How Accurate is MFP on Calories Burned?

Options
MrsJennaKwasniewski
MrsJennaKwasniewski Posts: 204 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So I go to the gym and use the bike for 30 minutes on random (ups and downs you know) and it tells me I burned 203 calories. I come here to put in my exercise and MfP says I burned 538 calories... So I don't have a HrM but I checked my HR several times and it hung around 125-135. I guess I just wanna know why so much variation between the two and if either one is even close to accurate? Or how do I find my accurate calories burned?

Sorry lots of questions. (Currently I want to lose weight so I am not eating back my exercise calories but when I start maintaining it would be nice to know the answers to these questions)

Thanks MfP people!

Replies

  • mlb929
    mlb929 Posts: 1,974 Member
    Options
    I use a Heart Rate Monitor and find they are under calorie counts for my age and fitness level. That said, I use their numbers anyway, better to underestimate than over IMO.
  • MrsHollingsworthThomas
    MrsHollingsworthThomas Posts: 164 Member
    Options
    I agree. From what i've seen, MFP has a tendency to overestimate.
    I used a HRM once or twice and it estimated I'd burn around 200 for a decent exercise of 30 minutes on elliptical.
    That same work out, MFP told me about the same as they told you. lol.. Around 500.
    I prefer to use the HRM on the machine and take an estimate from that, if you don't have a separate one.

    but, in my experience, MFP usually gives you too many (when I've compared the numbers either to the machine, HRM, or other sites that I've pulled information from).
    And I agree with the last post, that I'd rather underestimate than OVER estimate.

    also, if you have a heart rate monitor, you can plug in the numbers online and get a pretty accurate number.
    if you know you averaged around 125, that can give you an estimate.

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
  • maillemaker
    maillemaker Posts: 1,253 Member
    Options
    I'm skeptical of MFP numbers.

    When I ride the exercise bike in the gym for 30 minutes, it says I burned like 120 calories. But MFP says that 20 minutes of light bicycle riding burns like 250 calories. It feels like the gym exercise is harder (you can't coast on an exercise bike) so I am skeptical.
  • MeganAnne89
    MeganAnne89 Posts: 271 Member
    Options
    I'm skeptical as well. On the elliptical at the gym in 40 minutes because of my size I only burn 200 calories, yet MFP says that I'm burning 332. I've never thought it was an issue though because I always do strength training exercises afterwards, so I know that I'm burning the extra 132 or more that MFP thinks I am just with 40 mins of cardio.
  • hermann341
    hermann341 Posts: 443 Member
    Options
    Don't know if I'm outside the usual people here, but I ran 6 miles this morning in 57 minutes at about 9:10 minute miles (some walking at the start and finish). My HRM (Timex Global Trainer) with my height and weight entered said 1000 calories. MFP gave me 1001 for 57 minutes at 9 min/mile.
  • Jaronfisher
    Jaronfisher Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    Don't know if I'm outside the usual people here, but I ran 6 miles this morning in 57 minutes at about 9:10 minute miles (some walking at the start and finish). My HRM (Timex Global Trainer) with my height and weight entered said 1000 calories. MFP gave me 1001 for 57 minutes at 9 min/mile.

    I am in the same boat as you, my Polar reads nearly identical to or slightly higher than what my fitness pal has when I am running or using the elliptical.

Categories