MFP caloric burns...always overestimated?

mom2ava07
mom2ava07 Posts: 186 Member
edited November 12 in Health and Weight Loss
Every day I see numerous mentions of something along the lines of "MFP overestimate calories burned during exercise." My question is why does everyone say that?

For example, I typically do 60 minutes on the treadmill at 4 mph and 4 percent incline. MFP typically says I burn approx 375 calories for that. Yet if I enter my stats (gender, height, weight, the length of time, incline, and speed) I get closer to 475 calories by those estimates. So to me it seems that either MFP either underestimates or is pretty spot on. Why is the assumption made its usually very off? I don't think 375 seems exessive for an hours worth of very brisk pace walking. According to the machine, I'm burning around 800 calories, so I could see that being WAY off. I'm not disputing the overestimatuon, simply wanting clairification on what is the most accurate. I don't have a Fitbit amd I really don't know that I would trust their accuracy either.
«1

Replies

  • 4legsRbetterthan2
    4legsRbetterthan2 Posts: 19,590 MFP Moderator
    best way to estimate cardio burns is a heart rate monitor

    I have found my fitbit and runkeeper app to be pretty in sync with a HRM for outdoor activity, not so much on the treadmill since they can't track "elevation" changes that way

    MFP is not necessarily alway overestimated, but the entries are pretty generic for alot of exercises
  • joneallen
    joneallen Posts: 217 Member
    I wear a Polar heart rate monitor, and it's MUCH different than the number MFP spits out for me.

    Accuracy is the key.
  • mom2ava07
    mom2ava07 Posts: 186 Member
    edited February 2015
    I'm only eating back very few (as in 150 or less most days) so I think I'm ok, but just found it confusing since all the online calculators seem to give a higher number than MFP.
  • DsAdvocate
    DsAdvocate Posts: 93 Member
    For me, compared to my heart rate monitor thing MFP is quite a bit off for jogging and horseback riding. MFP gives me 2-300 fewer calories than my watch says I've burned.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    My experience is that MFP gives a number in the ballpark of what a heart rate monitor gives me. I think people prefer to say that MFP is wrong over saying that even after spending so much time weighing their food that they are overestimating their calorie intake.
  • mom2ava07
    mom2ava07 Posts: 186 Member
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    My experience is that MFP gives a number in the ballpark of what a heart rate monitor gives me. I think people prefer to say that MFP is wrong over saying that even after spending so much time weighing their food that they are overestimating their calorie intake.


    Sounds like a plausible theory.
  • mindidily
    mindidily Posts: 196 Member
    I used to only use MFP to log my runs. I later started using a GPS watch without a HRM and now use a GPS watch with the chest strap. When I log my time and average pace, all three have typically been within 75-80 calories of each other. To me, that isn't a big over/under estimate.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    It's pretty close for me, for the activities that I do.
  • obscuremusicreference
    obscuremusicreference Posts: 1,320 Member
    I eat less than half of my exercise calories and am losing at a faster rate than MFP suggests I should be, so I suspect in my case they're close to accurate. (MFP says I should lose 1.3 pounds/week, I have lost 9 pounds since January 1)
  • NikonPal
    NikonPal Posts: 1,346 Member
    MFP has been pretty darn close in calculating my burn. For example - today the difference between MFP and the number on the treadmill I use - there was only a 1 calorie difference.

    73641431.png
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    I find it to be spot on for me. The best thing to do is follow your plan for 4 weeks and adjust if needed based on your results.
  • JessicaP327
    JessicaP327 Posts: 64 Member
    MFP numbers have NEVER been accurate for me. The only way I know what is going on is with a reliable heart rate monitor. I have the Polar FT4. I was against the chest strap but I had a few friends with it and spoke highly of it. I will never exercise without it again.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Yes, a lot of people claim that. A lot of people also claim HRMs are more accurate, but they are simply assuming it is. HRMs have limited use and they are just like anything else, based on averages.

    Here is a good blog that may help answer your question -
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak?month=201201

    For certain exercises, it can be fairly accurate. Bascially, the more specific it is, the more accurate it will likely be. Things like walking are fairly reliable as long as you have time and distance.

    Also useful blog regarding HRMs
    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

    As for me, for a long time I used only MFP entries and lost weight accordingly.
  • mudmonkeyonwheels
    mudmonkeyonwheels Posts: 426 Member
    I often wonder if the 'overestimate' comes from people not estimating their intensity correctly. For example, I see quite a few people log a very brisk walk. Even when I am walking as fast as I possibly can, then enter my walk in map my ride to calculate speed I am only at a moderate walking speed according to MFP. The same goes for people estimating their running or cycling speed. Although you may feel you are working really hard it doesn't always equate to calories burned. Heart rate monitors are the way to go but I find that mine gives me very similar estimate to MFP for mountain biking and spin class.
  • Khukhullatus
    Khukhullatus Posts: 361 Member
    The calorie information on the machines are horrible too, even if they have all of your relevant stats, they tend to overestimate; sometimes by hundreds of calories. If you want something that is more accurate, a heart rate monitor is going to be your best bet.

