Exercise Calories on MFP

sissy60504
sissy60504 Posts: 21 Member
edited November 16 in Food and Nutrition
So I just started logging my food intake, and exercise. I am really trying to be consistent. My question is do you use the number of calories MFP recommends for your exercise routine, meaning do you feel they are accurate? If so, do you ensure you consume those calories as well as your recommended intake?

I'm struggling with the numbers as it doesn't seem accurate to me that I burn 792 in a 45 boot camp class, and yet when I put circuit training, that is what MFP recommends.

Replies

  • sofaking6
    sofaking6 Posts: 4,589 Member
    I generally give myself 5 cals/min. That may be a bit of an underestimation but probably not much, and better under than over because I most certainly do add those to my daily allowance. I think of it as standing still would be 0 cal/min and full-on running would be 10 cals/min and given that I tend to do interval type training where my HR goes up and down, I feel like right in the middle is a good spot.

    Unless you're 6'11" and 385 lb, do not use the MFP estimates :)
  • sissy60504
    sissy60504 Posts: 21 Member
    Far from 6'11" :smiley: More like 5'0" on a good day LOL
  • BicepsAndBows
    BicepsAndBows Posts: 197 Member
    MFP definitely way overestimates what you would burn. I would recommend a heart-rate monitor device that you wear if you really want accurate numbers, or if you use MFP to enter your calorie burn, only eat back about 50-75% of the calories you burned.
  • Michael190lbs
    Michael190lbs Posts: 1,510 Member
    I use about 50%
  • barbecuesauce
    barbecuesauce Posts: 1,771 Member
    edited April 2015
    I put in everything as "walking-3.0 mph" and eat most/all of those calories. (I did do the 50% thing for a while, but found it easier to look at my calories and know I have 300 left, not 150.)
  • Omaoffive
    Omaoffive Posts: 15 Member
    Yeah, tooI noticed that the calorie burns are suspiciously high - I'm always hungry so I've been eating too many of those calories back and didn't even lose a whole pound this week. Will have to be more careful now.
  • j75j75
    j75j75 Posts: 854 Member
    I only put in about 50% (Sometimes less) of my actual exercise. Still need to get a HR monitor.
  • sissy60504
    sissy60504 Posts: 21 Member
    Agreed, I definitely need a heart rate monitor so I can accurately track. I have just been using the similar method of sofaking6 and changing the calories based on 5-7 calories per minute, and tracking the exercise with modified numbers because I find it easier to just look at MFP to see how many calories I have left. Thanks for all the input.
  • jangus9416
    jangus9416 Posts: 69 Member
    I use a heart rate monitor in school for a lot of testing, and they really aren't very accurate either. I'd probably stick to 50% rule and see how it feels
  • ASKyle
    ASKyle Posts: 1,475 Member
    I eventually quit logging exercise at all.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    ASKyle wrote: »
    I eventually quit logging exercise at all.

    Yeah - cause zero is closer

    OP - start at a percentage and increase or decrease depending upon how your weigh ins go. It's worth figuring out. MFP gives you calories back so your body loses more fat and less lean muscle.
  • ASKyle
    ASKyle Posts: 1,475 Member
    TeaBea wrote: »
    ASKyle wrote: »
    I eventually quit logging exercise at all.

    Yeah - cause zero is closer

    OP - start at a percentage and increase or decrease depending upon how your weigh ins go. It's worth figuring out. MFP gives you calories back so your body loses more fat and less lean muscle.

    Technically, as a 5'1" woman, zero is closer than 700 for some of the circuit training I do. Also, if your goal is to LOSE WEIGHT, zero is "closer" as you're eating less calories, vs over eating because you think you've "burned" twice as much.
  • avskk
    avskk Posts: 1,787 Member
    I cut the number of calories MFP gives me by about a third when I log it, then try to only eat back two-thirds of that (if I eat back any at all). As an example, today I did 45 minutes on the stationary bike at a good 11.5-14MPH clip (progressive intervals). MFP wanted to give me 491 calories; I changed that to 350 calories when I logged and I'll only eat back 250-300 of those if I'm hungry enough to warrant an eat-back.

    I guess it's kind of convoluted and I freely admit I arrived at this system through forum-reading and guesswork, but it's working all right, so... whatever?
  • lipss2die4
    lipss2die4 Posts: 6 Member
    I was just asking this same question! I'm glad I stumbled onto this, when I plug in my amount of time and activity on MFP, it differs greatly from the calories burned on my ellipitical!! Both get the same info entered , weight , activity and amount of time doing said activity. I figured MFP was more of an estimate than actual calories burned...
  • Phrick
    Phrick Posts: 2,765 Member
    edited April 2015
    barbecuesauce wrote: »
    I put in everything as "walking-3.0 mph" and eat most/all of those calories. (I did do the 50% thing for a while, but found it easier to look at my calories and know I have 300 left, not 150.)

    you can manually change the # of calories it says you burned, you know. So if you want an accurate accounting of what you did, enter it but adjust the calories before you add it to your diary. Then you are able to look at your calories and know that what it says you have left is accurate.

    ETA: For example when I run I wear a heart rate monitor, and I enter it in MFP as whatever MPH for however many minutes, but I input the calorie burn my HRM tells me, not what MFP spits out.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    sissy60504 wrote: »
    Agreed, I definitely need a heart rate monitor so I can accurately track.

    HRM won't track accurately for something like Boot Camp - it will over-estimate. And the worse shape you're in, the more it will over-estimate.

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited April 2015
    .
  • katesoats
    katesoats Posts: 7 Member
    I use my HRM to be a little more accurate than MFP and log it just to feel good about the work done and get a round about idea of what is happening but I don't usually eat those calories back.
  • FoxyLifter
    FoxyLifter Posts: 965 Member
    Like everyone else said, MFP definitely overestimates. I only log about half of the minutes for stuff like general walking or gardening (only do that a few times a year when I weed and plant new stuff). When I had a HRM, I logged about 80% of what the HRM said I burned. This seemed to work well for me.
  • opalsqueak007
    opalsqueak007 Posts: 433 Member
    I believe it overestimates. For example, for heavy vigourous cleaning MFP states 190 cals per hour. I do this for a job, and I don't believe it uses that amount of calories. When I counted even some of that work as exercise, I lost no weight at all. I don't count anything except strength training, as that is something new in my life that I never did when I was obese.
  • opalsqueak007
    opalsqueak007 Posts: 433 Member
    I believe it overestimates. For example, for "heavy vigorous cleaning" MFP states 190 cals per hour. I do this for a job, and it is very hard, heavy work, and I don't believe it uses that amount of calories. When I counted even some of that work as exercise and ate the calories back, I lost no weight at all. I don't count anything except strength training, as that is something new in my life that I never did when I was obese. I have lost 50lb since I stopped eating calories back.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories