Are MFP exercise calorie estimates reasonable?

2»

Replies

  • Ibleedlipstick
    Ibleedlipstick Posts: 33 Member
    For me, MFP's calorie estimates are ridiculously off (literally double the amount of calories) and that actually caused me to gain a bit of weight back!

    I recommend trying it, and seeing if it works for you. If you don't see the results you are looking for, change your intake!
  • I_Will_End_You
    I_Will_End_You Posts: 4,397 Member
    For me, MFP's calorie estimates are ridiculously off (literally double the amount of calories)


    Same here. They are waaay off for me.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    For pace related entries, (3 mph walking, ect), the formulas based on weight on more accurate than HRM's, which the cheaper Polar's and others are easily up to 30% off, actually that's even their more expensive ones.

    But you must hit that pace, level walking or running.

    The biking can be decent if a long enough ride. Head/tail wind and up/down hills cancel each other out nicely the longer you go.

    Swimming only has 2 levels and can be.

    Other stuff with no description of effort or pace can be all over the board, as you have no idea if your effort is matching the average effort of the database person.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Yesterday it told me a half hour of kickboxing was over 400 calories. I'd be surprised if I burned quite that much.

    Here's a rule of thumb...

    Net calories burned from running = 0.63 * weight in pounds * miles run

    If you're being told that you burned more calories than you can run, the odds are high that it is an over-estimate. For example, a 160 pound person would need to run around 4 miles (5.5km) to burn 400 calories. If that person can't run 4 miles in 45 minutes (or however long the class took), then it is unlikely they are burning that many calories, and should scale it down accordingly.

    What I've found is that when I'm accurate on pace and time, the MFP numbers are actually pretty good for running and walking. Where I've seen the biggest problems is in exercises tagged with descriptors like "vigorous" - "vigorous" doesn't mean "sweating heavy", it means "moving at competitive speeds".
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Yesterday it told me a half hour of kickboxing was over 400 calories. I'd be surprised if I burned quite that much.

    Here's a rule of thumb...

    Net calories burned from running = 0.63 * weight in pounds * miles run

    If you're being told that you burned more calories than you can run, the odds are high that it is an over-estimate. For example, a 160 pound person would need to run around 4 miles (5.5km) to burn 400 calories. If that person can't run 4 miles in 45 minutes (or however long the class took), then it is unlikely they are burning that many calories, and should scale it down accordingly.

    What I've found is that when I'm accurate on pace and time, the MFP numbers are actually pretty good for running and walking. Where I've seen the biggest problems is in exercises tagged with descriptors like "vigorous" - "vigorous" doesn't mean "sweating heavy", it means "moving at competitive speeds".

    Great point and reminded me of an excellent way to compare those non-descript categories.

    Get on the treadmill and walk flat 4mph, or run 5-6 mph, and see what the calorie burn is, and see how fast the heart and breathing is.

    That's going to be pretty accurate burn in the database.

    Now you can compare it to the gym or DVD workout, or elliptical for that matter.

    Because if breathing and HR are about the same, you burned about the same calories.

    I will point out, doing a hard class first, and then jumping on the treadmill to see what pace equaled your workout you just did - is bad idea because HR and breathing will likely shoot up more than normal, after a good workout.
  • rhondatime2chg
    rhondatime2chg Posts: 92 Member
    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

    Agree. Invest in a HRM if you can.
  • jpw9988
    jpw9988 Posts: 5
    I found it looks over estimated for me compared to what the machines say when I input my weight and age. I decided not to eat back workout calories that way ist a bonus!
  • Chellellelle
    Chellellelle Posts: 595 Member
    I have a Polar FT4 heart rate monitor and it works great! You can get them for around 60 bucks on a lot of websites. I got mine at hearttrackersusa.com or something like that.
  • dswolverine
    dswolverine Posts: 246 Member
    I thought they were off but then I started using a HRM and they're actually closer than i thought. I still never eat back all the exercise calories though
  • SarahBeth0625
    SarahBeth0625 Posts: 685 Member
    My heartrate monitor (Polar FT4) was a good investment. They are right around $60 and will give you a better estimate as you input weight, height, and it calculates your burn based on your actual heartrate. Also, studies have proven that if you can see where your heartrate is, you will burn more calories to keep yourself burning in the zone you want to be. I found that the elliptical count off the machine was much higher (100 calories higher) than what my heartrate monitor was telling me. Right now I burn anywhere from 340 - 365 cals in 36 minutes (according to the HRM) and the machine will tell me close to 500 cals. I have never really used MFP's calculators.
  • Krista916
    Krista916 Posts: 258
    I actually just invested in a HRM and have so far been shocked that the calories estimated in MFP have been very close to the what I'm burning running. As long as I'm choosing the correct pace in the preset MFP exercise, it's usually within 20-30 calories. Meaning I'm typically burning 20-30 MORE then MFP's preset.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Yesterday it told me a half hour of kickboxing was over 400 calories. I'd be surprised if I burned quite that much.

    Here's a rule of thumb...

    Net calories burned from running = 0.63 * weight in pounds * miles run

    If you're being told that you burned more calories than you can run, the odds are high that it is an over-estimate. For example, a 160 pound person would need to run around 4 miles (5.5km) to burn 400 calories. If that person can't run 4 miles in 45 minutes (or however long the class took), then it is unlikely they are burning that many calories, and should scale it down accordingly.

    What I've found is that when I'm accurate on pace and time, the MFP numbers are actually pretty good for running and walking. Where I've seen the biggest problems is in exercises tagged with descriptors like "vigorous" - "vigorous" doesn't mean "sweating heavy", it means "moving at competitive speeds".


    Yep,.did the formula and I got the pretty much the same amount as the treadmill estimation this morning after my run.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories