Are MFP exercise calorie estimates reasonable?

Options
IntoTheSunset
IntoTheSunset Posts: 25
edited November 2023 in Getting Started
Just getting started here with tracking - I set my activity level at sedentary and plan on eating back exercise calories. My question for any other more experienced members who track this way also - is it safe (effective) to go with MFP's estimate of calories burned for an activity? It seems high. Yesterday it told me a half hour of kickboxing was over 400 calories. I'd be surprised if I burned quite that much.

Any thoughts or insights? I might be splitting hairs here - I know less food is less food, but an extra 400 calories a day over a kickboxing DVD is a pretty big chunk of change in terms of calorie currency.
«13

Replies

  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    Yes, I have found the calorie counts on MFP to be high. I either input from the gym machines that ask for my weight and age or I input from my Footseteps Pedometer, which has my age, weight, height, stride, for walking and running. All of these calorie estimations are about 100 calories less than the MFP.

    Also, off topic as a side note- are you sure your activity level should be set at sedentary? You might want to try lightly active or active because you are working out. Sedentary is for people who do nothing at all, even though MFP says it's for people with desk jobs. I have a desk job, but I also move about, and I changed my activity level to active. It worked for me and I've been steadily losing weight.
  • TonyStark30
    TonyStark30 Posts: 497 Member
    Options
    They are high, but personally I still use them for consistency, I just never eat back all my Calories.
  • FerryfieldLad
    FerryfieldLad Posts: 185 Member
    Options
    I always found the calorie counts on MFP to be less than actual calories burned when I started exercising (as a very unfit man) and using a HRM.

    As I got fitter the MFP calorie counts were excessive.
  • Chellellelle
    Chellellelle Posts: 595 Member
    Options
    It really depends. I actually find MFP calculations to be too low for me. I use a heart rate monitor to track my workouts, so that's how I know. Personally, I would probably burn 400+ calories doing a 30 minute kickboxing workout.

    The best thing I would say to do would be invest in a heart rate monitor. Then you get accurate reads based on your body.
  • Holly_Roman_Empire
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    Options
    I always found the calorie counts on MFP to be less than actual calories burned when I started exercising (as a very unfit man) and using a HRM.

    As I got fitter the MFP calorie counts were excessive.

    This is how it happened for me. Save yourself and buy a heart rate monitor. That's as accurate as it's going to get.
  • IntoTheSunset
    IntoTheSunset Posts: 25
    Options
    Yes, I have found the calorie counts on MFP to be high. I either input from the gym machines that ask for my weight and age or I input from my Footseteps Pedometer, which has my age, weight, height, stride, for walking and running. All of these calorie estimations are about 100 calories less than the MFP.

    Also, off topic as a side note- are you sure your activity level should be set at sedentary? You might want to try lightly active or active because you are working out. Sedentary is for people who do nothing at all, even though MFP says it's for people with desk jobs. I have a desk job, but I also move about, and I changed my activity level to active. It worked for me and I've been steadily losing weight.

    I'm nervous to set it at anything above sedentary - because I truly am pretty sedentary - desk job, tv watching in the evenings. Outside of a planned workout, I think house cleaning or walking around the mall might on a weekend might be as "active" as I get.

    Probably I just have to try for a calorie goal range and just see what works over the next few weeks. I'm trying not to sweat the small details, but part of me (even after reading as extensively as possible about BRM, TDEE, etc) is really hung up on wanting to know the *magic* calorie number for weekly weight loss. I wish there was a way to just know for sure without any trial and error!
  • Jennloella
    Jennloella Posts: 2,286 Member
    Options
    Once I got a heart rate monitor I realized mfp was way over estimating my cals burned, sometimes double. It's such a vague estimate and depends on your weight, fitness level, etc. I personally don't consider it the way to go, I enter calories manually for exercise
  • IntoTheSunset
    IntoTheSunset Posts: 25
    Options
    Maybe I'll just log exercise and eat back only half the calories MFP says.
  • wisher40
    wisher40 Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    They are high. Sometimes unbelievably so. I have found that if I exercise, say, for 40 minutes, I only log 20 of those. If you log half the amount of time, the number is usually closer to accurate. Try to do this especially if you plan on eating back calories. I don't eat back mine because I don't trust the numbers.
  • Chevy_Quest
    Chevy_Quest Posts: 2,012 Member
    Options
    Once I got a heart rate monitor I realized mfp was way over estimating my cals burned, sometimes double. It's such a vague estimate and depends on your weight, fitness level, etc. I personally don't consider it the way to go, I enter calories manually for exercise

    ^^ Said very well.

    When I finally learned how to use an HRM - It really changed the way I looked at things!
  • VelvetMorning
    VelvetMorning Posts: 398 Member
    Options
    Haha, I was wondering this too. The amount of times I've seen "So and So walked their dog for 30 minutes and burned 250 calories.." - I'll tell you what, my dog was about to get a lot healthier!
  • mcibty
    mcibty Posts: 1,252 Member
    Options
    Snap some of the above. If I'm logging something and I have no idea what the actual burn was, I tend to log it as half the time or 'less vigorous' effort, so it's a more realistic view. Otherwise, I put what the machines tell me I've burned in and ignore how many minutes MFP thinks it took me.
  • vim_n_vigor
    vim_n_vigor Posts: 4,089 Member
    Options
    When I wear a HRM, the calories here and on the HRM are very close. For some, slightly higher, some, slightly lower.
  • zardakfrbfast
    zardakfrbfast Posts: 1
    Options
    I was talking about this with a friend who is an experienced gym-go-er. One of the things he said is that the machine counts don't often take into account the calories you WOULD HAVE BURNED anyway, if you didn't work out for that half hour. So if you've burnt 400 calories in 30 minutes, but on average you would have burnt 50 calories by sitting on the couch, your net loss is really 350 calories.

    It made sense to me. And I think underestimating your calories burned by a little bit is probably better than slightly overestimating...especially if you plan on eating back your calories.
  • ideang
    ideang Posts: 95
    Options
    For me the MFP calories are always over. I log my walks as 2 mph even though I they are closer to 4mph because the calorie count is closer to what I burn. When I run, I track my heart rate and use another site to get the results and manually enter them here. For my 20 to 30 min run MFP is 100 or more calories over what I really burned.
  • cbirdso
    cbirdso Posts: 465 Member
    Options
    Using the MFP calorie estimates worked for me and I ate back all my exercise calories. To be clear, I never logged 'activity' calories because I assumed they were included when I chose my activity level, which was lightly active. So, I only logged exercise calories when it was a (to me) bona fide workout. I lost at exactly the rate calculated by MFP when I logged my calories and ate back my exercise calories. That is what made me successful at reaching my goal, because I really do not like exercise, but will do it for food! :blushing:
  • Prettypedalpower
    Prettypedalpower Posts: 54
    Options
    I think the exercise amounts of calories burnt are really high but I don't eat mine back.... I also dropped my calorie target from 1650 a day to 1200. I try to never go over
  • LJGmom
    LJGmom Posts: 249 Member
    Options
    I burn more calories according to my HRM. I am on medication that increases my HR so I always wear HRM for safety. I am also out of shape, so my heart is in shock when I exercise...ha.
  • LJGmom
    LJGmom Posts: 249 Member
    Options
    I burn more calories according to my HRM. I am on medication that increases my HR so I always wear HRM for safety. I am also out of shape, so my heart is in shock when I exercise...ha.

    I eat back half.
  • tinavflynn
    tinavflynn Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    After reading everyone's responses about using a HRM, does anyone have a brand they would suggest??
This discussion has been closed.

Categories