How accurate are MFP exercise calories?

2»

Replies

  • paulperryman
    paulperryman Posts: 839 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.

    THis is sound advice
  • fatfudgery
    fatfudgery Posts: 449 Member
    I wonder why folks think a HRM calorie reading is accurate. How do you know?

    Because there's quite a large body of science establishing the relationship between MHR, VO2 max and calories burned during exercise and regressing predictive formulae from large samples of actual experimental observations. There's also a lot empirical confirmation of the math by a lot of HRM users out there, from casual dieters all the way up to professional athletes.
  • Joehenny
    Joehenny Posts: 1,222 Member
    Way off. I just do an extra few mins of exercise to accommodate.
  • SuffolkSally
    SuffolkSally Posts: 964 Member
    Mfp estimates are very close to the estimate my HRM gives me, by the time I've deducted my BMR from the HRM reading. But they're all just estimates, the best thing is to go by results...
  • annie7hudds
    annie7hudds Posts: 199 Member
    this is a a timely thread.

    I was also wondering how accurate the calculations are/can be.

    As an example - this morning I went for a run. My Garmin says I burnt 579 calories. - Now that knows how fast I ran, up how many hills( It is very hilly around here) and my weight. I don't have a HRM on it however.

    MFP calculated that for the speed and length of time - I expended 417 calories.

    So in this instance, the exercise calories are UNDER represented.

    HRM I suppose will be the most accurate?
  • enjoythesound
    enjoythesound Posts: 89 Member
    I have a related question so maybe someone can help me too!
    I have exercise-induced asthma so my heart rate is usually very high when I workout. This morning I went for a 35 min run at something around 9min/km (pretty slow I know...), trying to keep my heartrate as steady as possible, it is usually between 165-168 with peaks at 172.
    My HRM is going for 400kcal burned but MFP says 340kcal and Runkeeper which I use for mapping my run is only at 245kcal !!!

    I don't know which one is the most accurate so what do you think?
  • CarlKRobbo
    CarlKRobbo Posts: 390 Member
    If I believed MFP's calories burnt...

    Climbing would mean I need to eat another 3000 calories!

    Kickboxing would mean I need to eat back another 1500 Calories!

    My overall calories burnt would mean I'd have to eat around 9000 calories extra a week!

    I therefore work out my calories via TDEE, and don't log my exercise.

    I'm bulking at the moment, and eat 600 calories more on those days, and I gain weight at the right rate....
  • mattyval
    mattyval Posts: 1
    I think what people are missing is this: When you wear a HR monitor or use a cardio machine those things stop counting the second you take the monitor off or get off your machine.

    The reality is that your body spends at least another 25% of its calories recovering in the following 20min or so (dependant on the stress of the session). I thinks its fair to count those calories as they are directly related to the fitness session you have just done. So if MFP is overestimating calories by 25% compared to a HR monitor or running app then i think it is BANG ON accurate.
  • smalls9686
    smalls9686 Posts: 189 Member
    Ditto, it is way off for most things for me anywhere to 150-300 calroies off (under!) and if I am doing yeard work...forget it! MFP is normally off 500-700 calories (too low!)
    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.
  • smalls9686
    smalls9686 Posts: 189 Member
    Weird b/c MFP is always about 20-25% under what my HRM has.
    I think what people are missing is this: When you wear a HR monitor or use a cardio machine those things stop counting the second you take the monitor off or get off your machine.

    The reality is that your body spends at least another 25% of its calories recovering in the following 20min or so (dependant on the stress of the session). I thinks its fair to count those calories as they are directly related to the fitness session you have just done. So if MFP is overestimating calories by 25% compared to a HR monitor or running app then i think it is BANG ON accurate.
  • smalls9686
    smalls9686 Posts: 189 Member
    Lol, This for sure!
    I wonder why folks think a HRM calorie reading is accurate. How do you know?

    Because there's quite a large body of science establishing the relationship between MHR, VO2 max and calories burned during exercise and regressing predictive formulae from large samples of actual experimental observations. There's also a lot empirical confirmation of the math by a lot of HRM users out there, from casual dieters all the way up to professional athletes.
  • rwhawkes
    rwhawkes Posts: 117 Member
    I cycle quite a bit and use my garmin 405cx to track distance etc. If I am wearing the heart rate monitor the calorie burn it estimates is about a third of what it estimates when I am not wearing it. With the hrm it can tell how hard I am working because all 60 minute rides are not the same because of wind, hills, speed etc.

    Incidentally the estimated burn without hrm is quite close to mfp's
  • amg394
    amg394 Posts: 18 Member
    bump!

    for example: if the arc cybex trainer says I burned 400 calories, MFP says I burned like 322. Should I count MFP or the machine?
  • rileyscoutko
    rileyscoutko Posts: 38 Member
    i've actually found that i'm burning more calories than what MFP says. during an hour of zumba i burn 580 calories (i also push myself extremely hard). MFP says I only burn 511.

    This has happened with a few other exercises as well.

    Hope this helps!
  • eidnahenri2
    eidnahenri2 Posts: 21
    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.

    This was very similar to my experience, back when I logged any exercise calories at all. Now I don't bother with that and try to only eat maintenance calories for my goal weight (only 20-ish pounds away), regardless of exercise/activity. This may not work for anybody else, but even though it's very slow, it has been working for me, without all the number crunching I used to do before.

    :ohwell:

Categories