MFP caloric burns...always overestimated?

2»

Replies

  • crazykatlady_
    crazykatlady_ Posts: 46 Member
    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.
  • Paul_Collyer
    Paul_Collyer Posts: 160 Member
    edited February 2015
    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?
  • IAmDrDirt
    IAmDrDirt Posts: 2 Member
    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.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    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.
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    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?
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    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.

  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Merkavar 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.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    mom2ava07 wrote: »
    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.
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    Merkavar 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.
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    Merkavar wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    Merkavar 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

This discussion has been closed.

Categories