    Every time I've used my heart rate monitor MFP has been over by, in some cases, double. It's cool for some basic tracking of exercise, but if you are going to be eating back the calories, or relying on the data for some other reason, get the heart rate monitor.
  • 970Mikaela1
    970Mikaela1 Posts: 2,013 Member
    Works for me.
  • MlleKelly
    MlleKelly Posts: 356 Member
    I would say just don't enter your exercise into MFP and keep your consumed calories as close as possible to your goal.
  • mom2ava07
    mom2ava07 Posts: 186 Member
    MlleKelly wrote: »
    I would say just don't enter your exercise into MFP and keep your consumed calories as close as possible to your goal.


    That is basically what I'm doing, but gets hard to stay on track though with 1200 calories. Today I've eaten 1245, and will do an hour on the treadmill which MFP will give me approx 345 for . Even if it's overestimated, I wouldn't be eating back many at all.
  • techgal128
    techgal128 Posts: 719 Member
    I have a similar device to a fitbit and I find that it overestimates with cardio and underestimates with weight training.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »
    The calorie information on the machines are horrible too, even if they have all of your relevant stats, they tend to overestimate; sometimes by hundreds of calories. If you want something that is more accurate, a heart rate monitor is going to be your best bet.

    Every time I've used my heart rate monitor MFP has been over by, in some cases, double. It's cool for some basic tracking of exercise, but if you are going to be eating back the calories, or relying on the data for some other reason, get the heart rate monitor.

    Again, you are assuming the HRM is the correct information. In some cases it may be, but that it is not necessarily.
  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Everything is an estimate.

    That being said, if you rode a bike for 30 minutes at light intensity but you search and use moderate or vigorous because you think "oh I was going really fast on level 1!" then obviously it will be incorrect.

    And personally, I think thajt's one of the reasons people find that it's an overestimation. The few months I did net method I used an estimated net maintenance number from a TDEE calculator that I trust for myself (health-calc) and was given a number higher than that provided by MFP. I also ate back all of my calories. I lost more than expected. I lost a bit slower when I subsequently found weight lifting calorie info for vigorous effort and started using that for most of my lifting days, which was an over-estimation, because in hindsight I wasn't dofing it vigorously. Moderate for sure, yes. Not vigorous.
  • OrangeBabelfish
    OrangeBabelfish Posts: 67 Member
    Everyone raves about HRM but then I have tachycardia so an HRM would majorly overestimate my burn! Swings and roundabouts.

    The machine always overestimates. MFP may or may not. I know what I need to net out on in order to lose, and that is what I use.
  • pinkteapot3
    pinkteapot3 Posts: 157 Member
    edited February 2015
    I do cycling and running and find the calories pretty accurate for me. I eat them all back and am losing at the rate I aimed for. However, I weigh absolutely everything and log food accurately.

    I don't record the more 'lifestyle' things. If I walk to the shops during my lunch hour I don't log that as any walking. If I do a bit of weeding I don't log 'gardening' as for those sort of things I find it overstated. I only log what feels like "proper" exercise! I think the effort you can put into something like gardening is too variable.
  • atypicalsmith
    atypicalsmith Posts: 2,742 Member
    I just go with the flow. I'm losing weight by logging on here, and that's what counts. Complainers, stop blaming MFP. If you are gaining weight, it's your fault for eating more calories than you are burning.
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    mom2ava07 wrote: »
    MlleKelly wrote: »
    I would say just don't enter your exercise into MFP and keep your consumed calories as close as possible to your goal.


    That is basically what I'm doing, but gets hard to stay on track though with 1200 calories. Today I've eaten 1245, and will do an hour on the treadmill which MFP will give me approx 345 for . Even if it's overestimated, I wouldn't be eating back many at all.

    If you're accurately logging (with food scale) then that's not going to be that much food. With a calorie goal that low you should at least be eating back some of them.
  • hanajbanana
    hanajbanana Posts: 30 Member
    I've just treated myself to a new HRM (Polar FT4) and was surprised to find the calorie burn was about the same as MFP gives for cardio (a long walk and a BodyCombat class) when I had assumed MFP was being too generous. TBH both are always going to be estimates, and I don't normally eat back exercise calories, it's just good to have something logged that I feel is pretty fair for motivation :-)
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    I use the shape sense heart rate (I do the net calculation) to get a figure for the recumbent bike at the gym. I think MFP is way over on that. Their walking calculations are too spread out to be specific enough for all the variables for a treadmill, and the treadmills in my gym are fairly in sync with the shape sense calculators, so I just use what I get from the treadmill. As far as for what I get when strength training? I log what MFP gives me, but I never eat it back.

    So for me? The MFP calculators aren't any help.
  • SuggaD
    SuggaD Posts: 1,369 Member
    MFP is pretty close for me, sometimes underestimates as it doesn't account for elevation.
  • MamaRiss
    MamaRiss Posts: 481 Member
    Typically MFP underestimates for me, compared to what my HRM estimates. I've almost always eaten back 100% of calories MFP gives me, and when I was actually being good and following the plan every day lost at a faster rate than MFP forecasted. Even now, not following the plan perfectly I've maintained instead of gained. So I tend to believe my HRM more than MFP
  • joepage612
    joepage612 Posts: 179 Member
    People are saying that because MFP data conflicts with another source such as my eliptical trainers onboard computer with palm touch heart rate monitor. MY machine says i get 180 calories burned for 30 minutes. MFP says 395.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories