MFP Cardio Calories calculation consistently high

Options
designer156a
designer156a Posts: 8 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Who's right - the treadmill of MFP? I try and get a few runs in each week but I'm consistently finding that when I enter the exercise onto MFP it calculates far more calories than the treadmill.

Yesterday I ran a slow 5k. Took around 40 mins and the treadmill calculated 400 calories (I actually ran a bit further to reach the 400 kcal mark). My pace was 8kph (about 5mph).

When I entered this into MFP it calculated 581 calories - 181 more than the treadmill.

I did enter my age and weight into the treadmill so it had the same info as MFP.

Who is right? I tend to go with the treadmill (safer), but would love it to be the app.

Any thoughts?

Replies

  • Helloitsdan
    Helloitsdan Posts: 5,565 Member
    Options
    Don't follow it.
    It's impossible for MFP to know what you burn because metabolic rate is different with everyone regardless of weight and height.

    If you are working within 60-80% of your V02 Max, you are probably burning about 100cals per 10 mins.
    But in order to test for that we would need you on a treadmill and hooked up to a machine measuring your output.
    Everything here is an estimate.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    Without knowing your weight I'd say they both sound high (the treadmill seems closer though......)

    To sanity check your caloric expenditure while running Runners World suggests the following formula.....

    .63 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

    so, a 200lb person going 3.1 miles would expend approx 390 calories (net)

    for walking substitute .30 for .63 (note - these are net calories ie additional calories expended as a direct result of the activity.

    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
  • designer156a
    designer156a Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    Yeah, sure, I appreciate MFPs number is an estimate, but then so is the treadmills calculation. Just surprised the two estimates are so different.


    Thanks for the formula, Brian - that's useful. So, according to that ... 237lbs x 0.63 x 3.1 miles = 463 kcal

    As my goal is weight loss, I'll stick with the conservative treadmill calculation for now though just to be safe.

    Thanks for all the replies.
  • rahlpn
    rahlpn Posts: 551 Member
    Options
    I use a HRM for the closest to accurate calorie burn. I can do a 5k in about 38 minutes and my HRM says I burn 440 cals average and I'm a 5'7" woman who weighs 175.

    Edited 440 not 480
  • designer156a
    designer156a Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    Does your HRM 'know' your weight? Does it need to?
  • Buddhasmiracle
    Buddhasmiracle Posts: 925 Member
    Options
    Yes. I use a polar hrm and you set up your profile, including your max heart rate, BF%, age, gender, height. I wear it while I am cycling and on an elliptical trainer. For the latter, the calorie expenditure is lower than the equipment and the mfp database.
  • scubasuenc
    scubasuenc Posts: 626 Member
    Options
    I use a Polar HRM too. It is consistently lower than both my stationary bike and MFP. For walking on a 0 incline treadmill, I've found MFP to be close, if I'm doing exactly the pace listed (e.g. 3.0 or 3.5 mph). However since my pace is typically between the two, and I usually have an incline, MFP isn't right. I use the HRM or my FitBit.
  • rahlpn
    rahlpn Posts: 551 Member
    Options
    Yes I also use Polar (FT7) and It has my gender, weight, height and birthdate in the database. I'm 31.

Categories