Calories burned

Options
Irenaekl
Irenaekl Posts: 116 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
It's very annoying that that MFP's estimate of calories burned on activities is WAY lower than every other site on the internet. I don't believe they can ALL be wrong.

Replies

  • DianneP6772
    DianneP6772 Posts: 272 Member
    Options
    I haven't found that to be true. I actually think they are too high on their estimate of calories burned. For cycling i have to go for the next Lower Speed to get what i think could be correct. I also think they are too high for Tennis so i count half the time i actually play.
    Not familiar with much of anything else - except strength training - i thought i would burn more than it says in their data base.
    What activity (s) are you referring to?
  • gigglesinthesun
    gigglesinthesun Posts: 860 Member
    Options
    most people find the MFP overestimates most activities other then walking and running by as much as 50%. Most accurate would be a heart rate monitor with a chest strap, I have heard
  • Irenaekl
    Irenaekl Posts: 116 Member
    Options
    So ALL the other sites are wrong? I don't think so. Map My Walk estimates calories burned by taking into account the terrain where you walk, how steep the inclines are etc. and gives a higher figure than MFP. Even the calorie recorder on a treadmill gives a higher figure.
    No way are ALL of them wrong.
  • toddis
    toddis Posts: 941 Member
    Options
    Here is your answer:
    All of them are wrong, they are estimates.

    It seems best to underestimate rather than overestimate if the goal is weight loss.
  • samiyan05
    samiyan05 Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    I've found that just like on the machines at the gym mfp "overestimates" but I've also found that if you push yourself you can match what mfp estimates. So maybe it's not overestimating maybe we're just unsure of the amount of effort we are actually putting into our workouts. We think we are running at a pace of 6mph but it's actually 5mph Bc we aren't pushing ourselves. That's just from my experience though.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    Yes unfortunately, just estimates. Actually for walking MFP was pretty close, but it's hard to know exactly how fast you are walking too, so there's that.
  • Cindyinpg
    Cindyinpg Posts: 3,902 Member
    Options
    Yes unfortunately, just estimates. Actually for walking MFP was pretty close, but it's hard to know exactly how fast you are walking too, so there's that.
    Agreed, walking is pretty close. Stationary cycling is crazy high. When I first started MFP gave me 1200 calories an hour for moderately pedaling a recumbent bike.:noway: :laugh: Then when I bought my Bodymedia, I learned the sad truth, it's more like 200-300 an hour.:sad:
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Options
    It's a well known fact that gym machines lie. MFP tends to over estimate unless you are doing every activity balls to the wall and most people aren't. If you want the best estimate of your calorie burn for steady state cardio then you need to get a heart rate monitor with a chest strap. You don't do yourself any favours by choosing the highest estimate of calorie burn you can find if you intend to eat exercise calories back. That's a losing, or should I say, not losing game.

    Also keep in mind most of those online calculators are not deducting your BMR from them which could be up to 80 or more calories per hour of time so it's always best to go with the low number and then only plan on eating 50% back. That's why you exercise for fitness, not for weight loss or to gain more food.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    So ALL the other sites are wrong? I don't think so. Map My Walk estimates calories burned by taking into account the terrain where you walk, how steep the inclines are etc. and gives a higher figure than MFP. Even the calorie recorder on a treadmill gives a higher figure.
    No way are ALL of them wrong.

    Here's how to calculate your own walk:

    net calories burned = 0.3 * body weight in pounds * miles walked

    If someone is 200 pounds and walk 30 minutes at a decent pace, they burn 90 "extra" calories.

    The MapMyWalk calculator, in particular, vastly overestimates net calories burned for walking. I know *all* the mapping trackers I've used get the terrain wrong for where I live, because I'm on a trail and for whatever reason Google doesn't have the correct elevation data for the area.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    So ALL the other sites are wrong? I don't think so. Map My Walk estimates calories burned by taking into account the terrain where you walk, how steep the inclines are etc. and gives a higher figure than MFP. Even the calorie recorder on a treadmill gives a higher figure.
    No way are ALL of them wrong.

    You're actually trying to compare a general database to an app that uses gps and knows terrain, etc....really...that's what you're trying to do? How would a database have any clue what kind of terrain you are on...a database is just going to assume a bunch of averages and a flat surface...there are too many variable involved for any database to be anywhere close to 100% accurate. Even HRMs and apps using GPS are just estimates...you're never going to know exactly what your burn is.

    bottom line, people simply don't burn as ,any calories as they think they are...if you think you're burning 500 you're probably burning 300, etc. Also just think of it this way...10 calories per minute is some pretty intense working...it's hard to burn much more than that...so if you're getting 800 calories in an hour or something, that's just flat out wrong....not too many people can sustain a level of effort for 60 minutes to burn that many calories....600 would be pretty much optimal give or take. 10 calories per minute is really working hard.
  • howardheilweil
    howardheilweil Posts: 604 Member
    Options
    So ALL the other sites are wrong? I don't think so. Map My Walk estimates calories burned by taking into account the terrain where you walk, how steep the inclines are etc. and gives a higher figure than MFP. Even the calorie recorder on a treadmill gives a higher figure.
    No way are ALL of them wrong.
    I use a heart rate monitor and MFP calories burned are probably 30-40% higher then reality, at least for me.
  • Irenaekl
    Irenaekl Posts: 116 Member
    Options
    Yes unfortunately, just estimates. Actually for walking MFP was pretty close, but it's hard to know exactly how fast you are walking too, so there's that.
    /

    Map My Walk tells me how fast I am walking ...I don't estimate my speed. Although it's not difficult to work out when you know how far and how long it takes.
  • Irenaekl
    Irenaekl Posts: 116 Member
    Options
    So ALL the other sites are wrong? I don't think so. Map My Walk estimates calories burned by taking into account the terrain where you walk, how steep the inclines are etc. and gives a higher figure than MFP. Even the calorie recorder on a treadmill gives a higher figure.
    No way are ALL of them wrong.

    You're actually trying to compare a general database to an app that uses gps and knows terrain, etc....really...that's what you're trying to do? How would a database have any clue what kind of terrain you are on...a database is just going to assume a bunch of averages and a flat surface...there are too many variable involved for any database to be anywhere close to 100% accurate. Even HRMs and apps using GPS are just estimates...you're never going to know exactly what your burn is.

    bottom line, people simply don't burn as ,any calories as they think they are...if you think you're burning 500 you're probably burning 300, etc. Also just think of it this way...10 calories per minute is some pretty intense working...it's hard to burn much more than that...so if you're getting 800 calories in an hour or something, that's just flat out wrong....not too many people can sustain a level of effort for 60 minutes to burn that many calories....600 would be pretty much optimal give or take. 10 calories per minute is really working hard.

    Sarcasm is unnecessary! Why are people on this site so darned rude? If you can't be helpful or at least polite then don't bother to post.

Categories