MFP Exercise Database

ladyraiah
ladyraiah Posts: 110 Member
edited November 2023 in Getting Started
How accurate would you guys say the exercise database is? For example, this morning I did a spinning class and for 50 minutes MFP said I burned almost 600 calories. Should I plan to eat all those calories back or should I assume that that number is overestimated by a couple hundred calories? I'm concerned with possibly losing my deficit by eating back all those calories. Have any of you had successful and steady weight loss eating back calories from exercises logged purely from the database? I plan to get an HRM at some point, but I can't really afford one right now. And trust me, I have NO problem eating back calories if I can stay in a deficit, ha!

Also, for logging the time on group classes, do you log the entire class or just the time not including the warm-up/cool-down?

Replies

  • acpgee
    acpgee Posts: 7,965 Member
    For my exercise method, the MFP database grossly overestimates. I do 65 minutes on the elliptical trainer targetting a heart rate beween 140-153. My HRM gives me around 520, the exercise machines around 750, and the MFP database says 926.

    On the other hand, for walking the MFP estimates look reasonable. A nutrIonist once told me that 300 cals per hour for an overweight person (with adjustments for speed and weight) was reasonable. That's what MFP database gives me.

    i would only eat 60% until you get an HRM.
  • Naener
    Naener Posts: 167 Member
    you should either get a heart rate monitor (i just got one a few weeks ago) or pause randomly within your workouts to take your heart rate manually and calculate how many calories you burned with a heart rate calculator online...

    MFP definitely over estimates exercise cals.
  • mama2redhead
    mama2redhead Posts: 132 Member
    I do vinyasa yoga, and the app considers yoga only stretching and grossly underestimates the calories! I need to dig out my heart rate monitor
  • DianneP6772
    DianneP6772 Posts: 272 Member
    Yes, I think MFP does overestimate exercise calories. At least the ones i do which are cycling, tennis and gardening. I have a pretty good idea how much those activities burn so i do estimate and usually put down fewer minutes. I don't plan to eat them all back anyway and usually go for 40-60% of them. Don't think i would lose if i used all of them. (as much as i would have No problem doing!)
  • elyelyse
    elyelyse Posts: 1,454 Member
    I agree that in most cases the MFP estimate is wayyyyy high...except yoga as the previous poster said! My yoga raises my heart rate and makes me sweat...it's way more than stretching!

    Most people who rely on the MFP estimates only eat back about half.
  • ladyraiah
    ladyraiah Posts: 110 Member
    Thanks guys, yeah, I kinda figured it was overestimating, so I've tried to stay as close to my original goal as possible, only going over by maybe 200 calories on exercise days.

    Can anyone recommend a relatively inexpensive HRM that also tracks calories? Or do you just convert with an online calculator?
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    MFP over-calculates calories burned from exercise big time, as do the machines at the gym. For example, if I run for 45 minutes at 5.2 mph, MFP says I burn 494 calories. This would mean I burn 11 calories a minute with running.

    I don't think so. I read an article posted by one of the MFP sages here and this article said the average person burns 7-10 calories burn minute with exercise, depending on the intensity. I am more apt to believe I burned 7 calories per minute (315 calories), maybe 8 calories per minute (360) or maybe 9 calories per minute (405 calories), depending on how intensely I run for the 45 minutes.

    This is exactly why I don't eat all my exercise calories back because I don't know the exact calories I burn. I also have no intention of buying a heart rate monitor. I have been working out, losing weight slowly, so I'm doing something right.
  • jamielynas
    jamielynas Posts: 366 Member
    MFP massively over-estimates calories, I see people burning 800 calories doing 36 minutes of Insanity...seems legit
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    It really depends on the activity.

    Items like walking and running that are clearly pace based, will actually be more accurate than a HRM - if you indeed do that pace flat on treadmill exactly. The formulas for that calorie burn are based on years of treadmill testing.

    Other stuff can be inflated or deflated actually. Swimming vigorous is right on for me, with 50 calories for about 60 min.
    Biking is really decent if it's a long ride, and the average pace is caused by traffic stops. But hills and head/tail wind over a long course balance out. But there again, my speed is well above what they have charted, so usually doesn't work unless I'm going slow on trails with friends.

    You won't find a cheap HRM for estimating calories that isn't just as inaccurate as that database though. No need spending money on inaccuracies going the other direction by 30% for women.

