How accurate are MFP exercise calories?

Options
sciencenerdsrule
sciencenerdsrule Posts: 6 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I work out a lot (ultimate frisbee and running) so this makes a huge difference in the amount of calories I can allow myself to eat! For example, the website is telling me that I burned over 700 calories playing ultimate for 80 minutes today. Can that possibly be right??

Can anyone comment of whether MFP tends to run on the high end, or how much I should trust it? Is it adjusted for sex, weight etc.? I'm having a really hard time figuring out how many calories I should be eating based on how many I burn working out.

Thanks!
«13

Replies

  • divinenanny
    divinenanny Posts: 90 Member
    Options
    I have no idea if they are adjusted for anything (history, weight, sex, height), but I do know that they run terribly high for me. Up to twice as much as my HRM says I am burning. As far as accuracy goes, for me it is HRM - Cardio Machine - Runkeeper - MFP. The HRM almost always has the lower numbers, and I choose to stick with those to prevent accidental over-eating.
  • Vansy
    Vansy Posts: 419 Member
    Options
    Buy a HR monitor and track it that way -- I wouldn't trust what MFP says, just like you shouldn't trust what an elliptical or treadmill says.
  • Cindyinpg
    Cindyinpg Posts: 3,902 Member
    Options
    For me too, many of the exercises are overestimated by nearly double. As an example, MFP had me burning about 450-500 calories for 30 minutes on the treadmill, when I actually only burn 300, according to my Bodymedia Fit. And that 300 calories includes the calorie or 2 a minute I burn just sitting around, ( my BMR) , so I'm really burning 250ish. If you really want accurate numbers you might want to look at getting a Bodymedia Fit, a Fitbit, a HRM etc. I always cringe when I see people "burning 500 calories doing 20 minutes of housework... Or "800 calories moving boxes" and then they're eating back the calories and could be inadvertently sabotaging themselves.
  • becnaffine
    becnaffine Posts: 55
    Options
    They run very high for me. I wasn't aware until I bought a HRM.
  • SorchaRavenlock
    SorchaRavenlock Posts: 220 Member
    Options
    I make my own entries and take off 33% of whatever MFP would give me. It does seem to overestimate by a lot elsewise.
  • maria_b22
    maria_b22 Posts: 45
    Options
    I have a HRM and found MFP to overestimate. Depending on the activity it's sometimes by as much as 200 cals!
  • emergencytennis
    emergencytennis Posts: 864 Member
    Options
    I had the opposite. MFP had me burning 800 calories for 2 hours of tennis, but my brand new Polar which I love to pieces says I burn 1100.
  • DivaVampTina
    DivaVampTina Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    From what I've read just in regards to treadmills, they are off upwards to 25%. I found this site that I use, until I start using my BodyMedia. http://www.mygraphite.com/free-tools/exercise-calorie-calculator You plug in your weight and how long you exercised. It gives a fairly good list! Much more accurate and seems to be on point with what I read about treadmills. My cals burned were/have been about 20-25% lower than what the treadmill says. The only true way to get complete accurate results is by using a heart monitor on a machine that you can input your age, weight, etc. in addition to using some like a FitBit, BodyMedia, etc., except having medical tests done;) lol
  • timberowl
    timberowl Posts: 331 Member
    Options
    I don't know, but I go with what MFP says, and I lose weight, often times more than it predicts I will.
  • ej_glen
    ej_glen Posts: 34 Member
    Options
    I'd heard the calories were way off so bought a HRM to check - I found that the MFP guesses were within 20-50 calories of my actual calories burnt - I'm sure this isn't the same for all exercises or all people, but I'm finding it fairly accurate.

    As a rule of thumb, I never eat back all of my exercise calories because I'm tryingt o speed up my weight loss. But I know that's not the right approach for everyone.
  • drop_it_like_a_squat
    drop_it_like_a_squat Posts: 377 Member
    Options
    I only trust my HRM.
    For cardio exercises, MFP states a waaaay to high amount of calories burned and if I use the option "strength training" under cardio the stated amount is way less than what my HRM says. For example, for yesterdays workout of 90 minutes lifting it said I burned roughly 200kcals when I really burned ~600.
  • annakow
    annakow Posts: 385 Member
    Options
    It works for me, I am losing weight.
  • luvtcuk
    luvtcuk Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    I think it is very high. Because I didn't lose any if I eat all the cals back.
  • mazdauk
    mazdauk Posts: 1,380 Member
    Options
    "I don't know, but I go with what MFP says, and I lose weight, often times more than it predicts I will. "

    Same for me (sorry, don't know how to quote :blushing: ) I always use MFP's calculations, or the calories shown on the Wii Zumba, and its working fine for me. Maybe people are overestimating their walking speed (putting down 4mph when its only 3mph, for example) or the intensity of other workouts.

    Also just because your heart is beating faster, are you necessarily burning calories at an equivalent rate? I read (on these boards) that it is not a direct quid pro quo.
  • girlsjustwanna
    girlsjustwanna Posts: 16
    Options
    Yes, they are way high! Concerningly so, it's quite irresponsible of them to rate so high as some people will be eating way more back than they have burned.

    I work out real hard 5 - 7 days a week and my exercise calories, which I take from the machines at the gym, are always much lower than someone who has done "moderate walking" and used MFP calories. It's concerning and they should change this!
  • emergencytennis
    emergencytennis Posts: 864 Member
    Options
    "I don't know, but I go with what MFP says, and I lose weight, often times more than it predicts I will. "

    Same for me (sorry, don't know how to quote :blushing: ) I always use MFP's calculations, or the calories shown on the Wii Zumba, and its working fine for me. Maybe people are overestimating their walking speed (putting down 4mph when its only 3mph, for example) or the intensity of other workouts.

    Also just because your heart is beating faster, are you necessarily burning calories at an equivalent rate? I read (on these boards) that it is not a direct quid pro quo.

    Could you expand on that, please?
  • NaDellR
    NaDellR Posts: 4
    Options
    I have found they are low for me. I walk outside for exercise and use a Nike+ watch that tracks my calories burned along with miles and other things and I always have to fix the calories to reflect what the Nike+ watch tells me I burned. I trust it more because it is on me and can feel how hard I'm working (and sometimes I'm pushing a stroller or half pulling a kid along too.)
  • Yogi_Carl
    Yogi_Carl Posts: 1,906 Member
    Options
    I wonder why folks think a HRM calorie reading is accurate. How do you know?
  • emergencytennis
    emergencytennis Posts: 864 Member
    Options
    I wonder why folks think a HRM calorie reading is accurate. How do you know?

    Ya, I would like to know this, too.

    Hard data, please.

    Because, my HRM gives me more calories than poxy MFP and I would like to believe it.
  • SneakyWaff1es
    SneakyWaff1es Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/SneakyWaff1es/view/calories-expended-during-a-workout-517144

Categories