MyFitnessPal realllllly over estimates on calories..
Replies
-
I always put what my elliptical says because there is a 40 calorie difference between MFP and my machine. I go with the lower number to be on the safe side.0
-
For a 220 pound male one hour of walking 2 miles per hour is around 250. How in the world are you walking for only an hour and burning 900 calories??????????????O.o Number seems wrong to me no matter how big the person is.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but even 250 is high (that would be total or gross calories burned - which includes BMR) the formula for estimating net calories burned walking is .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) so a 220 lb person would actually expend and additional 132 calories walking 2 miles compared to lying in bed....... on a treadmill with higher inclines this formula doesn't work and I haven't seen any reliable multipliers yet (running is little over double the expenditure of walking use .63 instead of .60)
source: http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single0 -
I don't necessarily trust MFP OR gym machine calculations of my caloric burn. I always cut off around 100 calories when I hit the gym (I work HARD and I POUR buckets of sweat, so I know I burn more than a lot of people my size, but the machine says 650 for an hour, I say 500). For less strenuous activities, I still round down, but maybe a little less. MFP says I burn 175 on an hour walk at "dog walking pace," I say more like 100.
I do think it's a little off, but I'd rather overestimate intake and underestimate burn than the other way around
0 -
I checked 3 walking exercise entries, and all were reasonable. Nothing close to 900 (or even 500) for an hour.
Maybe its just mine although I have never entered these in. I don't use MPH.
If I go to exercise, then to database and type in walking, I get a whole list.
If I choose "Walking, 4.0 mph", I get 739 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.
If I choose" Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace", I get 340 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.
There are a few entries like this.
Who is *walking* at 4mph? That's jogging for me
Me too. :laugh:
Depends on height and leg length, perhaps? I don't have to break into a slow jog until 4.5 or so.0 -
I checked 3 walking exercise entries, and all were reasonable. Nothing close to 900 (or even 500) for an hour.
Maybe its just mine although I have never entered these in. I don't use MPH.
If I go to exercise, then to database and type in walking, I get a whole list.
If I choose "Walking, 4.0 mph", I get 739 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.
If I choose" Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace", I get 340 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.
There are a few entries like this.
Who is *walking* at 4mph? That's jogging for me
Me too. :laugh:
Depends on height and leg length, perhaps? I don't have to break into a slow jog until 4.5 or so.
On a treadmill or the road?0 -
I checked 3 walking exercise entries, and all were reasonable. Nothing close to 900 (or even 500) for an hour.
Maybe its just mine although I have never entered these in. I don't use MPH.
If I go to exercise, then to database and type in walking, I get a whole list.
If I choose "Walking, 4.0 mph", I get 739 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.
If I choose" Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace", I get 340 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.
There are a few entries like this.
Who is *walking* at 4mph? That's jogging for me
Me too. :laugh:
Depends on height and leg length, perhaps? I don't have to break into a slow jog until 4.5 or so.
There was a discussion on this topic before and people shorter than me said they could do it. I do have short legs, average height (5'5.5, yes I count the .5). No doubt longer legs play a factor.0 -
I checked 3 walking exercise entries, and all were reasonable. Nothing close to 900 (or even 500) for an hour.
Maybe its just mine although I have never entered these in. I don't use MPH.
If I go to exercise, then to database and type in walking, I get a whole list.
If I choose "Walking, 4.0 mph", I get 739 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.
If I choose" Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace", I get 340 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.
There are a few entries like this.
Who is *walking* at 4mph? That's jogging for me
Me too. :laugh:
Depends on height and leg length, perhaps? I don't have to break into a slow jog until 4.5 or so.
Me too. My natural walking pace is somewhere between 3.5 and 4mph. But when I first started with exercising more, 3mph was pushing it 4mph was about when I'd start jogging.
Have you ever seen a serious speed walker? I had one pass me at one of my first running events! I was probably going 4.5mph and he zoomed right by.0 -
Just saw from a friend they burned almost 900 calories for walking for a little over an hour... hmmm doesn't seem right.
were you there with them on their walk?? no? oh, okay then.0 -
Doesn't depend on ****. Use 0.3 * weight in lbs * Miles walked. A much better idea of what is actually burned.
Btw .. I walk at up to 4.6 mph and have maxed out at about 5.1. #Never_Go_Slow0 -
yeah sometimes i feel the same - i just eat half my exercise calories back to be on the safe side0
-
I checked 3 walking exercise entries, and all were reasonable. Nothing close to 900 (or even 500) for an hour.
Maybe its just mine although I have never entered these in. I don't use MPH.
If I go to exercise, then to database and type in walking, I get a whole list.
If I choose "Walking, 4.0 mph", I get 739 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.
If I choose" Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace", I get 340 calories for 60 minutes at 150lbs.
There are a few entries like this.
Who is *walking* at 4mph? That's jogging for me
Me too. :laugh:
Depends on height and leg length, perhaps? I don't have to break into a slow jog until 4.5 or so.
On a treadmill or the road?
Both, but there is surely variability introduced between the time/speed app I use when walking and the calibration accuracy of the treadmill. That's why I say "or so."0 -
For something like blogilates videos (kind of low cardio pilates) I always use the low effort calisthenics measure and it's about 300kcal for an hour. The high effort calisthenics is about 5-600 or something, which is way too high, and pilates itself is about 200kcal, which I think is way too low. I don't have a HRM but i just go with how much i'm sweating/out of breath compared with the numbers on the machines at the gym and work it all out that way. I do agree that the walking ones seem high, because 20 minutes is like 100-150 for me. I think it's just about being reasonable, I always try to overestimate my food and underestimate my exercise by about 100kcal.0
-
PS how are you all affording a HRM? They're ridiculously expensive!0
-
Seems like we have a lot of Doctors on this site...
At 415 pounds my HRM showed me a burn of 1302 calories for 60 minutes of walking at a 8.2 min/km.
Now at 339.8 pounds my HRM shows me a burn of 1156 calories for 60 minutes of walking at a 7.2 min/km.
I think people need to stop, relax, and realize some people burn more, before they speak out of their *kitten*.
Rob0 -
Yeah-- I was really confused when it had me burning 200 calories for running for five minutes. I weigh 140. I know from running on a treadmill that I burn closer to 50 calories in that time. WTF.0
-
I wear a FitBit which takes all the guesswork out of it but with so many of us using so many ways of estimating our burns it's bound to seem inconsistent. Is your friend losing well logging what they are logging for exercise? If so, then it's probably pretty accurate for their current weight.
What a lot of people don't realise though is that the sedentary setting here already includes your first 2 miles (or so) each day. If I don't walk further than that I don't get any extra calories at all from FitBit (account synced with here) so going out for a short walk on an otherwise lazy day at home shouldn't really be logged as edible exercise.0 -
im gona start walking :laugh:0
-
PS how are you all affording a HRM? They're ridiculously expensive!
I understand "expensive" is relative, but $70 or so for a one-time purchase doesn't seem so bad to me?
http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Heart-Rate-Monitor-Purple/dp/B005M1P85O/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1396372829&sr=8-3&keywords=polar+ft70 -
Could someone please explain why, if I walk for 110 minutes at a brisk pace of 3 mph, I 'gain' 417 calories whereas if I walk for that same 110 minutes at leisurely pace of 1.5 mph I 'gain' a massive 761 calories!!
Know that I am not the brightest bulb on the tree at times but how can this be true!!??
I mentioned that in an earlier post. There seems to either be a glitch or flat out incorrect entries. I didn't think that people could add their own entries into the main exercise database like they can for food but there appears to be duplicate entries, with a slight variation with wording. One is fine, the other gives a huge burn.
ETA- Here is my list (I emailed tech support, I'm sure they'll get right on it). All entries are the same weight and time. Exact wording from database.
"Walking, 1.5 mph, leisurely pa" 423
"Walking, 2.0 mph, slow pace " 176
"Walking, 2.5 mph, leisurely pace" 211
"Walking, 2.5 mph, leisurely pa" 1268
"Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace " 232
"Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace, walking dog " 232
"Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace, w " 557
"Walking, 3.5 mph, brisk pace" 267
"Walking, 4.0 mph, " 764
"Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace" 352
"Walking, 4.5 mph, very, very brisk pace" 443
"Walking, 5.0 mph " 562
"Walking, 5.0 mph, fast pace, w " 231
I was playing with it too and am also getting results all over the place. My walking 4.0mph was 902 cals burned for an hour. So yeah, the system is a little funny there. I weight 183lbs. The walking 4.0 very brisk pace gives me 416 cals burned for the hour.
I eat back half my cals from exercise, but now I am wondering about that too
I just tried out the running and those seem ok, besides for the running at 4mph, 60 = 2996 cals burned. :noway: 0 -
Could someone please explain why, if I walk for 110 minutes at a brisk pace of 3 mph, I 'gain' 417 calories whereas if I walk for that same 110 minutes at leisurely pace of 1.5 mph I 'gain' a massive 761 calories!!
Know that I am not the brightest bulb on the tree at times but how can this be true!!??
I mentioned that in an earlier post. There seems to either be a glitch or flat out incorrect entries. I didn't think that people could add their own entries into the main exercise database like they can for food but there appears to be duplicate entries, with a slight variation with wording. One is fine, the other gives a huge burn.
ETA- Here is my list (I emailed tech support, I'm sure they'll get right on it). All entries are the same weight and time. Exact wording from database.
"Walking, 1.5 mph, leisurely pa" 423
"Walking, 2.0 mph, slow pace " 176
"Walking, 2.5 mph, leisurely pace" 211
"Walking, 2.5 mph, leisurely pa" 1268
"Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace " 232
"Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace, walking dog " 232
"Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace, w " 557
"Walking, 3.5 mph, brisk pace" 267
"Walking, 4.0 mph, " 764
"Walking, 4.0 mph, very brisk pace" 352
"Walking, 4.5 mph, very, very brisk pace" 443
"Walking, 5.0 mph " 562
"Walking, 5.0 mph, fast pace, w " 231
I was playing with it too and am also getting results all over the place. My walking 4.0mph was 902 cals burned for an hour. So yeah, the system is a little funny there. I weight 183lbs. The walking 4.0 very brisk pace gives me 416 cals burned for the hour.
I eat back half my cals from exercise, but now I am wondering about that too I just tried out the running and those seem ok, besides for the running at 4mph, 60 = 2996 cals burned. :noway:
In response to my email along with saying they would fix it they also said "In the meantime, please refrain from using the exercises that have incomplete words at the end: pa, w, etc."0 -
Nobody is burning 900 calories walking for an hour...sorry people.
So true. Not happening no matter how big you are.0 -
Get a Polar Heart Rate Monitor, wear it, you will know how many calories you burn when you work out. Sometimes, MFP is very close to my calories burned when I use mine, But other times, it's WAY off!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EKPXJTU/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00EKPXJTU&linkCode=as2&tag=digimedidire-200 -
Seems like we have a lot of Doctors on this site...
At 415 pounds my HRM showed me a burn of 1302 calories for 60 minutes of walking at a 8.2 min/km.
Now at 339.8 pounds my HRM shows me a burn of 1156 calories for 60 minutes of walking at a 7.2 min/km.
I think people need to stop, relax, and realize some people burn more, before they speak out of their *kitten*.
Rob
A lot of people aren't just talking about of their *kitten*. The energy required for walking is quite established and a lot of data to support it. Some here have spent some time learning about it.
HRMs are not infallible. That is not saying yours is wrong, just making a point in general.
I do agree with you in a way though, without knowing all the info (as I mentioned in my first response) it is hard to say how accurate that 900 calorie estimate is. But the fact remains, for a lot of people, 900 calories for walking for an hour is just not realistic.
I think people need to stop, relax, and stop trying to achieve monster burns. And if it is extraordinarily high, it may not be correct regardless of the source.0 -
Regarding HRMs and accuracy, a few good posts.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-214720 -
MFP always gives me relatively low burns, although it does seem to give others high burns.0
-
I am an avid runner logging 50+ miles/week. If I run 7 miles/hour it says I burn about 510 calories. I'm 105 pounds so sounds about right. Depressing, but right. The smaller you are, less you burn, and less you can eat.0
-
I go off of what my elliptical tells me I burn. My elliptical tracks my heart rate, etc and I can change the resistance with a touch of a button which makes me work harder and in turn a higher resistance allows me to burn more calories. So I can walk 30 min at resistance level 3 and it gives me a certain amount that I burned, if I went 30 min. at resistance 4 I burn close to 100 calories more, if I stay at the same mph, etc. as the previous level 3. So I'm sure my pals are thinking," what is she doing?" too lol.0
-
Walking has pretty predictable burns and they are well documented, the MFP #s are all over the place though It boils down to weight, speed(or distance) and Time
About.com has a decent calculator for auditing apps and mfp #s and will be pretty clkose to what a HRM will come up with
http://walking.about.com/library/cal/uccalc2.htm
to get a number like 900 you'd need to be quite large and very fast 250 lbs and 5 MPH which is a very very fast pace - I weigh 194 have been walking a minimum of 7 km a day for most of 3 months and when I push it I come in at 8 minutes per km which is 4.66 mph and that is hard to hit consistently for an hour (and I couldn't do that when I was 215 even)
So it's possible but I'd be surprised (People overestimate the distance they walk then enter a number)
I use Map My Ride/Walk/Run App - I've fine tuned it and it comes in line with about.com now but originally it was nuts (because for some reason it thought I weighed 463 lbs so i was getting 2500 calorie burns)0 -
A HRM will give you a BETTER idea.
Just as with calories eaten never being THAT precise (maybe this chicken who's breast you are eating worked out so had more muscle and less fat?), nor will HRM calorie data - it's worked out on algorithm which averaged a load of people's results, rather than telling you exactly what you burnt at that second with those weather conditions, footwear and so on.
As for not believing you can have big burns walking - taking the 400lb example - if you're a 175lb person, say - go and get a 225lb barbell and try going for a normal 'walk' while carrying that weight and see how many calories you burn!
Typically MFP does seem to be a bit over. Recently I've found it seems to be not TOO far off when compared to HRM + GPS + (if cycling) other sensor data. Presumably depends how much my body matches their model.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions