calories burned

Options
tbrain1989
tbrain1989 Posts: 280 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
im pretty certain that mfp hasnt got a clue on calories burned for exercise, apparently today ive burned 2,500.... so i cant eat 3,900 with my goal added on... not sure that could be true...

Replies

  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Doing what? I've burned more than that before, but it's rare.

    MFP is dead on for some, way off for others.
  • TAMayorga
    TAMayorga Posts: 341 Member
    Options
    Are you sure you haven't accidentally logged in your exercise twice? It happens to me occasionally when I go update.
  • Absonthebrain
    Absonthebrain Posts: 587 Member
    Options
    I got a hrm(heart rate monitor) to make sure I am accurate with calories burned and it actually almost matches up with mfp when I log my workouts.
  • Absonthebrain
    Absonthebrain Posts: 587 Member
    Options
    lag in my computer....
  • jirocpa
    jirocpa Posts: 36 Member
    Options
    There are plenty of other estimators online, and I think you'll find that MFP is pretty close. It may be off by some percentage based on some special situation you may have, but for the average person it's close enough for government work.
  • Mustang_Susie
    Mustang_Susie Posts: 7,045 Member
    Options
    I personally think mfp overestimates calories burned for me.
    I lower the numbers so I don't think I have more calories to eat than I actually do.
    And if I do happen to have all those calories?
    Then it's a bonus :smile:
  • meredith1123
    meredith1123 Posts: 843 Member
    Options
    MFP does over estimate my calories burned but not by far.... sometimes 100 calories off.....I just round down in my head and stick with that.
  • meredithkrueger
    meredithkrueger Posts: 38
    Options
    I just purchased a Polar FT4 HRM and the calorie burn is slightly different than MFP #'s. Some exercises are lower, some are higher.

    Get an HRM and you won't have to guess.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    I just purchased a Polar FT4 HRM and the calorie burn is slightly different than MFP #'s. Some exercises are lower, some are higher.

    Get an HRM and you won't have to guess.

    There's no guarantee an HRM will be any more accurate.
  • tbrain1989
    tbrain1989 Posts: 280 Member
    Options
    i have a HRM and a GPS watch which suits me for running but i cant where it for 'rugby' for example, i wear it during circuit traing and MFP isnt too far off the truth,

    i just find it hard that with 30 minutes on a cross trainer

    1hr circuits session

    1 hr of rugby

    it adds 2,500 calories to my diet? ive been exercising like this 4-5 times a week for most of my life (im 23) if it was correct i should be thin like a rake...
  • chemmon1
    chemmon1 Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    I'm still very, very heavy, but I know there's no way in hell I burn 1500 kcal after 35 minutes on the elliptical machine like MFP predicts. I believe it more for walking, but certainly not the elliptical machine. . .
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    For two and a half hours that does seem very high.
    Over a thousand for an hour of rugby is very dubious with the game's stop/start nature.

    Although I'm smaller/lighter than you I have to be going really hard to burn 800/hour on a spinning bike and rower.
    600/hour is my normal rate for outdoor cycling.
  • tbrain1989
    tbrain1989 Posts: 280 Member
    Options
    yeh i think its the rugby one that is the most dubious, ive workn my watch during a non contact game and i covered 3.5miles in just under 60 minutes of playing, now i would say thats fairly accurate, and i would also say that the calories associate from my HRM (415) must be closer ...


    maybe ill just add what i can from the HRM and leave the rest, im certainly not going to be aiming to eat them back... i wouldnt have time to sleep at night

Categories