Accuracy of MPF Exercise Calories

Options
Kayley403
Kayley403 Posts: 7
in Getting Started
Hi everyone!

I'm relatively new to MFP and calorie counting. I was wondering how accurate the exercise calories are since I don't use any other form of calculating my calories burned.

Replies

  • TKhamvongsa
    TKhamvongsa Posts: 287
    Options
    ... It's not accurate at all but an estimate - best to get a HRM to monitor calories being burned during exercise.
  • ShantesNaturalVanity
    ShantesNaturalVanity Posts: 49 Member
    Options
    HRM?
  • MityMax96
    MityMax96 Posts: 5,778 Member
    Options
    Hi everyone!

    I'm relatively new to MFP and calorie counting. I was wondering how accurate the exercise calories are since I don't use any other form of calculating my calories burned.

    I would not rely on those numbers

    I say if you go MFP route, then eat back only half of the calories it says you burned......

    I prefer TDEE
  • MityMax96
    MityMax96 Posts: 5,778 Member
    Options
    HRM?

    Heart Rate Monitor
  • Figs318
    Figs318 Posts: 67 Member
    Options
    HRM = Heart Rate Monitor.
  • jayjohnson1320
    jayjohnson1320 Posts: 26 Member
    Options
    HRM!!!!
  • Pr1ncessWarrior
    Pr1ncessWarrior Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    HRM is heart rate monitor...also the fitbit on the wrist helps to track your steps and can help with accuracy a bit.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    It really depends on your exercise and the data you use.

    For things like walking and running, the formulas are pretty well researched and proven, as long as you have speed and time, you can get a pretty reasonable estimation.

    For things that have wider variables, like aerobics, etc, it becomes less accurate.

    A good read on the topic

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak?month=201201

    Many people suggest HRMs. They are a decent tool, but they are still estimates and not always as accurate as people say they are. The calorie estimation algorithms are based on steady state cardio, outside of that, the accuracy decreases.
    Another great post from the member for anyone considering a HRM
    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
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    Hi everyone!

    I'm relatively new to MFP and calorie counting. I was wondering how accurate the exercise calories are since I don't use any other form of calculating my calories burned.

    HRMs are designed for steady state cardio........not so accurate for types of exercise.

    Many MFP users that don't have a HRM start by logging 50-75% of their exercise calories. Then step it up if you are losing quicker than expected, or you feel run down. Decrease the % if your weight loss stalls for a time.
  • martinel2099
    martinel2099 Posts: 899 Member
    Options
    MFP is an awesome tool but take it's estimates for calories burnt with a grain of salt. I'll do an hour of elliptical with a heart rate monitor / setting on the elliptical which autoically adjusts difficulty for me and burn 800 calories. When I enter in the time MFP estimates like 1,100 calories were burnt which can't be right.

    When doing weight training I don't monitor heart rate, but I do use MFP pal's estimate but cut the time in half. If I spend 80 minutes weight training I log 40.
  • KourtneyP83
    KourtneyP83 Posts: 319
    Options
    It is way off in my opinion. It would tell me I was burning about twice as many calories as I was really burning. I got a HRM and that's when I was able to see what I was truly burning.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    It is way off in my opinion. It would tell me I was burning about twice as many calories as I was really burning. I got a HRM and that's when I was able to see what I was truly burning.

    You are assuming the HRM is the correct number.
  • CA_Underdog
    CA_Underdog Posts: 733 Member
    Options
    I'm relatively new to MFP and calorie counting. I was wondering how accurate the exercise calories are since I don't use any other form of calculating my calories burned.

    They tend to be inaccurate for exercises with many variables--e.g., for "Elliptical Trainer" they don't know your speed, how hilly the path was, or how much resistance you used. Of course the accuracy is low! For exercises with fewer variables--such as "Walking, 3mph" (on a flat surface) I found them to be spot on.

    One strategy is to eat back only a percentage of what they claim--50% or 75%.

    Another strategy is to rely on a device that is more accurate to measure your burn. The top candidate would be a heart rate monitor, but most gym machines in my comparisons have also been more accurate than MFP. (Again, for exercises with many variables such as elliptical, treadmills, or spinning.)
  • f1redshoes
    f1redshoes Posts: 79
    Options
    My HRM gives roughly the same calories for me as MFP does, so I just use MFP now and round the calories down (eg. 318 down to 300). I'm still losing weight at the rate I expect.
  • CA_Underdog
    CA_Underdog Posts: 733 Member
    Options
    You are assuming the HRM is the correct number.
    Garmin HRMs have been shown to be +/- 10% accurate, and that's without special calibration, which they offer if you need more accuracy. A cheaper HRM may have a wider error bar than Polar or Garmin.

    As you say, that accuracy's for exercises that get your heart up!
  • caseyjamshack
    caseyjamshack Posts: 2
    Options
    Whether MFP is accurate or not it has certainly helped me lose a lot of weight quickly. It is almost dead on with the five week projected weight.

    If you walk/run a lot try the Mapmyfitness app. It maps your route, tracks your speed, distance, time, and calories. The calories are based on height, weight etc.. It also auto syncs to MFP which is nice. It even has a mow lawn/push mow setting. It's cool to find out the distance you travel walking back and forth across your lawn a bunch of times.
  • Kayley403
    Kayley403 Posts: 7
    Options
    Thanks everyone!
    I find all of this somewhat confusing....I have my daily calories set to my TDEE but I rarely eat that many calories anyways. I track my cardio calories from what the machines say, which is close to MFP.
    I go to Body Pump twice a week where they say an average of 530 calories are burned per class. MFP tells me 385.
    Im reluctant to invest in a hrm because there are so many conflicting things out there...ugh!! I have lost 3lbs so far, so something must be working...
    Anyone willing to kind of take me under their wing until I can get a handle on this would be greatly appreciated!!!
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    You are assuming the HRM is the correct number.
    Garmin HRMs have been shown to be +/- 10% accurate, and that's without special calibration, which they offer if you need more accuracy. A cheaper HRM may have a wider error bar than Polar or Garmin.

    As you say, that accuracy's for exercises that get your heart up!

    Depending on the model and what method it uses. Also depends on the activity you are doing.
    http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html
  • CA_Underdog
    CA_Underdog Posts: 733 Member
    Options
    Depending on the model and what method it uses. Also depends on the activity you are doing.
    http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html
    That's the source I used, too, as well as one of my favorite sites. :)
    Im reluctant to invest in a hrm because there are so many conflicting things out there...ugh!!
    3dogsrunning and I are pulling data from the same source--we're pointing out a HRM's strengths and weaknesses. Most seeming contradictions can be cleared up by going directly to that link and reading. DCRainMaker does indeed use a HRM, so it's a great tool, albeit not a perfect one.
    I go to Body Pump twice a week where they say an average of 530 calories are burned per class. MFP tells me 385.
    I would discard their "530 calories" because (a) they are trying to sell their class and (b) of course these numbers depend on an individual's height, weight, gender, age, and fitness level. I suspect MyFitnessPal would be more accurate. However, MyFitnessPal doesn't know how *hard* or *easy* this class was or how much you pushed yourself. A good heart rate monitor should provide the best possible estimate.

    Is it important to know whether you burned 385 +/- 200 calories or 485 +/- 50 calories? If this is a one-off class, probably not, but if it's something you do multiple times a week I'd bring a HRM along.

Categories