How accurate are MFP exercise calories?

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!
«1

Replies

  • divinenanny
    divinenanny Posts: 90 Member
    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
    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
    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
    They run very high for me. I wasn't aware until I bought a HRM.
  • SorchaRavenlock
    SorchaRavenlock Posts: 220 Member
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    It works for me, I am losing weight.
  • luvtcuk
    luvtcuk Posts: 69 Member
    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
    "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
    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
    "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
    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
    I wonder why folks think a HRM calorie reading is accurate. How do you know?
  • emergencytennis
    emergencytennis Posts: 864 Member
    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
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/SneakyWaff1es/view/calories-expended-during-a-workout-517144
  • Cindyinpg
    Cindyinpg Posts: 3,902 Member
    I wonder why folks think a HRM calorie reading is accurate. How do you know?
    The main reason I believe my Bodymedia Fit is more accurate than MFP numbers is through simple experience. If I have a weekly average deficit of 7000, I will generally lose 2lbs. That can vary with salt intake, Time of the Month and so on, but in general, it seems accurate and they advertise it to be within 5% accuracy. Most of these activity trackers are meant to be more motivational tools than dead on accurate anyway. We have to work with the technology we have and I believe that we can only trust the numbers when we see results over the long term. MFP numbers are going to work for some people. But they're way off for me on the cardio. Someone mentioned Wii Fit, as well and when I'm playing, their numbers are dead on with my BMF. Very reassuring.
  • MelissaHollingsworth
    MelissaHollingsworth Posts: 4
    I have also wondered this. I'm always worried about the calories burned being too high so I reduce it by half or 40% most of the time. For instance, today I did an hour of Zumba and it had it at 616 calories burned so I reduced it by 200 calories. I'm also usually below my calorie goal for the day. MFP says I'll be at a certain weight in 5 weeks and so far in 3 weeks I haven't lost a pound. I'm under my calorie goal, drinking approx. 100 oz of water a day, and exercising 5 days a week. I should see the scale move a little, but I'm not. Maybe I just need to get a FitBit. Who knows!
  • ashleyoh33
    ashleyoh33 Posts: 85 Member
    MFP has a tendency to double numbers for me. If you are running and doing ultimate frisbee and plan on eating back the calories, I would tell MFP you worked out for half as long as you did. 80 mins = log for 40. Or find an online calculator that asks sex, age, weight, and height and manually enter it. In a perfect world you should use a good HRM, but I know not everyone has $100 to drop on one of those.
  • Shelby1582
    Shelby1582 Posts: 191 Member
    When I got my heart rate monitor I realized that MFP overestimated them a lot.
  • mazdauk
    mazdauk Posts: 1,380 Member
    I wonder why folks think a HRM calorie reading is accurate. How do you know?

    This.

    Whatever technology we use is unlikely to be accurate. If the MFP estimates plus your recommended calories = weightloss - use them. If they don't, play around with other technology, or other methods (higher intake and no exercise calories eaten, for example) until you find something that works for you. Everyone's metabolism is different.

    What I would say is to check your calories though - are you weighing your portions or "guessing" what 75g dry pasta looks like? Doesn't matter how accurate the "calories burned" are if the "calories in" are wrong to start with.
  • iecreamheadaches
    iecreamheadaches Posts: 441 Member
    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.

    this. I sometimes use MFPs general estimate, but I never ever eat all of my calories back. I try to hit 1200-1300 a day when I have "big burns" from mfp, just to make sure I dont over eat and sabotage myself.
  • annakow
    annakow Posts: 385 Member
    It's not, the bigger you are, more calories you burn while exercising, so it's calculating each of us individually.
    'On average, aerobics burns more than 400 calories per hour. A person who has a weight of 130 lbs burns 354 calories per hour when doing aerobics, while a person who has a weight of 190 lbs burns 518 calories per hour.'

    check calculator

    http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc


    37367090.png
  • Shelllbeee
    Shelllbeee Posts: 1 Member
    I've checked 2 different calorie burning calculators online, my treadmill, and the app RunKeeper....
    MFP was lower than all of those.... so I use MFP. *shrugs*

    Like most things in the world, it works for some and doesn't for others I guess.
  • shadus
    shadus Posts: 424 Member
    Here's the short short version.

    If you weight between 140-170 lbs, you're performing steady state cardio activities, and monitoring heart rate...

    The calculations are pretty good.

    If you weigh outside that range, are not performing steady state cardio, and aren't monitoring your cardio...

    The calculations are abysmal.

    All of that said, I figure my exercise calories at 50-70% of the suggested values... and my weight loss, at least with what i do personally exercise wise, is inline with what I would expect 95% of the time or better.

    TL;DR - If you're not using a heart rate monitor or not doing a steady state cardio activity, or are not "overweight" or "normal" bmi... take 50% of the listed amount as a good starting point.

    EDIT: This isn't a MFP thing at all btw, this is a "the formulas fail outside certain criteria" thing. All of them are massively off.
  • paulperryman
    paulperryman Posts: 839 Member
    might be seeing different but for me they are only as accurate as the numbers everyone else puts in, once you use a exercise in the list and set a burn that you have calculated via other means it uses that calculation for the next time you do the same exercise

    It seems to me say i put walking for 40mins and 447 calories the next time i chose walking it will have worked out that the last time i did that i burned about 11.5 calories a minute and lets say i only did 30mins this time it will automaticaly calculate it at 345, then again it could have some calculation for weight/height to work out a moderate effort, machines at the gym work out a basic burn based purely on weight nor height and age and those numbers tend to be alot lower for me then my HR monitor would register, MFP was the same to start with.

    I have always had access to a Heart Rate Monitor so never went with what MFP said or the gym machines.

Categories