Be careful with MFP calorie estimates - don't work for everyone

Options
2

Replies

  • PoundChaser2
    PoundChaser2 Posts: 241 Member
    Options
    I don't trust the extra calories from my actvities and and just eat my alloted calories for weight loss ( 1200cal ). On the days that I know that I will be doing heavy workouts I eat roughly (200) more calories and just on those days. I do a weekly spin class and it gives me 465 Calories (give or take a few) can't remember the exact number. I just don't trust the number and my vivofit watch will deduct totals from my activity tracker, I still dont get this deducting stuff (oh well).
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Runngurl43 wrote: »
    I don't trust the extra calories from my actvities and and just eat my alloted calories for weight loss ( 1200cal ). On the days that I know that I will be doing heavy workouts I eat roughly (200) more calories and just on those days. I do a weekly spin class and it gives me 465 Calories (give or take a few) can't remember the exact number. I just don't trust the number and my vivofit watch will deduct totals from my activity tracker, I still dont get this deducting stuff (oh well).
    @Runngurl43
    You are going to have to estimate them when you get to maintenance so why not now?
    200 for a workout and 465 for Spinning sound entirely reasonable. You "trust" the numbers by tracking your results over time.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Options
    kisses71213 wrote: »
    That is why you always see super fit lean hard-core real life bikers, and usually overweight people on the stationary bike. Total difference!
    Thats just ridiculous.
  • callsitlikeiseeit
    callsitlikeiseeit Posts: 8,627 Member
    Options
    i think pretty much everyone knows most of MFP's calculations are seriously overestimated.

    my fat *kitten* did an hour on a stationary bike earlier this week (not a normal activity for me) and i think i came in around 300 calories, which seems accurate for the level of effort (not much, really) i was putting in.

    I prefer other activities/machines with higher calorie burns normally but i wanted to watch my show, hence the bike ;) LOLOL
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    I'm assuming you burn less on the stationary bike vs a real bike, but going at 15mph for 45 minutes, I only burn 220 calories (on the stationary bike). I see people logging 600 calories for 60 minutes and I just shake my head... it really doesn't burn as much as people think (maybe if they have a lot of resistance added, but I tried once and frankly the difference wasn't that great).

    Ofc because they might be the same action , but outdoors you have the road and elements to contend with. Thats why you would enter an estimate for outside cucling as opposed to stationary bike.

    How many calories you burn depends on your intensity and duration. Someone working v hard on the stationary bike cam burn more than someone biking outside, it just depends on the individual how long and how hard they work. All things being equal then outside biking take more calories. Same effort same time .


    You cna get 600+ on the staionary bike if you work hard enough, for long enough and weigh more. the limiting factor is the person on the bike. Some people go faster than 15mph.
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,590 Member
    Options
    I get not many calories burned on the stationary bike but I choose it as part of my workout because where I live people drive crazy and bike lanes are rare. I do weights, elliptical, walking, and also the stationary bike. You just can't depend on that for your entire workout or assume that you burn a lot on there. I burn like.... I think it's about 100 cal to the half hour on there. MFP thinks more (of course) but I pay more attention to what the bike itself estimates. Basically MFP overestimates. Therefore it makes sense to eat back only half of exercise calories.
  • enoughisenough9
    enoughisenough9 Posts: 42 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    I'm assuming you burn less on the stationary bike vs a real bike, but going at 15mph for 45 minutes, I only burn 220 calories (on the stationary bike). I see people logging 600 calories for 60 minutes and I just shake my head... it really doesn't burn as much as people think (maybe if they have a lot of resistance added, but I tried once and frankly the difference wasn't that great).


    I'm one of these people logging the minutes where it comes up with a silly number. I just wanted to point out that, for me personally, I absolutely do not take the number seriously. I don't think I burn 1200 calories from doing 60 minutes of sitting cycling on an exercise bike. I know I can change the calorie burn but I wouldn't know what to change it to as I don't have a heart rate monitor. For me it's more about the minutes of exercise done rather than the calorie burn.

  • YalithKBK
    YalithKBK Posts: 317 Member
    Options
    This is why I only log 1/2 my workout time. I walk everywhere (I don't drive) and I walk at a 4mph pace. If I walk for an hour I tell MFP I walked for 30 minutes. That way the calories burned is a LOT closer to what it is in reality and I don't have to remember to only eat back a certain portion of them.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    Its easy to look at some of the other calculators and make your own mind up, adjust based on results. Just enter an intelligent estimate. If you arent burning what you wnat then work harder and increase the resistance. Its possible to coast on any bit of cardio equipment by not being challenged or making an effort.
    Calories burned cycling or riding a bike is influenced by body weight, intensity of exercise, conditioning level and metabolism.

