We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
How accurate is MFP on calories burned?
dee_thurman
Posts: 240 Member
MFP seems on the high side of calories burned for cardio... What do you think?
0
Replies
-
Agreed. MFP swimming = 450. FitBit swimming = 250. Big difference. I go with the lower burn, seems more accurate.0
-
About double what you should allow for to begin with
Adjust once you have 6-8 weeks accurate data0 -
Overestimating by around 30% Use a HRM for a more accurate burn.0
-
It's different for every sort of "cardio" - there is no simple formula you can apply to everything so depends on what activity you are doing.
Many of the formulas are very standard and well researched.
By the way there seems a bizarre mind-set on here that a low estimate must always be more accurate than a high estimate or a cheap HRM must be more accurate than a well known formula or an expensive gym machine that may be measuring power output.
Just be consistent and adjust based on results, it's not as complicated as people make it out to be.0 -
I play it safe by not eating over half my exercise calories0
-
It's different for every sort of "cardio" - there is no simple formula you can apply to everything so depends on what activity you are doing.
Many of the formulas are very standard and well researched.
By the way there seems a bizarre mind-set on here that a low estimate must always be more accurate than a high estimate or a cheap HRM must be more accurate than a well known formula or an expensive gym machine that may be measuring power output.
Just be consistent and adjust based on results, it's not as complicated as people make it out to be.
I think the mindset is start off low and you can adjust upwards and still see results
start off high and it's far more disappointing at the end of 8 weeks
Chest-strap decent HRMs are not that expensive (see the Polar range for instance) and, used properly, are pretty good Si0 -
It's different for every sort of "cardio" - there is no simple formula you can apply to everything so depends on what activity you are doing.
Many of the formulas are very standard and well researched.
By the way there seems a bizarre mind-set on here that a low estimate must always be more accurate than a high estimate or a cheap HRM must be more accurate than a well known formula or an expensive gym machine that may be measuring power output.
Just be consistent and adjust based on results, it's not as complicated as people make it out to be.
I think the mindset is start off low and you can adjust upwards and still see results
start off high and it's far more disappointing at the end of 8 weeks
Chest-strap decent HRMs are not that expensive (see the Polar range for instance) and, used properly, are pretty good Si
For unfit people an inexpensive HRM is virtually useless for calorie estimates and will over-estimate just as badly as the supposed inaccurate MFP database. That's even using it for appropriate exercise rather than Zumba, weights or interval training....
I used one of the cheap Polar devices (FT7) when I started losing weight and looking back its estimates were probably out by at least 20% and I was actually someone with average fitness and didn't have an excessively high exercise HR.
Far too many people don't understand the limitations - great for tracking HR, can be appallingly inaccurate for estimating calories.
People would be better advised to put their efforts into accurate food logging than worry about unobtainable and unverifiable exercise output.
0 -
It's different for every sort of "cardio" - there is no simple formula you can apply to everything so depends on what activity you are doing.
Many of the formulas are very standard and well researched.
By the way there seems a bizarre mind-set on here that a low estimate must always be more accurate than a high estimate or a cheap HRM must be more accurate than a well known formula or an expensive gym machine that may be measuring power output.
Just be consistent and adjust based on results, it's not as complicated as people make it out to be.
I think the mindset is start off low and you can adjust upwards and still see results
The mindset is more often expressed as gadget must be more accurate. How often do we see Orange Theory Fitness threads where people are religiously following the claimed expenditure and gaining?
Many people are uncritical, and most of those recommending a gadget are using an entry level device that doesn't have the data available to make a reliable assessment in most circumstances.start off high and it's far more disappointing at the end of 8 weeks
Wouldn't, in principle, disagree, but that's not how most people are applying it here.
We see lots of arcane arbitrary adjustment of the figures that involve standing on one leg under a full moon level of woo.Chest-strap decent HRMs are not that expensive (see the Polar range for instance) and, used properly, are pretty good Si
While Polar make the best available ECG based HR monitoring devices, once you're beyond entry level you need to be coupling the HR data with other data to have a meaningful assessment, and that's even on the assumption that HR is a reasonable proxy for calorie expenditure in the circumstances. As highlighted upthread, in some cases MFP is pretty accurate, in others it's not. Unfortunately where it's already accurate are the types of activities where HR is a meaningful proxy, where it's not already reasonable HR isn't a meaningful proxy. Catch 22.
0 -
I like toys and data and to be honest when I was overweight / less fit I didn't have them - they came with progression and I've found them accurate in terms of my body and my fitness / weight journey
but then I am clear to only use my HRM for steady-state and none of the other exercises I do
But yes my majority focus is on food tracking - the HRM just helps me convince my trainer that I might just die if he keeps pushing uphill cardio
0 -
See here for a good overview:
Exercise calories
Oh, and here for the sake of completeness:
Activity databases
The answer, like many things in life, is it depends...
