Interesting! Exercise Calories

Options
sparklybognor
sparklybognor Posts: 5
in Fitness and Exercise
Hiya all,

I have been doing MFP since Sunday, and been tracking my calories and exercise calories since.

While I have been doing this, I have been burning 710-720 calories for an hour at the gym, which sounds absolutely amazing, but I thought it was too good to be true.

So - I went to the gym today and actually compared it to what it said on the machine, to what it says on the app. The app is WAY out! In future I will be inputting my own exercise cals, going by what the machines say. It turns out, I have been burning 530ish instead. Quite a big difference, I'm sure you'll agree!!

I wanted to let people know on here so they don't make the mistake of doing what I've just done, and then eating all your exercise calories back - because now, I've eaten roughly 600 cals this week that I didn't need to eat at all!

xxx
«1

Replies

  • MinnieInMaine
    MinnieInMaine Posts: 6,400 Member
    Options
    That sounds about right too me. I've found that, unfortunately, MFP calorie calculations tend to overestimate by about 30% (comparing against what my HRM says anyway) Unless you're quite obese and/or doing a very intense workout, just about any calorie burn over 10 per minute is pretty unlikely. On the other hand, a lot of folks set their calorie limits too low (for instance, someone with only 15-20 pounds to lose setting their goal for 2 pounds per week) so I think it works out in the end most of the time.

    Good for you for making this discovery and correcting it. Hope it works out for you!
  • sparklybognor
    sparklybognor Posts: 5
    Options
    Thank you!

    I'm glad I'm not the only one that has noticed it.. :)
  • FrankenBeanz
    FrankenBeanz Posts: 176 Member
    Options
    If you used a HRM you'd also find that the machines were a bit off too - but they ARE more accurate that the app on its own. I find on some machines my HRM gives me more and on others its less.

    I'm glad you noticed it early on! :flowerforyou:
  • Taterpoof
    Taterpoof Posts: 416 Member
    Options
    I usually put half the time on the MFp logs
  • denezy
    denezy Posts: 573 Member
    Options
    I have found the machines are at least 40% too high and MFP estimates about 20% too high for me personally.

    I am 195lbs and burn about 500 cals in an hour according to my heart rate monitor. The machines tell me 900 and MFP tells me 700. Might want to be conservative with your estimates if you are eating back your calories.

    ...or buy a HRM.
  • Goal_Line
    Goal_Line Posts: 474 Member
    Options
    Yes, there are a lot of over estimates of cal burned in the database.
  • PaytraB
    PaytraB Posts: 2,360 Member
    Options
    I've found that, too, with using a treadmill. I enter the calories that the treadmill tells me I burned, rather what MFP tells me. MFP is much higher than the treadmill's count.
  • trinibabe069
    trinibabe069 Posts: 21 Member
    Options
    I usually stay with my 1200 calories and don't eat anymore even though mfp adds on to it based on the calories I burn..
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    Options
    It is only a problem if you are not losing at the right rate.

    There is an inordinate fear of calorie burn rates for exercise. It seems there is a disconnect for people between their goals and results. Your results should match your goals (BOTH ways, it is just as important to adjust if you are losing faster than you expect as it is to adjust if you are losing slower than you expect). If you aren't losing at the right rate, exercise burn rates could be a problem area to look at, or you could just adjust your overall goals to compensate. Don't assume there is a problem though, what if the lower burn rate is wrong? Losing too fast will lead to plateaus and frustration eventually.

    The only time I ever plateaued is because I was underestimating calorie burn rate, which gave me a larger deficit than I expected, too large to sustain and I plateaued. Adjusting the calorie burn rates caused me to eat more, broke the plateau, and changed my loss rate to be exactly as set in MFP, but slower than I had been going pre-plateau.
  • susannahsutton1
    susannahsutton1 Posts: 372
    Options
    MFP sometimes overestimates also it sometimes underestimates, as do the machines in the gym. This is because they are built based on averages of averages. I can do exactly the same exercise two days in a row and burn a different number of calories based on how tired I was to start with, ambient temperature etc. which all affect my heartrate.

    I wear a HRM and would urge anyone doing this programme to do the same. I've lost 11 lb in 5 weeks with a lot of exercise involved and I eat the exercise calories back to get to my net target, so the maths is working for me. Good luck!
  • bathsheba_c
    bathsheba_c Posts: 1,873 Member
    Options
    Am I the only person who finds MFP estimates to be more or less accurate? At least, I'm losing at the rate MFP says I should be eating back all my exercise calories.
  • ossiary
    ossiary Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    I've just been having this exact same conversation on another thread. My HRM calculates about 500 cal for 40 mins running, MFP rates it at 782...quite a difference. I'd be more than happy to EAT the difference, but it's defeating the purpose really. I'm training for weight loss and race speed, so i need to replace some of the calories to be sure the tank has enough to properly perform in tomorrow's session, and the one after. I plan to eat about half of the calories my HRM measures my output to be. Does this sound like a reasonable system?
  • nightdragon70
    nightdragon70 Posts: 94 Member
    Options
    I've noticed the same thing... I tend to just adjust the time until the calories match what the machines said

    Or...

    I just put the time as right, and then change the calories to match what the machine said
  • legnarevocrednu
    legnarevocrednu Posts: 467 Member
    Options
    Well they say everything is just an estimate. I use whatever the elliptical and treadmill tell me versus the app, but if I eat back my exercise calories, it would only be half (to leave room for error). I usually always take the lower number too, to be on the safe side. For strength (because I don't have an HRM) I use the app. Because I only eat back half, I don't think it's a big deal.
  • legnarevocrednu
    legnarevocrednu Posts: 467 Member
    Options
    I've just been having this exact same conversation on another thread. My HRM calculates about 500 cal for 40 mins running, MFP rates it at 782...quite a difference. I'd be more than happy to EAT the difference, but it's defeating the purpose really. I'm training for weight loss and race speed, so i need to replace some of the calories to be sure the tank has enough to properly perform in tomorrow's session, and the one after. I plan to eat about half of the calories my HRM measures my output to be. Does this sound like a reasonable system?
    Yes!
  • K_Serz
    K_Serz Posts: 1,299 Member
    Options
    That sounds about right too me. I've found that, unfortunately, MFP calorie calculations tend to overestimate by about 30% (comparing against what my HRM says anyway) Unless you're quite obese and/or doing a very intense workout, just about any calorie burn over 10 per minute is pretty unlikely. On the other hand, a lot of folks set their calorie limits too low (for instance, someone with only 15-20 pounds to lose setting their goal for 2 pounds per week) so I think it works out in the end most of the time.

    Good for you for making this discovery and correcting it. Hope it works out for you!

    Correct!!! The machine at the gym is probably over inflating your calories too. The best way to do this is to WEAR a HRM (not just the one you touch every so often). I have a Polar FT7 and even when I enter in my duration and avg HR the site will still auto calculate way above what was actually recorded for my workout. Apps and machines just give an estimate based on a few factors. The HRM might not even be perfect, but its probably as close as you are going to get?
  • gdmanley
    gdmanley Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    If all of your machines allow you to input age, wt., ht., lifestyle (sedentary, active, etc...), I wouldn't trust the numbers there to a great degree.
  • tasson
    tasson Posts: 37
    Options
    I noticed that the machines I use do not ask for my height. I enter my weight and age, however. Does that have an impact on it?
  • JustAGirlyGeek
    JustAGirlyGeek Posts: 149 Member
    Options
    I've never used MFP calorie calculation. Just seeing others journals some of the workouts seem far to high... but then again, I am overly cautious. I now use a HRM and tend to go based on those calorie burns. Looking to do away from all that too and try the TDEE -- 15 to 20% method in the next week or so.
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    Options
    It is only a problem if you are not losing at the right rate.

    There is an inordinate fear of calorie burn rates for exercise. It seems there is a disconnect for people between their goals and results. <snip>

    I totally agree. I never used a HRM and have no desire for one. I used MFP estimates for exercise and ate most of my exercise calories while losing and got the results I wanted.

    If anything, now that I've calculated my TDEE and have been maintaining my weight, MFP tends to estimate a little low for me. Other than 30-60 minutes of exercise 6 days a week, I'm not a terribly active person (housewife, artist and web publisher, which translates to a lot of time on my *kitten*), but I'd need to set my activity level to the highest option AND eat my exercise calories to get enough calories.

    That said, there's some options in the exercise database that don't make sense, like elliptical. There's no variables for speed or resistance, so how can it possibly be right? I've seen some folks on it hauling *kitten*, and some that just seem to shift their weight slowly from one foot to the other. :tongue:

Categories