Calorie burn accuracy

jordan1182
jordan1182 Posts: 8 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Where does MFP get its data the calorie burn from various exercises? Also, I noticed that there seems to be no calorie burn for abdominal crunches even though the exercise is in the data base. Is this an error?

Replies

  • Chieflrg
    Chieflrg Posts: 9,097 Member
    I believe MFP estimates based on the age, weight, gender you are. Its usually grossly over-estimated. If your doing exercises with a steady medium to high heart rate, you are better off going with a HRM. Its isn't perfect either, but its much better than MFP.

    I'm not sure where you are logging for crunches, but it all honesty, they aren't burning much of any calories to log regardless. Crunches really are very overrated if you have weight to lose. Not sure what you are looking for in results of doing crunches though.
  • jordan1182
    jordan1182 Posts: 8 Member
    Thanks for the feedback. I'm looking to work on the old tummy, trimming it down. I could probably shed about 20 lbs from there. I was always under the impression that crunches are among a few good core exercises. Am I mistaken?
  • _jayciemarie_
    _jayciemarie_ Posts: 574 Member
    Thanks for the feedback. I'm looking to work on the old tummy, trimming it down. I could probably shed about 20 lbs from there. I was always under the impression that crunches are among a few good core exercises. Am I mistaken?

    Like everyone on here always says--you can't pick/choose where you will lose fat. In order to lose fat--you will need to do cardio or eat at a deficit, or both. It doesn't hurt to tone your abs, but if you have belly fat there crunches (alone) will not get rid of it.
  • _Calypso_
    _Calypso_ Posts: 1,074 Member
    Thanks for the feedback. I'm looking to work on the old tummy, trimming it down. I could probably shed about 20 lbs from there. I was always under the impression that crunches are among a few good core exercises. Am I mistaken?

    Crunches are mainly abdominal...not full core. You need to really vary your ab/core workouts to see optimal results. However, you must first watch your calorie deficit to lose weight/fat. Crunches only will not do anything for you.
    Additionally adding in cardio and/or other strength exercises will yeild better results than diet and crunches alone. You need the full package.

    And as above said.... you can not spot reduce.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,336 Member
    Also, I noticed that there seems to be no calorie burn for abdominal crunches even though the exercise is in the data base. Is this an error?

    In terms of exercises for your core, crunches are not only not burning many calories at all, but they are not very effective and potentially harmful as your core is not designed for that sort of movement to be done repeatedly. The same goes for russian twists.

    Much better core options are planks, side-planks, and stability ball rollouts. Few things beat weighted squats and deadlifts with heavy weights for core work.
  • TwelveSticks
    TwelveSticks Posts: 288 Member
    I don't know where the formulae that MFP uses come from, but the results for things like running seem to exactly match those given by the website www.caloriesperhour.com, so presumably they use some readily available tables to work it out, based on weight, speed, time taken etc.

    The estimates are only that - the actual amount burnt will be different for different people, and also MFP doesn't know about things like slopes/hills or wind conditions, so it can only be a general estimate for, say running on the flat on a still day. That said, I don't think that the estimates are bad at all for 'big ticket items' like walking and running - I use an HRM, and the burn figures are roughly equivalent to the ones MFP would give me.

    That being said, I would suggest that you take any burn figures with a liberal pinch of salt - I typically only eat back 2/3rds of my burn figures, and even then I try to limit that to a maximum of one, medium-sized meal (about 500 calories) per day.

    There are some, more 'unusual' items in the MFP exercise database that are clearly not correct, so you have to exercise a degree of common sense when claiming things - so if you've been doing something unusual, maybe do a 'reality check' and try to estimate how tired you feel compared to, say running 5k and then see how the burn figures compare to the ones you'd get for that.
  • Happyme2009
    Happyme2009 Posts: 233 Member
    Well, I bet to differ...
    after getting a Polar RS300x, and setting it up to my stats and all, I was really surprised to see that MFP estimation for exercises was very close to accurate. Almost no difference in calories burned ( according to Polar ) and what FP gave me ( for example for 60 min strength training , or for 60 min elliptical, etc ). So I compared the calories and the numbers was really close. Whoever designed the algorithm on this website did an amazing job.
    As for crunches, I log them under strength training cardio. Not many calories. But I am a believer in them, also I do agree that unless you lower the layer of fat over middle, you won't see any abs with them.
  • SCV34
    SCV34 Posts: 2,048 Member
    When I do crunches on a consistent basis they do the job of toning. My stomach is already flat, but doing crunches firms up my abs. So do isometrics, which can be done anytime and anywhere.I know this because every time I stop doing crunches for whatever reason, I see a difference, my stomach gets soft again. I know this is off topic, so this is in reply to all those that keep saying crunches are a waste of time. They are not a waste of time and if done properly they are not harmful and can be effective.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,336 Member
    When I do crunches on a consistent basis they do the job of toning. My stomach is already flat, but doing crunches firms up my abs. So do isometrics, which can be done anytime and anywhere.I know this because every time I stop doing crunches for whatever reason, I see a difference, my stomach gets soft again. I know this is off topic, so this is in reply to all those that keep saying crunches are a waste of time. They are not a waste of time and if done properly they are not harmful and can be effective.

    That does not change the reality that they are not the most effective exercise, or that they move your back repeatedly in a way that can cause harm simply from the movement. Planks, spiderman climbs, stability ball rollouts, heavy weighted squats, stability ball pikes and jack-knifes, not to mention a whole host of others are far superior and much less dangerous to your back. Unless you have substituted with these or similar exercises you cannot says they don't work as well or better than crunches.
  • SCV34
    SCV34 Posts: 2,048 Member
    When I do crunches on a consistent basis they do the job of toning. My stomach is already flat, but doing crunches firms up my abs. So do isometrics, which can be done anytime and anywhere.I know this because every time I stop doing crunches for whatever reason, I see a difference, my stomach gets soft again. I know this is off topic, so this is in reply to all those that keep saying crunches are a waste of time. They are not a waste of time and if done properly they are not harmful and can be effective.

    That does not change the reality that they are not the most effective exercise, or that they move your back repeatedly in a way that can cause harm simply from the movement. Planks, spiderman climbs, stability ball rollouts, heavy weighted squats, stability ball pikes and jack-knifes, not to mention a whole host of others are far superior and much less dangerous to your back. Unless you have substituted with these or similar exercises you cannot says they don't work as well or better than crunches.

    I concede, you obviously know more than I do. But, I will stick with what has worked for me over the years. I have yet to experience any back pain from crunches.
  • jordan1182
    jordan1182 Posts: 8 Member
    Thanks all for the feedback. I've had quite a road of weight loss and now need to focus on both muscle definition and losing a few more pounds with that. I'll continue to use MFP and surf the community posts for opinions and guidance. Cheers!
  • extra_medium
    extra_medium Posts: 1,525 Member
    I have yet to experience any back pain from crunches.

    Definitely do what works, but just be careful since this is the type of pain you'll start feeling years down the road (if you do at all) and may wish you hadn't done all those crunches.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    It's a public database that many sites use, you'll see all the exact same descriptions and calorie burns match up.

    The entries are based on MET models of varying accuracy and detail.

    MET is based on your weight and energy burn at rest, basically close to BMR. Most are measured in the lab and formulas developed.

    But a few assumptions to get from MET to calories burned.

    The descriptions with the most detail, and if you do the exercise to the pace indicated, are the most accurate, things like walking and jogging flat even more so than HRM will be.

    Others that have pretty loose descriptions - swimming laps easy or vigorous - could be way off, but if honest are usually decent.

    Some that have tons of options that you can't possibly match up, like elliptical (speed, incline, level, ect) or rowing, combined with your personal efficiency, are best guesses, HRM would be better. Or the machine if it knows your weight and watts produced by you doing the workout.
  • SCV34
    SCV34 Posts: 2,048 Member
    I have yet to experience any back pain from crunches.

    Definitely do what works, but just be careful since this is the type of pain you'll start feeling years down the road (if you do at all) and may wish you hadn't done all those crunches.

    Thanks for the advice, I will keep it mind for future reference.

Categories