate. So, if you can input an actual speed and elevation into MFP, those calories should be accurate.

    If an activity -- say stationary cycling--is listed, but with only general categories of intensity to choose from (easy, medium, hard), obviously, the estimates will be less accurate, since there is no exact definition of what they mean.

    Lastly, many of the occupational and recreational activities listed in the database derive their energy estimates from general tables of activities, the accuracy of which range from OK to "random guess".

    For more information on how activity database calories are derived, follow this link:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041
  • Gabriall
    Gabriall Posts: 101 Member
    logging exersize through runtastic (not just running; swimming, martial arts, walking and loads more), its a bit more conservative than mfp, i feel a little bit more comfortable with its guide lines but still regard them as estimates
  • douglasbeale
    douglasbeale Posts: 66 Member
    MFP does not take into account your height, weight, body type, muscle content, fat content, heart rate, etc when it estimates calories.... so yes, it's an estimate... if you're uncomfortable with it just log that you did the exercise for less time than you really did and you'll be ok

    Uhh yea it does. I entered my height and weight when setting up my goals. But otherwise I do agree that yes it is an "Estimate".

    I agree last week I put in the wrong weight (322 in stead of 232 or something like that) and my brun went up a lot for the same exercise. I couldn't figure it out until I weighed in again and it said i lost 80 pounds.

    I've been trying to leave about 400 or 500 calories at the end of each day so I don't have to worry about it.
  • greyoutside
    greyoutside Posts: 98
    It's so hard to say. Some of these posts are saying that MFP's estimates are above gym equipment estimates... and gym equipment estimates are almost always higher than what you're actually burning. I try not to take the exercise calories too seriously.
  • deckerp
    deckerp Posts: 4,439 Member
    MFP does not take into account your height, weight, body type, muscle content, fat content, heart rate, etc when it estimates calories.... so yes, it's an estimate... if you're uncomfortable with it just log that you did the exercise for less time than you really did and you'll be ok
    I disagree. One of my MFP buddies hit me up asking why his 30 minute "Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace" didn't show him burning the same number of calories as me. Then he figured out it was due to the difference in our weight. He weighed about 30 pounds less than me. I assume the same thing. It does take into account your weight for the number of calories burned.

    But....there is no "right" number of calories burned. I think it's a great guide to start by though. You'll figure out the amount of exercise you need for the amount of food you eat. It just takes time.
  • annakommers
    annakommers Posts: 48 Member
    both MFP AND the machines in the gym GROSSLY overestimate calories, the tradmill gives me up to 300 calories extra burnt than my HRM, must say it was a shock when i bought it!!
  • deckerp
    deckerp Posts: 4,439 Member
    It's so hard to say. Some of these posts are saying that MFP's estimates are above gym equipment estimates... and gym equipment estimates are almost always higher than what you're actually burning. I try not to take the exercise calories too seriously.
    I'm sure they're all different from each other. My elliptical gives me a much higher number than MFP does. MFP's estimate can't take into account how hard you are working. I could have the incline way up and the resistance set high or the opposite. They would never know. The machine should, but I don't put much stock in it.
  • GoffGirl1029
    GoffGirl1029 Posts: 93 Member
    if you really want an accurate count, you should look into HRMs. :)
  • bpwparents
    bpwparents Posts: 359 Member
    Most exercise calories are too high on MFP. I did not eat all of my exercise calories back until I bought a HRM so I had a more accurate count. That being said my HRM says I burn more calories running than MFP gave me. Otherwise, yes MFP is over estimated.
  • icimani
    icimani Posts: 1,454 Member
    I found MFP to be fine until I changed the time that I worked out, then the calories-burned went crazy. That's the main reason I bought an HRM.
  • deckerp
    deckerp Posts: 4,439 Member
    both MFP AND the machines in the gym GROSSLY overestimate calories, the tradmill gives me up to 300 calories extra burnt than my HRM, must say it was a shock when i bought it!!
    I've read other posts about HRM and calorie estimates. You need to have a HRM that takes info from your build and age and such. Then it can make a better estimate. Once again, I don't think it's meant to be a number that is hard and fast. I use it as an estimate and try to balance my exercise and diet. They're all tools to use. Figure out which one works for you.
  • Get120
    Get120 Posts: 56
    MFP overestimates every exercise I use from the database, some are double some are triple. for example it says that I would burn 450 calories doing general stationary cycling via the database when in reality (using my polar FT4) I only burn 269. If I ate back the calories the database said I burned I wouldn't be getting the deficit I want to lose weight.
  • rocket_ace
    rocket_ace Posts: 380 Member
    just goes to show the reason why many here are fearful about eating back calories. I weight 220, but 169 cals for 30 min of 3.0mph walking seems alot, no? who bloody knows.
  • blackermagic
    blackermagic Posts: 32
    I have the opposite problem with MPF...it is lower than what my Garmin GPS watch is telling me. For example, I ran 7.25 miles at 8:37 pace in 62 mins, and burned 1092 calories. But MPF is saying that 981 for 8:30 pace and 62 mins.

    So I actually adjust up if I enter the numbers on the web. =)

    I trust my Garmin a bit more than MPF, but both of them are estimates of course.

Categories