Calorie Burn Overestimation...?

Options
2

Replies

  • sh0ck
    sh0ck Posts: 168 Member
    Options
    A lot of what factors in to how many calories you burn is based on how much you weigh.

    I always just pay attention to what the machine tells me and then input that for my exercise. If I don't have a machine to tell me how many calories I burned then I usually do my best to underestimate the time that I spent doing an activity to account for the over-estimation on a lot of the MFP entries.
  • Ely82010
    Ely82010 Posts: 1,998 Member
    Options
    I always used and use the MFP database to calculate calories burned and it worked for me. Sometimes this database gives me lower numbers than the machines at the gym, so I take the machine's numbers.

    Maybe for hardcore runners and people that use high intensity DVD workouts, the HRM is a better solution.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    I always used and use the MFP database to calculate calories burned and it worked for me. Sometimes this database gives me lower numbers than the machines at the gym, so I take the machine's numbers.

    Maybe for hardcore runners and people that use high intensity DVD workouts, the HRM is a better solution.

    If you don't have a HRM, I would suggest going with the lowest number that way you don't overeat by eating back more calories than you burned.
  • zoom2
    zoom2 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    A lot of what factors in to how many calories you burn is based on how much you weigh.

    I always just pay attention to what the machine tells me and then input that for my exercise. If I don't have a machine to tell me how many calories I burned then I usually do my best to underestimate the time that I spent doing an activity to account for the over-estimation on a lot of the MFP entries.

    I thought MFP did base the calorie burn estimates on individual users' current weights...or am I wrong on this?
  • tabbychiro
    tabbychiro Posts: 223 Member
    Options
    Perhaps I should start using the HRM that came with my Garmin (I have the 305 for the wireless capabilities with the cadence/speed/distance sensor device for my bike, not for the HRM device). I've been loathe to even try it, since most other "well endowed" gals I know have said that it's not comfortable under their sports-bra band and chafes like mad.

    I don't think the 305 uses HR for calories burned. It goes by speed & distance. But I think there are ways to figure calories burned from using HR. I just don't know how.

    I have never had a problem with the strap bothering me, most of the time I'm not even aware of it.

    eta: I got a New Leaf profile uploaded into my Garmin so that it would use HR to calculate calorie burn.
  • sh0ck
    sh0ck Posts: 168 Member
    Options
    A lot of what factors in to how many calories you burn is based on how much you weigh.

    I always just pay attention to what the machine tells me and then input that for my exercise. If I don't have a machine to tell me how many calories I burned then I usually do my best to underestimate the time that I spent doing an activity to account for the over-estimation on a lot of the MFP entries.

    I thought MFP did base the calorie burn estimates on individual users' current weights...or am I wrong on this?


    Hmmm. That may be the case. I was under the impression that it was based on something similar to what the food database is where it gets a lot of the information from user entry but I could be wrong. I haven't seen anything about it anywhere.
  • zoom2
    zoom2 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    eta: I got a New Leaf profile uploaded into my Garmin so that it would use HR to calculate calorie burn.

    Ahhh...where did you find this?
  • fasttrack27
    fasttrack27 Posts: 324
    Options
    A lot of what factors in to how many calories you burn is based on how much you weigh.

    I always just pay attention to what the machine tells me and then input that for my exercise. If I don't have a machine to tell me how many calories I burned then I usually do my best to underestimate the time that I spent doing an activity to account for the over-estimation on a lot of the MFP entries.

    I thought MFP did base the calorie burn estimates on individual users' current weights...or am I wrong on this?

    I added an excercise called "spin,core,stretch" since its a routine I do 3x/week (I do weights two other days) and I got tired of inputting them seperately each time. I found that it shows up in the database and calculates based on the minutes input by the cal's I used when I first created it. So, it appears that if anyone else used this item then it would be calculated based on MY workout (not by any other formula per individual). Makes me think all the others in the system may be the same way - hence the wide array of answers you are getting. Getting a HRM is probably the only real solution.


    Hmmm. That may be the case. I was under the impression that it was based on something similar to what the food database is where it gets a lot of the information from user entry but I could be wrong. I haven't seen anything about it anywhere.
  • fasttrack27
    fasttrack27 Posts: 324
    Options
    Oops, my reply above got goofed up formatting - sorry. My response is 'in there somewhere' - towards the bottom.
  • zoom2
    zoom2 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    Ahhh...Marc, that really sheds new light on things. So what I am inputting as a 90 minute workout could be showing the calorie burn for someone 50% heavier than I who entered the workout at some point. Oh, that would make a huge difference!
  • epj78
    epj78 Posts: 643 Member
    Options
    It depends on the exercise whether its low or high for me. For example, walking it is way high - because walking just doesn't get my heart rate up. But for running, it's way low. So the HRM is the only way to go for me. I think if you log anything that doesn't make you sweat, you are going to get poor calorie count.

    All-in-all, I think we go with our best guesses because nothing is perfect and adjust from there.
  • otr12
    otr12 Posts: 632 Member
    Options
    According to my Polar HRM, MFP is low FOR ME in caloric burns.

    Edit: Just to prove erickirb's point.

    Me too. I have the Polar FT7 and it gives me higher calories than MFP. But the more times I do exactly the same thing with my Polar, the less calories it says I'm burning. So I put in my Polar numbers since it seems to know that I'm getting in better shape and the workouts are getting easier for me.
    Don't know if that's right but it makes sense to me.
  • chrisyoung0422
    chrisyoung0422 Posts: 426 Member
    Options
    I always have to throttle the amount of calories burned on MFP. It seems to always give me more than I burn per the eliptical or treatmill. I use the heart rate monitors on the machines because I feel they are more accurate. I ran say 43 min @ an average speed of 8.5-9.5 with a resistance of 12-13 and MFP gives me 600+ calories burned easy when the machine says mid to high 400's. If the difference was 20-30 cal I would not care but this is a lot.

    What gives?

    I just got a forerunner 405 with the band and it barely fits my chest (barrel chested FTL!) so I am hoping that will give me a more accurate reading.
  • zoom2
    zoom2 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    All-in-all, I think we go with our best guesses because nothing is perfect and adjust from there.

    Methinks this is the real key, here. Our instincts are probably closer to reality than anything. I think I'm simply going to make sure that I have a 100-200 allotted calorie remainder every day for awhile and adjust from there.
  • Septembergirl23
    Septembergirl23 Posts: 106 Member
    Options
    According to my Polar HRM, MFP is low FOR ME in caloric burns.

    Edit: Just to prove erickirb's point.

    I completely agree! My HRM is in general more than what MFP states. MFP is a general "guesstimation" from what I have seen so far. Dancing is a great example. MFP says 300 calories power but my HRM is never less than 400 because I put my whole body into the workout.
  • Mahlissa
    Mahlissa Posts: 128
    Options
    I agree, the more fit you are the more efficient you will be at burning calories. I know I burn less calories running for an hour than someone who just started.

    I never use the calories MFP shows. Sometimes it's pretty close, other times it's way off.

    Like all the information this topic is generating. Great post.
  • jrusso28
    jrusso28 Posts: 249 Member
    Options
    I have found that MFP has been more accurate than my machines (treadmill/stationary bike).
    Ever since I have gotten my HRM I have been checking and I burn more calories than my machine and MFP are listing.
  • Onesnap
    Onesnap Posts: 2,819 Member
    Options
    Look online. For example I wanted to find out what I burned with a power yoga DVD so I could log it. I looked online and added it to MFP. My workouts and calories burned are based on me and my weight, gender etc.

    I would never suggest following what the cardio machine says. It's getting your heart rate from your hands and you need an HRM to get an actual heart rate that is real. Ignore what the machine says and look online to find out what is real for you. Log it and you'll always have those workouts in your MFP list!
  • jessecates
    jessecates Posts: 5
    Options
    Are you sure you aren't overestimating how fast you run? (for example)

    Nope, I run and bike with a Garmin Forerunner and the speed/pace it shows is reasonably accurate.

    Agree. My Garmin Forerunner and the MFP calorie estimates for running give almost identical numbers everytime (difference of about 10 calories).
  • tabbychiro
    tabbychiro Posts: 223 Member
    Options
    eta: I got a New Leaf profile uploaded into my Garmin so that it would use HR to calculate calorie burn.

    Ahhh...where did you find this?
    Just one of the many services that the gym (Life Time Fitness) tries to sell.
    It was about $100 for the test itself plus another $40 for the mask, which I got to keep and can use again should I ever want to do the test again. I don't think you have to be a member to do the test.

    eta: New Leaf website http://www.newleaffitness.com/

Categories