Accuracy of "calories burned?"

emersoam
emersoam Posts: 179
edited September 21 in Fitness and Exercise
How do you guys feel about the accuracy of this website's "calories burned" for various exercises? Do the numbers vary based on our individual statistics (age, weight, general fitness level, etc)? Or do these numbers provide a very basic average for anyone? This is a big thing for everyone out there to consider, since a lot of our calorie "balances" rely on these estimates. Just interested in what you all think about this one. It's my opinion that the "calorie burn" estimates are a bit on the high side, unfortunately.

Replies

  • misspenny762
    misspenny762 Posts: 279 Member
    I don't trust the calorie burn statistics AT ALL. So I'm currently in the market for a heart rate monitor. Although I am afraid that discovering how many calories I'm actually burning might be a bit depressing...
  • sweetn3ss
    sweetn3ss Posts: 341 Member
    Yes they are high, but then again on some they are a little low. The numbers are based off of your profile information that I am aware of.
  • wifeyplus6
    wifeyplus6 Posts: 28
    I have totally relied on the "calories burned" section. So far I have lost the exact amount, or more weight than I am supposed to. I am open to the idea that at some point I will need to get a heart rate monitor. Right now, I have alot of weight to lose, so I don't know if that matters. I'm sure when I am down to the last few pounds, I will need to be more accurate.
  • alphasigalum
    alphasigalum Posts: 86
    I use a heart rate monitor and I am sad to say, MFP is way higher for all the exercise compared to my HRM. I recommend a Polar f6, it's great!
  • LastFighter
    LastFighter Posts: 175 Member
    All the cardio equipment I use I input the machines numbers into MFP. The one I seriously mistrust is the weight lifting one. I usually divide it at least in half.
  • Tuckersn
    Tuckersn Posts: 149
    My experience has been they are on the high side . . . good to see I'm not the only one that see this. I go a couple hundred calories below what it tells me on exercise days. A Garmin is on my wish list right now too . . . the sooner the better.
  • WarmDontBurn
    WarmDontBurn Posts: 1,253 Member
    I use a heart rate monitor and I am sad to say, MFP is way higher for all the exercise compared to my HRM. I recommend a Polar f6, it's great!

    What is your v02 set at?
  • eastindian
    eastindian Posts: 2
    I think it's more about the psychological effect than anything else. It seems to work.
  • bmduffy
    bmduffy Posts: 3
    The calories burned is calculated differently for different people. I am about 6 inches taller and 100 lbs. heavier than my wife, and it gives me more calories burned doing the exact same thing. I do adjust when using our exercise bike. It shows approximately 1/2 the calories burned than MFP does.
  • raymj61
    raymj61 Posts: 142
    I had a hunch that they were a bit high. I don't have a heart monitor so, I've been comparing different sites on the internet for calories burned for a given activity and try to do my own determining from there.
  • lucysmommy
    lucysmommy Posts: 460
    hiya

    i have a polar hrm and they are fab

    i should say that for me the mfp isnt that far out - i do body combat and burn 720 according to my hrm and this site is 740 for martial arts for the hour

    x
  • saramike5kids
    saramike5kids Posts: 9
    I think it is calculating not only the calories burned during the activity but the continuation of the increased calorie burn just from engaging in exercise. Anytime you break a sweat and get your muscles hot your calorie burn goes up for a few hours afterward, that's why it is more beneficial to exercise more than once a day (say you plan 40 minutes of exercise: it's better to do 2 - 20 minute sessions).
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    It's based on METs (Metabolic Equivalents) for the exercise and your body weight. People who weigh more burn more for doing the same thing. This is how I've been taught to figure it for my bachelors program. HRM's can be a great tool, but can be pretty inaccurate if not programmed properly. I go by the MET formulas, so I use the numbers MFP gives me so I don't have to do the math myself. ;)
  • DJH510
    DJH510 Posts: 114 Member
    But then why assume a heart rate monitor is more accurate than MFP in the first place?
    I use a heart rate monitor and I am sad to say, MFP is way higher for all the exercise compared to my HRM. I recommend a Polar f6, it's great!
  • mscgrl32
    mscgrl32 Posts: 2
    I guess I need to get a heart rate monitor! Is that the thing you wrap around your mid section while working out?
  • jdsouthernbelle
    jdsouthernbelle Posts: 274
    I actually have a MIO HRM & according to it MFP says I burn lower than it does. So according to my profile I trust the accuracy. I have consistantly lost weight each week since joining.
  • misean
    misean Posts: 1
    Hi all...just getting started on here and love it.

    Does the difference between the HRM and MFP have anything to do with intensity? By that I mean, maybe MFP says an hour of a given exercise burns 450 calories - but you can go really hard at it and run HR up ad burn more calories, or you can be like me and be a little more half-arsed and not burn as many calories. Hope that makes sense.
  • canstey
    canstey Posts: 118
    Hi all...just getting started on here and love it.

    Does the difference between the HRM and MFP have anything to do with intensity? By that I mean, maybe MFP says an hour of a given exercise burns 450 calories - but you can go really hard at it and run HR up ad burn more calories, or you can be like me and be a little more half-arsed and not burn as many calories. Hope that makes sense.

    That is true for activities that completely depend on how much effort the individual puts into it like Zumba and are pretty much impossible to quantify. However for simple mechanical work where the distance is known like walking/running X miles the number of calories is about the same whether you waliked 3 miles or ran 3 miles. Now walking for an hour or running for an hour burns different calories per hour but then the distance would be different so the amount of effort is sort of built into the activity. Biking is based upon average speed because the faster you go the more wind resistance you must overcome and end up burning a few more calories per mile the faster you go.

    I have a Polar F11 HRM and now that it estimates my VO2Max = 40, the calories it calculates and MFP are very close. When it was 28, the HRM was lower in calories but based upon 6 weeks worth of predicted vs. actual weigh lost, I would say the HRM was a little low so MFP may have been more accurate. Regardless the HRM was close enough as I'm sure MFP would have been, albeit on the high side instead of the low side.
  • WarmDontBurn
    WarmDontBurn Posts: 1,253 Member
    But then why assume a heart rate monitor is more accurate than MFP in the first place?
    I use a heart rate monitor and I am sad to say, MFP is way higher for all the exercise compared to my HRM. I recommend a Polar f6, it's great!

    Yes! never assume! I just got my HRM and it is giving me all kinds of stress. I didn't know that they can be wrong and depend on a number so much. If that number is wrong then so is the calorie count. I am still trying to figure out how everyone else is so happy with theirs when I am so stressed with mine.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories