MFP caloric burns...always overestimated?
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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 :-)0
-
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.0 -
MFP is pretty close for me, sometimes underestimates as it doesn't account for elevation.0
-
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 MFP0
-
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 395.0
-
The difference I get between the elliptical machine and MFP estimates are staggering. If I spend 30-45 minutes mfp gives me a burn close to 700-800. I'm obese, but that just seems crazy high. The machine itself says 300-400 for the same amount of time. Which could also be wrong for all I know, but I log that lower number.0
-
My experience is that the walking ones are way high, as are stuff like "stretching", but running not too bad. Also squash was always overestimated when I compared it to using a HRM.
That said, I used these for my first 6 months on MFP and still lost loads on a modest deficit....so perhaps its not enough to matter?0 -
MFP or MapMyRide consistently estimate my calories burned during a bike ride by 200% to 350%.
For example, I rode 41 minutes today, 16-20 mph, and MFP imported from MapMyRide that I burned 632 calories; MyTracks estimated my calories as 186. Both apps use the GPS in my smartphone, track the same distance, same time, and same speed.
Another day I rode 21 miles in 98 minutes, averaging 12.9 mph. MFP estimates my calorie consumption at 955, while My Tracks reports 403.
Another day I rode 21 miles in 120 minutes, averaging 10.5 mph. MFP estimates my calorie consumption at 877, while My Tracks reports 420.
My goal is to maintain my weight. If I eat according to MFP, I gain weight. If I eat according to My Tracks, I maintain.0 -
I used a new HRM today for a bicycle ride. According to it, I burned 1600 calories in an hour and fifteen minutes. MFP reports about 600 less than that. It could be that I don't have the HRM configured right, but for now, I don't trust it.0
-
Does it not depend on how average you are?
Maybe you have very long legs for your height so walking is more or less of a burn for example.
Since mfp and calculators would be based on averages and who is actually average?
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I used a new HRM today for a bicycle ride. According to it, I burned 1600 calories in an hour and fifteen minutes. MFP reports about 600 less than that. It could be that I don't have the HRM configured right, but for now, I don't trust it.
I would trust the hrm over mfp.
The hrm has more information like your heart rate.
The exercise in the mfp is like bicycle 23mph or something isn't it? No mention of hills or being in the wrong gear or carrying a large water bottle etc.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I used a new HRM today for a bicycle ride. According to it, I burned 1600 calories in an hour and fifteen minutes. MFP reports about 600 less than that. It could be that I don't have the HRM configured right, but for now, I don't trust it.
I would trust the hrm over mfp.
The hrm has more information like your heart rate.
The exercise in the mfp is like bicycle 23mph or something isn't it? No mention of hills or being in the wrong gear or carrying a large water bottle etc.
I suspect they actually use the same calculation if you get the max heart rate set right. The HRM just uses percentage of max heart rate to determine intensity instead of MPH. In any case, 1600 calories is so far off it is funny.0 -
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.
I always found both MFP and the machines to be over estimated, which is why I bought a heart rate monitor early on in my weight loss journey. I've lost 44 pounds and have been maintaining for over a year, so I trust my output from my heart rate monitor.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I used a new HRM today for a bicycle ride. According to it, I burned 1600 calories in an hour and fifteen minutes. MFP reports about 600 less than that. It could be that I don't have the HRM configured right, but for now, I don't trust it.
I would trust the hrm over mfp.
The hrm has more information like your heart rate.
The exercise in the mfp is like bicycle 23mph or something isn't it? No mention of hills or being in the wrong gear or carrying a large water bottle etc.
I suspect they actually use the same calculation if you get the max heart rate set right. The HRM just uses percentage of max heart rate to determine intensity instead of MPH. In any case, 1600 calories is so far off it is funny.
Is 1600 too much? I guess it depends on a lot of factor that I don't know like your height and weight etc.
But for me I burn like 200 calories just walking for 20mins at 6km/h soil I was riding a bike for 1hour of more at 12-20 km/h I would expect to see 1200-1600 call burned.
But that's just an estimate since I haven't ridden a bike in years. And never with a heart rate monitor.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I used a new HRM today for a bicycle ride. According to it, I burned 1600 calories in an hour and fifteen minutes. MFP reports about 600 less than that. It could be that I don't have the HRM configured right, but for now, I don't trust it.
I would trust the hrm over mfp.
The hrm has more information like your heart rate.
The exercise in the mfp is like bicycle 23mph or something isn't it? No mention of hills or being in the wrong gear or carrying a large water bottle etc.
I suspect they actually use the same calculation if you get the max heart rate set right. The HRM just uses percentage of max heart rate to determine intensity instead of MPH. In any case, 1600 calories is so far off it is funny.
Is 1600 too much? I guess it depends on a lot of factor that I don't know like your height and weight etc.
But for me I burn like 200 calories just walking for 20mins at 6km/h soil I was riding a bike for 1hour of more at 12-20 km/h I would expect to see 1200-1600 call burned.
But that's just an estimate since I haven't ridden a bike in years. And never with a heart rate monitor.
Real smart merk... Cause a bike going 2-3 times faster means your doing 2-3 times as much work, it has nothing to do with gears of different sizes etc
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 945 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions