MFP overestimates exercise calories?

Options
2»

Replies

  • mcibty
    mcibty Posts: 1,252 Member
    Options
    I don't work on time on MFP - I go for a specific calorie burn in the gym, so I log the calories at whatever time MFP thinks it is.
  • majii13
    majii13 Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    One of the users here posted a few blogs that address these issues. Its quite interesting.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041

    The biggest issue with your HRM and softball is HRMs are designed to estimate calories during steady state cardio, which softball is not.


    But you are right, people assume that HRMs are the right estimate, when that is not always the case.

    Thanks for the links. I guess that for activities that aren't steady state cardio there's no really accurate way of determining calorie burn.
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    Options
    Accurate no.

    But the running and walking numbers should be pretty accurate, most people will be very close to them (most people are very mechanically efficient at these movements and thus work is fairly constant given weight person to person); strong deviations usually a measurement error not something weird with your actual burn.

    Walking and running numbers over any time span should give you a pretty good range for any physical activity. My hour running pace is about as many calories as I'm physically capable of burning in an hour. The only exception is stuff like Crossfit style circuits, which would have a higher burn than running. Walking gives a low end number; you can usually figure out if you were trying harder than or less than you would just walking over that time span. Most exercise calorie burns will come in somewhere between your walking and running pace calorie burns in a given time frame.

    I find the MFP numbers to be about right as long as you know that the strength training # is way off, if you are putting forth any effort whatsoever the curcuit training or high effort calisthenics entries are much more reasonable. I know they are right for me as I gain/lose/maintain at exactly the rate I expect (of course I "eat my exercise calories", its kinda important for bulking) and have been doing so now closing in on 2 years, with multiple bulk/cut cycles.
  • RLH8866
    RLH8866 Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    I've read a number of posts in the forums that indicate that MFP overestimates exercise calories, and people seem to take it for gospel, but I've noticed the opposite. More often than not my heart rate monitor says I've burned more calories than the MFP estimate for whatever exercise I've done. The most glaring example I've noticed in my own exercise diary was for softball. MFP said that an hour of softball would burn 380 calories, but my heart rate monitor said that I burned about twice that many calories. Does anybody have any examples of exercises where they've measured their calories burned and the number has been less than what MFP estimates? I'm not doubting that it happens, but I just wonder which exercises might be the worst culprits.
    No way did you burn 700 calories playing SOFTBALL for an hour, unless all you did was run the bases for an hour.
  • melmckay99
    melmckay99 Posts: 358
    Options
    I think that MFP and HRM's give you the GROSS amount of calories burned from a given exercise. You need to find out how many calories you would burn during that time if you weren't doing anything at all. I found out that I burn approximately 60 cals/hour when I'm not doing anything, which is an easy number to work with cause this means I burn about 1 cal/min, so my NET calories burned is easy to calculate using my (gross calories) - (the number of minutes I exercised). To find out how much you would burn in an hour (without doing anything) use this calculator:

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn-conversion-calculator.aspx

    Just put in any number in the gross amount of calories (400 for example) and use 60 minutes for the duration. Then the difference between the gross amount ( = 400) and the net amount that it calculates is approximately how much you burn in an hour if you weren't doing any exercise at all. The wesbite also provides the details of the calculation if you scroll down if you are interested. I re-did some of the calculations (being the math geek that I am) to make sure I was doing everything correctly.
  • gourmetgal77
    gourmetgal77 Posts: 73 Member
    Options
    I was wondering this same exact thing -- I do not wear a heart rate monitor and wonder about doing so.... I have a friend of mine that posted a FB status of "After a slight twist of the knee I finished 4.6 miles and burned 1030 calories this morning!' I also went for a jog this morning- 5 miles in 60 minutes (had to walk some do to a major side stitch) and according to MFP I would have burned 505 calories. Like I said, I don't wear a HRM, so I have no way of knowing for sure what I am burning or not. I was just getting ready to start a post on this very thing! Great minds think alike....
    I've read a number of posts in the forums that indicate that MFP overestimates exercise calories, and people seem to take it for gospel, but I've noticed the opposite. More often than not my heart rate monitor says I've burned more calories than the MFP estimate for whatever exercise I've done. The most glaring example I've noticed in my own exercise diary was for softball. MFP said that an hour of softball would burn 380 calories, but my heart rate monitor said that I burned about twice that many calories. Does anybody have any examples of exercises where they've measured their calories burned and the number has been less than what MFP estimates? I'm not doubting that it happens, but I just wonder which exercises might be the worst culprits.
  • majii13
    majii13 Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    I think that MFP and HRM's give you the GROSS amount of calories burned from a given exercise. You need to find out how many calories you would burn during that time if you weren't doing anything at all. I found out that I burn approximately 60 cals/hour when I'm not doing anything, which is an easy number to work with cause this means I burn about 1 cal/min, so my net calories burned is easy to calculate using my (gross calories) - (the number of minutes I exercised). To find out how much you brurn in an hour use this calculator:

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn-conversion-calculator.aspx

    Just put in any number in the gross amount (400 for example) and use 60 minutes for the duration. Then the difference between the gross amount ( = 400) and the net amount that it calculates is approximately how much you burn in an hour. The wesbite also provides the details of the calculation if you scroll down if you are interested. I re-did some of the calculations (being the math geek that I am) to make sure I was doing everythign correctly.

    Being a math person myself I generally do the same thing when logging my exercise calories.
  • jlmoses91
    jlmoses91 Posts: 87 Member
    Options
    Honestly MFP is not going to be accurate because everyone's body is different. That's why heart rate monitors are so much more effective. It is based off of how your body is responding to the workout, not the norm. Go off of you heart rate monitor 100% MFP just goes off of what they think the norm is.
  • majii13
    majii13 Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    Accurate no.

    But the running and walking numbers should be pretty accurate, most people will be very close to them (most people are very mechanically efficient at these movements and thus work is fairly constant given weight person to person); strong deviations usually a measurement error not something weird with your actual burn.

    Walking and running numbers over any time span should give you a pretty good range for any physical activity. My hour running pace is about as many calories as I'm physically capable of burning in an hour. The only exception is stuff like Crossfit style circuits, which would have a higher burn than running. Walking gives a low end number; you can usually figure out if you were trying harder than or less than you would just walking over that time span. Most exercise calorie burns will come in somewhere between your walking and running pace calorie burns in a given time frame.

    I find the MFP numbers to be about right as long as you know that the strength training # is way off, if you are putting forth any effort whatsoever the curcuit training or high effort calisthenics entries are much more reasonable. I know they are right for me as I gain/lose/maintain at exactly the rate I expect (of course I "eat my exercise calories", its kinda important for bulking) and have been doing so now closing in on 2 years, with multiple bulk/cut cycles.

    Thanks for the info. I know that estimating calorie expenditure isn't an exact science, but I wish there was a better way of knowing which estimates are the best. Looks like trial and error with each individual person will have to do.
  • apagan93
    apagan93 Posts: 2
    Options
    I think it all depends on your weight and height. I'm 5ft5 and weigh 15st 11, I burn at least a third more than my friend who is 10st 9. I usually stick to the calorie intake and don't eat the extra mfp says x
  • gourmetgal77
    gourmetgal77 Posts: 73 Member
    Options
    I was thinking the same thing!!

    :)
    MFP has me burning:

    427 calories for a mountain run with an elevation of 480m. That's for a total of 52 minutes, 6km. Seems about right.
    8 calories per minute for capoeira (brazilian martial art). There is a lot of HIIT, conditionning (push-ups, burpees, hand-stands, hand-stand push-ups, cartwheels, back flips, kicks, etc..) and cardio. We usually break 15-30 seconds in between sets. So about 720 calories for 90 minutes. Seems pretty close to me.

    Next month, I'll be getting my HRM. So I'll be able to really compare. Until then, I can only tell you what MFP gives me and I don't believe that it is grossly exaggerated.

    I'm exhausted just reading that!! I wonder if I burned any calories... ? LOL
    Congrats. :)
  • ambiedawnz
    ambiedawnz Posts: 108 Member
    Options
    I just walked this morning at 3.5 for 60 minutes. I'm 5'7.5" 146 lb 29 yr old female.
    My treadmill says I burned over 400 calories (I can't remember the exact #)
    MFP says I burned 252 calories.
    I do have a HRM (FT4) but did not wear it, but it usually tells me around the same as what the treadmill does..
    So in my case it does seem that MFP is low, but maybe it's bc I'm not in "the best" cardiovascular shape, I dunno.

Categories