    Btw if the sum total of this thread is that MFP overstimates on some activities, then its well known its not accurate for everything and people can be unreliable at estimating their own effort. mot exactly news. Clue is in ESTIMATE.
  • scrittrice
    scrittrice Posts: 345 Member
    Options
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    I find MFP calorie burn estimates great for me...maybe I am "the average" they were calculated with but you have to use what works for you and everyone is different.

    Ditto for me. It's almost creepy how I lose/gain/maintain on exactly what it says. For a while I decreased the exercise calories because everyone said MFP overestimated, and I was hungry and lost too fast.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    so you are saying that MFP burn estimates are not correct? That is why everyone is only told to eat back half of exercise calories….
  • jenniferinfl
    jenniferinfl Posts: 456 Member
    Options
    MFP was underestimating for me. Sure love my heart rate monitor, worth every penny. I like losing weight AND eating. I didn't feel like exercising yesterday, so I got 1200 calories. But, I get to eat even as much as 2000 calories and still lose weight if I'm willing to commit that amount of time to exercise.
  • cgvoabc
    cgvoabc Posts: 18 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    Another vote for heart rate monitor. After buying one and using it along with Runkeeper to track my workouts my calorie burn estimates are much more consistent and realistic!
  • spdoman7
    spdoman7 Posts: 121 Member
    Options
    999tigger mentioned intensity which is the key.
    The only true way to measure work/calories burned is with a HR monitor.
    I can burn 1,000 calories in an hour, but at a HR of 145 bpm or 80% maximum HR As I get fitter and my body becomes more efficient, I either have to increase my effort or ride longer to burn calories at the same rate.
    My current Polar HR monitor only cost $69.00.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    spdoman7 wrote: »
    999tigger mentioned intensity which is the key.
    The only true way to measure work/calories burned is with a HR monitor.
    I can burn 1,000 calories in an hour, but at a HR of 145 bpm or 80% maximum HR As I get fitter and my body becomes more efficient, I either have to increase my effort or ride longer to burn calories at the same rate.
    My current Polar HR monitor only cost $69.00.

    All kinds of wrong here!
    Basic HRMs aren't that great unless used for the right activity by someone who happens to be average. A more expensive one that someone has put in the effort to calibrate properly can be quite good.

    1000 cals an hour is highly unlikely unless you are superfit.

    Your body doesn't burn less as you get fitter. As you get fitter you have the capacity to burn more not less.

    You are confusing an inaccurate measuring device with reality. Your HR has reduced because you are fitter - that doesn't mean you are burning less - it's just your HRM that can't work that out.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    spdoman7 wrote: »
    The only true way to measure work/calories burned is with a HR monitor.

    If you'd said power meter I might have some time for the assertion. An HRM is a pretty poor way to estimate calories expended in many situations.



  • sngnyrslp
    sngnyrslp Posts: 315 Member
    Options
    I've never used My Tracks but does it take into account elevation/terrain? I know that the MapMyFitness apps account for climb, and going uphill a lot obviously burns extra calories. if My Tracks doesn't take that into account, that might explain some of the difference?
  • Michael190lbs
    Michael190lbs Posts: 1,510 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    I'm assuming you burn less on the stationary bike vs a real bike, but going at 15mph for 45 minutes, I only burn 220 calories (on the stationary bike). I see people logging 600 calories for 60 minutes and I just shake my head... it really doesn't burn as much as people think (maybe if they have a lot of resistance added, but I tried once and frankly the difference wasn't that great).

    I ride 50 minutes everyday at an intense level (15 of 20)for me and I log it as 500 calories eat 2500 calories and still lose weight (275 lbs then 195 now). Hell I could burn a 100 calories just walking in place with no sweat and a hearts rate of 90 (RHR62). I average 135-150 HR through out my training maybe the people logging 500-700 calories are working harder.

    My 2 cents

    nfvnspefmmib.png

    fifsj3ztsjcg.png









  • aubiefan122013
    aubiefan122013 Posts: 21 Member
    Options
    MFP vastly overestimates my calorie burn for stationary cardio equipment (elliptical, stationary bike, etc), but seems to do a lot better with "free exercise" like running and walking. This is based on both my heart rate monitor readings and also on what I know about what the food/exercise balance it takes for me to maintain. I prefer to have RunKeeper report my exercise to the MFP app rather than logging it using MFP alone.

Categories