Does MFP over estimate calorie loss from exercise?

keltoi93
keltoi93 Posts: 51 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So Im getting back into MFP after a while over, 189 lbs currently but hoping to get to around 170.

Anyway I ran a 5k in 32 mins yesterday and my treadmill had the loss at around 550 calories, MFP had it as over 800, which would be more accurate?

Replies

  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    So Im getting back into MFP after a while over, 189 lbs currently but hoping to get to around 170.

    Anyway I ran a 5k in 32 mins yesterday and my treadmill had the loss at around 550 calories, MFP had it as over 800, which would be more accurate?

    What entry did you pick on MFP? For things like walking and running MFP should be fairly close. 800 is quite high.

    Were you able to enter your weight in the treadmill?
  • squirrelzzrule22
    squirrelzzrule22 Posts: 640 Member
    Simple answer is yes, it does. My way of dealing with this is to log roughly half. If you prefer to be more precise than me, consider investing in a heart rate monitor to ensure you're eating back enough to support your burns.
  • ravenmiss
    ravenmiss Posts: 384 Member
    Yes. For example for a 70min zumba class it will say I've burned in excess of 1000 calories. My HRM will show around 700.
  • PJPrimrose
    PJPrimrose Posts: 916 Member
    If you eat back all of your calories and start to gain weight, cut back. If you continue to maintain/lose (whatever you're doing) keep eating them back. If you're losing too fast eat more.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Yes. For example for a 70min zumba class it will say I've burned in excess of 1000 calories. My HRM will show around 700.

    Zumba is very difficult to predict accurately because of the many variables. For things like that MFP is going to be less accurate.

    Things like walking and running are fairly well researched and much easier to predict calories.

    Great explanations on both here.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739
  • ravenmiss
    ravenmiss Posts: 384 Member
    Yes. For example for a 70min zumba class it will say I've burned in excess of 1000 calories. My HRM will show around 700.

    Zumba is very difficult to predict accurately because of the many variables. For things like that MFP is going to be less accurate.

    Things like walking and running are fairly well researched and much easier to predict calories.

    Great explanations on both here.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

    Thanks, most helpful! I always thought the walk/run burns would be high too, nice to know they're not :D
  • MelsAuntie
    MelsAuntie Posts: 2,833 Member
    Yes, by about a third in some cases.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    OP, when I used the MFP entry for a 6MPH 10 minute mile, which would be close to what you ran and your weight, I get 457, which is reasonable. Not sure which entry you used.

    I had to use 10.9 MPH, a 5.5 minute mile to get over 800.

    Double check which entry you are using.
  • wilsoje74
    wilsoje74 Posts: 1,720 Member
    I get about 290 cals running a 5k distance. I think you entered something wrong to get that high
  • keltoi93
    keltoi93 Posts: 51 Member
    So it seems that I may have messed up in calculating my losses somewhere in the conversion from KM to miles and trying to work out mph time. But it would seem most people agree with me on the overestimating!
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    OP, when I used the MFP entry for a 6MPH 10 minute mile, which would be close to what you ran and your weight, I get 457, which is reasonable. Not sure which entry you used.

    I had to use 10.9 MPH, a 5.5 minute mile to get over 800.

    Double check which entry you are using.

    ^^this^^
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    So it seems that I may have messed up in calculating my losses somewhere in the conversion from KM to miles and trying to work out mph time. But it would seem most people agree with me on the overestimating!

    Yes, a lot of people here believe that MFP overestimates. It is a commonly repeated sentiment on MFP and has become accepted. It is not entirely wrong, but it is not entirely true either. The two links I posted above explain it very well.
    For things like walking and running, it is reasonably accurate.
  • _Terrapin_
    _Terrapin_ Posts: 4,301 Member
    So it seems that I may have messed up in calculating my losses somewhere in the conversion from KM to miles and trying to work out mph time. But it would seem most people agree with me on the overestimating!

    Op I would agree you entered incorrect information; as far as accuracy and overestimating not sure I agree it is off by much. Best of luck.
  • wilsoje74
    wilsoje74 Posts: 1,720 Member
    So it seems that I may have messed up in calculating my losses somewhere in the conversion from KM to miles and trying to work out mph time. But it would seem most people agree with me on the overestimating!
    5k is about 3 miles so you could use 11 min miles.
  • wilsoje74
    wilsoje74 Posts: 1,720 Member
    I get about 290 cals running a 5k distance. I think you entered something wrong to get that high
    btw this is using MFP estimates which I've found are pretty good for running and walking.
  • raindawg
    raindawg Posts: 348 Member
    It will depend on age also. MFP and the stationary bike at the gym were always pretty close. Then I got a Polar HRM and found out I was actually burning 80 to 100 calories more in a half hour session than I was recording. I'm 47.
  • snazzyjazzy21
    snazzyjazzy21 Posts: 1,298 Member
    It will depend on age also. MFP and the stationary bike at the gym were always pretty close. Then I got a Polar HRM and found out I was actually burning 80 to 100 calories more in a half hour session than I was recording. I'm 47.

    Yeah, when I do cardio my polar usually has 50-80 more than MFP, and if I'm using a machine it's higher than that too. Now I have trust issues.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    It will depend on age also. MFP and the stationary bike at the gym were always pretty close. Then I got a Polar HRM and found out I was actually burning 80 to 100 calories more in a half hour session than I was recording. I'm 47.

    A HRM requires age as a datapoint for their formulas but age doesn't actually affect calories burned. Calories are weight x intensity. HRMs use a known relationship between HR and VO2 max to estimate calories. This is based on averages and require age, sex, weight, etc in their calculations.

    Another link to help explain.
    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-21472
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    It will depend on age also. MFP and the stationary bike at the gym were always pretty close. Then I got a Polar HRM and found out I was actually burning 80 to 100 calories more in a half hour session than I was recording. I'm 47.

    I personally never understood why age would affect calorie burn. Size, sure, because you're moving more mass, but age? Not so much.

    TL;DR - Why would the age of the machinery necessarily affect its efficiency in doing work?
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    It will depend on age also. MFP and the stationary bike at the gym were always pretty close. Then I got a Polar HRM and found out I was actually burning 80 to 100 calories more in a half hour session than I was recording. I'm 47.

    Yeah, when I do cardio my polar usually has 50-80 more than MFP, and if I'm using a machine it's higher than that too. Now I have trust issues.

    50-80 isn't a huge variance. Remember, they are ALL estimates.
  • snazzyjazzy21
    snazzyjazzy21 Posts: 1,298 Member
    It will depend on age also. MFP and the stationary bike at the gym were always pretty close. Then I got a Polar HRM and found out I was actually burning 80 to 100 calories more in a half hour session than I was recording. I'm 47.

    Yeah, when I do cardio my polar usually has 50-80 more than MFP, and if I'm using a machine it's higher than that too. Now I have trust issues.

    50-80 isn't a huge variance. Remember, they are ALL estimates.

    True, but it's enough to give credit to the idea that MFP's estimates aren't always inflated.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    It will depend on age also. MFP and the stationary bike at the gym were always pretty close. Then I got a Polar HRM and found out I was actually burning 80 to 100 calories more in a half hour session than I was recording. I'm 47.

    Yeah, when I do cardio my polar usually has 50-80 more than MFP, and if I'm using a machine it's higher than that too. Now I have trust issues.

    50-80 isn't a huge variance. Remember, they are ALL estimates.

    True, but it's enough to give credit to the idea that MFP's estimates aren't always inflated.

    For sure, I may have misread what you meant. I thought you were worried about the difference. :flowerforyou:
  • raindawg
    raindawg Posts: 348 Member
    It will depend on age also. MFP and the stationary bike at the gym were always pretty close. Then I got a Polar HRM and found out I was actually burning 80 to 100 calories more in a half hour session than I was recording. I'm 47.

    Yeah, when I do cardio my polar usually has 50-80 more than MFP, and if I'm using a machine it's higher than that too. Now I have trust issues.

    50-80 isn't a huge variance. Remember, they are ALL estimates.

    True, but it's enough to give credit to the idea that MFP's estimates aren't always inflated.

    Exactly, in my case it under counted mine. I'm not complaining because it actually helped me hit my goal because most of the time i wasn't eating back all of the MFP number. I just always heard how MFP over estimated burn and was surprised when the HRM indicated it was the opposite.

Categories