0 -
dee_thurman wrote: »MFP seems on the high side of calories burned for cardio... What do you think?
It is 30-40% high compared to cycling web sire calculators and 25% high to my Garmin Edge set with my bike details and my personal metrics
It is useful when reduced by half.
The food logging is where it is at
If you want to focus on accuracy!
0 -
I would say MFP is most definitely on the low side. According to it an hour of weights I burn around 100 calories. Yet my polarft4 says 470.. I'm going with the latter0
-
Been using a Garmin HRM and watch lately that used the firstbeat algorithm to calculate calories off of heart rate and activity level rather than usual weight/height/age etc. Find it to be pretty close to mfp for running and other high cardiovascular activities if I wear the hrm for 15-20mins after the workout during the main afterburn as heart rate is still up and in recovery.
but am surprised to see mfp estimate walking as much higher burn though vs the hrm. So not sure about walking calories eg. 1hr with hrm states around 200cals where mfp closer to 400cals at same pace so not sure who is more accurate there. Tend to believe the hrm is the closer estimate provided it's worn correctly and user data is configured correct.0 -
erialcelyob wrote: »I would say MFP is most definitely on the low side. According to it an hour of weights I burn around 100 calories. Yet my polarft4 says 470.. I'm going with the latter
@erialcelyob
Please don't use a HRM for weights - your HR has almsot zero correlation with calorie burn in those conditions.
Ever noticed how you can get to the same HR using small weights as you can with big weights?
Remember calories are units of energy and not heart beats!0 -
erialcelyob wrote: »I would say MFP is most definitely on the low side. According to it an hour of weights I burn around 100 calories. Yet my polarft4 says 470.. I'm going with the latter
MFP is more correct.
Essentially think about how much weight you've moved around, and how far you've moved it; Not much, and not far.
If you think you've moved 160lbs about 5 miles then that's a fairly impressive weights session.0 -
Been using a Garmin HRM and watch lately that used the firstbeat algorithm to calculate calories off of heart rate and activity level rather than usual weight/height/age etc. Find it to be pretty close to mfp for running and other high cardiovascular activities if I wear the hrm for 15-20mins after the workout during the main afterburn as heart rate is still up and in recovery.
Excess Post exercise Oxygen Consumption is negligible, c 3-6% of net, and HR is not a meaningful indicator. fwiw if your HR is still elevated that much 20 minutes after a run then I'd be suggesting that a doctors appointment might be in order. Mine will be back to normal about 2-3 minutes after a long session.
fwiw Firstbeat implementation by Gamrin does consider age, weight etc. Particularly as weight is probably the biggest factor to consider. You're moving your bodymass through distance. It then uses HR to corroborate.
As a matter of interest, which model of Forerunner do you use?but am surprised to see mfp estimate walking as much higher burn though vs the hrm. So not sure about walking calories eg. 1hr with hrm states around 200cals where mfp closer to 400cals at same pace so not sure who is more accurate there. Tend to believe the hrm is the closer estimate provided it's worn correctly and user data is configured correct.
Walking shouldn't push your HR into the range where it's a meaningful proxy for calories expended.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Been using a Garmin HRM and watch lately that used the firstbeat algorithm to calculate calories off of heart rate and activity level rather than usual weight/height/age etc. Find it to be pretty close to mfp for running and other high cardiovascular activities if I wear the hrm for 15-20mins after the workout during the main afterburn as heart rate is still up and in recovery.
Excess Post exercise Oxygen Consumption is negligible, c 3-6% of net, and HR is not a meaningful indicator. fwiw if your HR is still elevated that much 20 minutes after a run then I'd be suggesting that a doctors appointment might be in order. Mine will be back to normal about 2-3 minutes after a long session.
fwiw Firstbeat implementation by Gamrin does consider age, weight etc. Particularly as weight is probably the biggest factor to consider. You're moving your bodymass through distance. It then uses HR to corroborate.
As a matter of interest, which model of Forerunner do you use?but am surprised to see mfp estimate walking as much higher burn though vs the hrm. So not sure about walking calories eg. 1hr with hrm states around 200cals where mfp closer to 400cals at same pace so not sure who is more accurate there. Tend to believe the hrm is the closer estimate provided it's worn correctly and user data is configured correct.
Walking shouldn't push your HR into the range where it's a meaningful proxy for calories expended.
Thanks. No hr drops ato least 50bpm after 2min but doesn't go back to full resting for a bit. It's not staying way up but notice the calories continue to go up presumably because hr is still higher than resting.
Good to kmow around POEC. Using forerunner 220 model.
Your right - walking even at fast pace doesn't bring the hr up much at all.
So would the mfp/Mets values be a better indicator during low cardiovascular activities? Just looking for the most accurate general baseline whether hrm, Mets, mfp etc for high and low intensity. Realize nothing is perfect.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Been using a Garmin HRM and watch lately that used the firstbeat algorithm to calculate calories off of heart rate and activity level rather than usual weight/height/age etc. Find it to be pretty close to mfp for running and other high cardiovascular activities if I wear the hrm for 15-20mins after the workout during the main afterburn as heart rate is still up and in recovery.
Excess Post exercise Oxygen Consumption is negligible, c 3-6% of net, and HR is not a meaningful indicator. fwiw if your HR is still elevated that much 20 minutes after a run then I'd be suggesting that a doctors appointment might be in order. Mine will be back to normal about 2-3 minutes after a long session.
fwiw Firstbeat implementation by Gamrin does consider age, weight etc. Particularly as weight is probably the biggest factor to consider. You're moving your bodymass through distance. It then uses HR to corroborate.
As a matter of interest, which model of Forerunner do you use?but am surprised to see mfp estimate walking as much higher burn though vs the hrm. So not sure about walking calories eg. 1hr with hrm states around 200cals where mfp closer to 400cals at same pace so not sure who is more accurate there. Tend to believe the hrm is the closer estimate provided it's worn correctly and user data is configured correct.
Walking shouldn't push your HR into the range where it's a meaningful proxy for calories expended.
Thanks. No hr drops ato least 50bpm after 2min but doesn't go back to full resting for a bit. It's not staying way up but notice the calories continue to go up presumably because hr is still higher than resting.
What burns calories in that period is any work you do, so if you finish your run and then stand still you won't burn any additional calories. Your HR reflects your bodies ability to move oxygen around, which is used in burning fuel, so if you're not burning fuel then HR isn't meaningful.Using forerunner 220 model.
The 220 is a good device, although optimised for running.So would the mfp/Mets values be a better indicator during low cardiovascular activities? Just looking for the most accurate general baseline whether hrm, Mets, mfp etc for high and low intensity. Realize nothing is perfect.
Personally I use a Vivosmart for activity tracking and a 210xt for training. At low intensities distance and mass are more meaningful, so the assumptions that the Vivosmart makes around distance per step are reasonable, although probably a little low for me as my step length is quite long.
It's just a question of recognising the benefits and disbenefits of whichever tool you're using and the way you're using it. Optimal is power metering, but that's only really mature for consumer use in the cycling world, and even then still expensive.
0 -
All apps and devices guess. What I've done is use a particular one and then logged everything I have done and everything I have eaten and weighted myself daily. I've then compared the mfp prediction of weighloss against my actual weightloss and then adjusted the calorie deficit from my favorite guesstimator by that amount :-)0
-
Actually I am quite content using it for weights and believe it to be more accurate. I do burn more with heavier weights, but thanks for the input.1
-
0
-
erialcelyob wrote: »Actually I am quite content using it for weights and believe it to be more accurate. I do burn more with heavier weights, but thanks for the input.
You believe this despite the fact that it is not designed to monitor calorie burn during weights? Yes your HR is probably higher but that doesn't directly equate to calorie burn because there's a mathematical formula underpinning it all. Basically a big old look table saying if someone is x gender, weighs y and is age z and is doing these steady-state cardio exercises (cycling, running, rowing etc) at this intensity then we can estimate this oxygen uptake which can then give us an estimate of calorie burn
The proof for you will be in judging your weight over 6-8 weeks in line with your calorie intake and estimated burn - if it works out that you meet your goals then it's all good
I know my HRM doesnt give me a good calorie estimate for the weight parts of my workouts and I have worked out over the last 18 months a decent knock-down on the read out that means my weight is in line with my expectations
we just need to use tools for what they are - big ol' estimators0 -
some times, I try to burn 1000 calories a day. depends on what your doing0
-
Yesterday a 5K run with Map My Run and VivoActive running at the same time, using HRM.
Map My Run gave me 562 calorie burn
VivoActive gave 378
Map My Run or Ride is always high. 50% to even triple on fast bike rides
It will make you gain weight if you eat back all the calories it calculates.
At least it would for me since I do a fair amount of riding in excess of 30 mile rides
Everything needs a sanity check0 -
I found it pretty close to my fitbit for things like running, hiking, walking and circuit training.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 442 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions