Is the Exercise calculator on MPF Trustable?

22workout
22workout Posts: 36
edited January 24 in Health and Weight Loss
Hi. I was looking at exercise I did today, I did the elliptical for 70 minutes, and MFP says I burned 700 calories. Is the calorie calculator on here trusted?

Replies

  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    No. MFP's exercise calculations have been bang-on or a little low for all of my exercises, but it drastically overestimates others. I believe that the elliptical is one of those that's often far too high. If you're interested in a more accurate reading you'd want to invest in a good heart rate monitor.
  • Reeceybaby1988
    Reeceybaby1988 Posts: 91
    my advice, get a HRM.

    personally, for me the MFP calculations were surprisingly accurate. in fact, i was underestimating what i was burning.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    not trusted, usually overestimates

    I second the vote for a HRM with chest strap (can get some fairly cheap from amazon.com/walmart.com)
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Only for walking and running, IMO.
  • 22workout
    22workout Posts: 36
    alright thanks, I was just saying 700 seems a bit too much.
  • mindidily
    mindidily Posts: 196 Member
    It turned out that for me, it was almost spot on for my running calories; at least the flat road trails anyways. My walking calories were over estimated by MFP but only by 60-80. Biking was only off by maybe 100 or so.
  • vstraughan
    vstraughan Posts: 163 Member
    There's a lot of people on the forums that will say the MFP count is exaggerated. I've seen it's pretty close to what the HRM on gym equipment says so, personally, I just average the 2. It depends on how accurate you want to be and why.
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    You're better off plugging your information into the elliptical than going by MFP, especially on that entry. It's too generic... there's no variable for resistance or speed. Walking and running is fairly reliable, since it goes by your actual pace. There will be some variation based on each individual, or based on whether or not there was an incline, but it's a good estimate.
  • 22workout
    22workout Posts: 36
    At first I though it was accurate because MFP asks for your weight and height and gender, so I though maybe it was right.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    No reliable .... most machines are not relieable either. Here's why:

    Calories burned depends upon, height, weight, age, gender, exertion level (among other things).

    MFP & machines cannot know your exertion level because the same workout for you might be a "tough workout" (burning lots of calories) .... the very same workout may be easy for someone else (burning far fewer calories).
  • DoxieLove10612
    DoxieLove10612 Posts: 145 Member
    NO! I see people logging 700 calories for Zumba and there is no way. I have a Body Media and after getting some things tested I 100% have faith in it. For instance a co worker and I went on a walk; she logged 94 calories BM stated I burned 45. You either need a HRM or another device like FitBit or Nike band. good luck with your journey!!
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    It depends...and it's all estimates, even a HRM is an estimate. 700 calories for 70 minutes is doable, but a lot depends on your intensity level...If I'm going pretty hard, I burn about 10 calories per minute...but I'm really going pretty hard and I doubt I could maintain that level of effort for 70 minutes.

    A HRM is the most reliable, but still an estimate. When I was doing MFP I usually figured in a 70% margin of error with my HRM...so I usually just ate back 70% of my exercise calories to account for that estimation error.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories