over estimated calories burned

favoritenut
favoritenut Posts: 217 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I just got done doing 35 minutes on the elliptical and according to my HRM I burned 238 and MFP had me at 476....I am taking my burned estimate from my HRM but cannot believe how MFP over estimated.

No wonder why some users can't lose weight if they go by MFP estimate...

Replies

  • AllanMisner
    AllanMisner Posts: 4,140 Member
    There are a lot of variables that go into getting actual burn (even a HRM is just an estimate). Depending on what you want to accomplish, it is typically best to be conservative with burn.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    When in doubt, use the lower number.
  • molonlabe762
    molonlabe762 Posts: 411 Member
    I always use the MFP number and I've been dropping weight pretty quick.
  • AryaSnow
    AryaSnow Posts: 26
    That's weird... For me MFP estimates less calories than my endomondo app (600 calories vs 800 for a long walk)
  • Shateyn
    Shateyn Posts: 71
    I am always skeptical of the machine readings at my gym as well. At a moderate difficulty it tells me I've burned 50 cals in 10 minutes. I doubt it.
  • favoritenut
    favoritenut Posts: 217 Member
    I always use the MFP number and I've been dropping weight pretty quick.


    do you eat back your calories?
  • favoritenut
    favoritenut Posts: 217 Member
    The elliptical machine said I had burned 256 calories, not too much off from my HRM. I know these are just an estimate, but it just surprised me that my HRM and MFP are so far off.
  • Thena81
    Thena81 Posts: 1,265 Member
    The hrm isn't completely accurate on low impact workouts like my gazelle or an arc trainer so i don't go by it 100% i do for running but when u run, u work the entire bod. Go with the lower number to see the best results, that is smart of u
  • Jrunner
    Jrunner Posts: 18 Member
    When I log my exercise in MFP, I only enter in 1 calorie burned.
  • astronomicals
    astronomicals Posts: 1,537 Member
    That's weird... For me MFP estimates less calories than my endomondo app (600 calories vs 800 for a long walk)

    same here... i compared burns from several calculators and MFP was typically the lowest calculation.... I wonder how ppl get these numbers. Perhaps its cuz elliptical intensities arent universal? thus, the calculation can vary widely... I still dont get how they do it for walking or running though cuz that should be pretty straight forward.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    That's weird... For me MFP estimates less calories than my endomondo app (600 calories vs 800 for a long walk)

    same here... i compared burns from several calculators and MFP was typically the lowest calculation.... I wonder how ppl get these numbers. Perhaps its cuz elliptical intensities arent universal? thus, the calculation can vary widely... I still dont get how they do it for walking or running though cuz that should be pretty straight forward.

    Height, weight, gender, age, exertion level (and other factors) ...are all info required for calorie burns. MFP can only take an average for exertion level. Heart rate monitors "attempt" to measure exertion level by constantly measuring electric impulses (chest strap models are constant) .....even these are "guesstimates"

    Gender .....approximates muscle mass.....men have more muscle than women, therefore burn more calories.....but this is still a "guesstimate too"..... because not all men are created equal.
  • explosivedonut
    explosivedonut Posts: 419 Member
    Weight lifting calories burned are so messed up, it's almost impossible to calculate. I do the same routine every week, takes the same amount of time, but each time I lift more than I did last time. So when I enter in an hour of lifting into MFP, it is almost guaranteed to be incorrect. A couple months ago I was struggling to lift 115 for my bench press. but now that is my warm up set. I am obviously burning more calories in that same amount of time, but MFP doesn't and can't know that.
  • bizco
    bizco Posts: 1,949 Member
    When I log my exercise in MFP, I only enter in 1 calorie burned.
    Usually a terrible strategy.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    I've found it really depends on the exercise. Most people say MFP way overestimates elliptical burns. I found it to underestimate my walking or running when I was heavier. Now that I'm lighter, it's pretty close to my HRM.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    I just got done doing 35 minutes on the elliptical and according to my HRM I burned 238 and MFP had me at 476....I am taking my burned estimate from my HRM but cannot believe how MFP over estimated.

    No wonder why some users can't lose weight if they go by MFP estimate...

    Actually, it's not that MFP's data base grossly overestimates calorie burn...it is generally that people overestimate the intensity of their workouts. They're tired and sweaty so they put "vigorous effort" or whatever...you really don't burn all that many calories with exercise which is why it's much more efficient to use your diet to create a calorie deficit. Also, it would be extremely difficult to sustain the kind of intensity necessary to burn 476 calories in a bit over a 1/2 hour...you'd need to be able to run 4-5 miles in about 1/2 to accomplish that.
  • favoritenut
    favoritenut Posts: 217 Member
    I just got done doing 35 minutes on the elliptical and according to my HRM I burned 238 and MFP had me at 476....I am taking my burned estimate from my HRM but cannot believe how MFP over estimated.

    No wonder why some users can't lose weight if they go by MFP estimate...

    Actually, it's not that MFP's data base grossly overestimates calorie burn...it is generally that people overestimate the intensity of their workouts. They're tired and sweaty so they put "vigorous effort" or whatever...you really don't burn all that many calories with exercise which is why it's much more efficient to use your diet to create a calorie deficit. Also, it would be extremely difficult to sustain the kind of intensity necessary to burn 476 calories in a bit over a 1/2 hour...you'd need to be able to run 4-5 miles in about 1/2 to accomplish that.

    all MFP has is elliptical trainer, it doesn't have any other options like vigorous, or moderate, that I could see, and yes, it is true on how you do the exercise, I'm trying to maintain my hear rate below 140bpm, so I know I won't burn a lot of calories. especially in that short of time. But I've also noticed when I do Jillians 30Day shred it had me at over 300 calories burned and my HRM says about 200, I guess for me, it over estimates.
  • GoldFish1326
    GoldFish1326 Posts: 81 Member
    I think the workout machines are really over estimating calories burned but it's just a generic setting. I use a heart rate monitor and set it 20lbs less then I weigh I'm hoping this accounts for some of the high numbers and makes my exercise estimates more reasonable.

    Anyone else do this?
  • molonlabe762
    molonlabe762 Posts: 411 Member
    I always use the MFP number and I've been dropping weight pretty quick.


    do you eat back your calories?


    Sometimes, not always though. I usualy try to stay at least 100 under my goal.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Height, weight, gender, age, exertion level (and other factors) ...are all info required for calorie burns.
    Not really. Pretty much all you need is "how far" and "how heavy".
    MFP can only take an average for exertion level.
    Exertion level is irrelevant - speed for time (i.e., distance) is what matters. The Universe doesn't care how hard it feels, it only cares how much you moved, and how far.

Categories