MFP exercise calorie estimator?

PrincessPoquilaPie
PrincessPoquilaPie Posts: 16 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
When I input what exercise I did, the calorie estimator seems a little off to me.
Mostly because when I walk on my treadmill for one mile and 2.5mph, the treadmill estimator says I burned about 100 calories.
MFP says I burn about 195.

And then today I spent four straight hours moving 50+ lb tubs of stuff while volunteering at a craft show.
I entered it as "moving-heavy boxes" I believe, and it says I burned 4,445 calories?
That sounds a little extreme?

I am 6'3" and 350 pounds, so the only thing I can think of is that MFP is taking my weight into consideration when calculating as my heart rate goes up further than a fit person's would, and with less work.....meaning I'd be burning more calories than a fit person?

I just don't want to be basing my calories and such off of something if it is not calculating even remotely accurately and could really use some advice on the matter. Granted I did lose 4 pounds this week based off of its calculations...I'm just not sure what to believe.

Replies

  • PrincessPoquilaPie
    PrincessPoquilaPie Posts: 16 Member
    bump?
  • markjacobs1987
    markjacobs1987 Posts: 162 Member
    I wouldn't worry too much about tracking how many calories you have burned. Just focus on your calorie goal for what you should be eating and you should be fine. That being said if you spend a large amount of time exercising (4 hours of heavy lifting with your example) you might need to bump up calories for that day to compensate so you don't crash. You can get a heart rate monitor that will tell you calories burned if you want a fairly good estimate of what you are truly burning. You lost 4 pounds though so that is great! Sounds like you are on the right track.
  • khd8n
    khd8n Posts: 16 Member
    MFP does take height & weight into consideration, but is also notorious for overestimating calorie burn which is why a lot of people recommend only eating back half your exercise calories. A heart rate monitor will give you a better idea for steady-state cardio, which might be helpful for you. Also, 4,445 calories seems insane - how heavy were those boxes??
  • shiningpotential
    shiningpotential Posts: 50
    I agree with the heart rate monitor advice. DEFINITELY get one! It'll give you a way more accurate count. From what so many people have told me, the Polar FT4 is one of the best. Mine is currently on its way to me in the mail. :)
  • JLoescher01
    JLoescher01 Posts: 48 Member
    I think they are way off on the calories burned. I got a HRM from my daughter for my birthday, and it is MUCH lower than what MFP had. And that would explain why I wasn't losing anything when eating calories back.
  • zeussmith718
    zeussmith718 Posts: 29 Member
    yeah i'd say its off.. ride a mountain bike which is quite tough for 3 hours says I burned 1900 calories.. ride the road bike which feels easier for an hour and 40 minutes and thats 1000 calories but I feel like I barely did any work and hardly broke a sweat... lifting for 75 minutes is 289 calories but I am sweating my *kitten* off the whole time... something isnt right dont eat all of your calories back is all I can say and if you are like me you will get to the point where you feel more in touch with your body and what it needs food wise. Good luck
  • JessicaBlackman
    JessicaBlackman Posts: 8 Member
    Hi, I have a fitbit One, which I LOVE, I wear it down my bra and it happily counts steps and calories all day long. It is more accurate than MFP, but not as accurate as a HRM because it has loads of other features. Can't recommend it highly enough though, and fitbit syncs with MFP so you can look at it all automatically!

Categories