    The most popular cheap Polar's are missing a key stat for estimating calories, that has their formula assuming that if your BMI is bad, your fitness level is bad, and that has biggest bearing on calories burned. And is very incorrect after about a month of cardio.

    Polar RS300X is the cheapest you'll find with the required VO2max stat and self-test to estimate it.

    Also be aware of the tool, HR is only associated with calorie burn for aerobic exercise, steady state where HR is the same for 2-5 min.
    Anaerobic lifting or anaerobic sprints or intervals will be inflated, as will anything that gets you very hot like hot yoga, or creates a lot of pressure and raises your HR even though your body isn't working as hard as HR would indicate.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    MFP over-calculates calories burned from exercise big time, as do the machines at the gym. For example, if I run for 45 minutes at 5.2 mph, MFP says I burn 494 calories. This would mean I burn 11 calories a minute with running.

    I don't think so. I read an article posted by one of the MFP sages here and this article said the average person burns 7-10 calories burn minute with exercise, depending on the intensity. I am more apt to believe I burned 7 calories per minute (315 calories), maybe 8 calories per minute (360) or maybe 9 calories per minute (405 calories), depending on how intensely I run for the 45 minutes.

    This is exactly why I don't eat all my exercise calories back because I don't know the exact calories I burn. I also have no intention of buying a heart rate monitor. I have been working out, losing weight slowly, so I'm doing something right.

    Studies show otherwise.
    Depends on if that speed is a easy run for you, then 10 cal / min is very right. If you are pushing it in any way - you are burning more.

    http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    For 165 lbs at that pace and time - that is right on.

    Shouldn't be surprising since treadmills have been the machine used the most for lab testing while measuring actual calorie burn, the formula's for it are better than HRM. Shoot, they've been used long before there were HRM's, let alone HRM's that estimate calorie burn.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Studies show otherwise.
    Depends on if that speed is a easy run for you, then 10 cal / min is very right. If you are pushing it in any way - you are burning more.

    http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    For 165 lbs at that pace and time - that is right on.

    Shouldn't be surprising since treadmills have been the machine used the most for lab testing while measuring actual calorie burn, the formula's for it are better than HRM. Shoot, they've been used long before there were HRM's, let alone HRM's that estimate calorie burn.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

    Thank you, you've posted some food for thought. I will read the links you provided.

    However, if treadmills are so accurate, why do different brands of treadmills give different readings for runs at the same speed and for the same time?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Studies show otherwise.
    Depends on if that speed is a easy run for you, then 10 cal / min is very right. If you are pushing it in any way - you are burning more.

    http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    For 165 lbs at that pace and time - that is right on.

    Shouldn't be surprising since treadmills have been the machine used the most for lab testing while measuring actual calorie burn, the formula's for it are better than HRM. Shoot, they've been used long before there were HRM's, let alone HRM's that estimate calorie burn.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

    Thank you, you've posted some food for thought. I will read the links you provided.

    However, if treadmills are so accurate, why do different brands of treadmills give different readings for runs at the same speed and for the same time?

    Some don't allow you to enter in a weight, I've seen those, based on say 150 lbs always.

    Some don't use the same formula. Not sure why not, only about 2 or 3 really accurate ones for treadmills, and since based on studies, I wouldn't think any patent or copyright problem using it, maybe there is though. In which case a bunch of TDEE calcs are in trouble too.

    Some base it on the watts spent providing resistance to your effort, like the ergo-bikes do. And while watts is energy and can be translated to calories expended, I don't think it works well for belts. So if machine has a watts stat shown, it might be using that.

    That's why that HRM test uses a known formula, though it is interesting to see what the treadmill reports too.
  • pbrahan
    pbrahan Posts: 107 Member
    you should either get a heart rate monitor (i just got one a few weeks ago) or pause randomly within your workouts to take your heart rate manually and calculate how many calories you burned with a heart rate calculator online...

    MFP definitely over estimates exercise cals.

    ^^^^^this. I use a Polar FT4 and it's the single most motivating thing that I've ever done.
  • buffywhitney
    buffywhitney Posts: 172 Member
    For my exercise method, the MFP database grossly overestimates. I do 65 minutes on the elliptical trainer targetting a heart rate beween 140-153. My HRM gives me around 520, the exercise machines around 750, and the MFP database says 926.

    On the other hand, for walking the MFP estimates look reasonable. A nutrIonist once told me that 300 cals per hour for an overweight person (with adjustments for speed and weight) was reasonable. That's what MFP database gives me.

    i would only eat 60% until you get an HRM.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories