I have a question about the accuracy of the "calories burned

Options
2»

Replies

  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    Options
    I don't think MFP burn calories account for age & weight.
    Do they? (they've got our info, but my guess is that'd be some pretty challenging programming work.)

    MFP does take your weight into account. I burn less calories doing the same thing now as I did 20-some pounds ago. And you can see for yourself if you look at the database, what the burns will be at various weights.

    I don't have a HRM, other than the one that's part of my EA Active Sports "game," but I go by either the gym machines (when I enter my weight), MFP estimates, or runkeeper estimates and have had pretty good success with my weight loss.

    It depends on how precise the exercise is. Walking, cycling or running is broken down by your speed. Elliptical or stair climber is vague. I can haul *kitten* on those things, or take it easy. And I typically burn a higher amount via the machines than by MFP estimates. In that case, I go by the machine, since it has my resistance and incline factored in.
  • happyfeet262
    happyfeet262 Posts: 7
    Options
    I'm new to MFP. I'm in my 4th week. Orginally, the MFP plan said if I would reach my goal in 5 wks. While I have lost some weight, I will not meet my goal next week, but I have been at, or under my calories almost every day. I think I have stabilized and will have to eat fewer calories, or more exercise to meet my goal.

    I'm thinking that MFP is overestimating the calories I burn during cardio. (note: I am an avid exerciser, so my body may have become more efficient than the typical exerciser) This week I started reducing the calories listed for cardio. I think I will have to reduce the calories gained through exercise, and eat within those new limits to achieve my goal. I may take the IronLadies tip and cut the cardio calories in half. I HATE having to do that, but I am determined to meet my goal.
  • ShannonMpls
    ShannonMpls Posts: 1,936 Member
    Options
    I think the site must be very generous. I use a Polar HRM and the calories are always much lower that what the site offers. I use the HRM value.

    This. For example, for my cardio today (55 minutes on the elliptical, medium to high intensity), MFP would have given me over 1,000 calories burned. The machine (with weight/age entered) gave almost 700. My Polar FT60? 452.

    I typically do eat back at least some of my exercise calories and I think it would hinder me if I were eating back 1,000 calories when I believe my HRM to be most accurate.
  • auntiebabs
    auntiebabs Posts: 1,754 Member
    Options
    I've heard both that the burn calories are way too high and way too low.

    The machines at the gym make me input my weight and age and usually come out much lower than MFP. So use those numbers.

    I don't think MFP burn calories account for age & weight.
    Do they? (they've got our info, but my guess is that'd be some pretty challenging programming work.)

    Someone 300 lbs walking 3 miles is expending more energy and is going to burn a lot more than, someone 130 walking 3 miles.

    So the calories are probably way high for the skinny-minis here to firm up or to lose a few vanity pounds.
    While, as one friend of my calls himself, the super-economy size folks the calories are probably on the low side. I wonder what the
    magic in between number is that the calorie burns are based on?

    MFP takes into account your weight and age when it assigns calorie burn. My daughter and I are doing this together and even if we do the same exercise for the same amount of time MFP gives us different calorie burn.

    Good to know!
  • dustyhockeymom
    dustyhockeymom Posts: 537 Member
    Options
    I found my stationary bike and MFP to be pretty consistent, and then when I got my HRM I was surprised to learn I was burning about half of what they were giving me.

    Its so frustrating to watch everyone else post these amazing calorie burns from their exercise, and I could do the same thing and not burn anywhere near that many. And I am not a little ft person. I do consider my HRM to be pretty accurate though, as the burns have gotten even less as I have gotten in better shape.

    I am glad though that I wasn't eating all those calories back when I first started or I wouldn't have been nearly as successful.
  • BaileyBoo13524
    BaileyBoo13524 Posts: 593 Member
    Options
    Your treadmill is definitely inaccurate! I have a heart rate monitor and I burn at least 2X more than what my treadmill says...so to be accurate I would suggest picking up a heart rate monitor!!
  • keatonjazz
    keatonjazz Posts: 8
    Options
    I see that most people are just taking the lowest estimate and being safe, that's probably a good idea. I also know that my height has a liiittle bit to do with it as far as the treadmill goes, too. I'm 5'8" but have long legs for my frame; I could still be walking briskly at the same speed where my mom (5'5") would have to break into a run. It seems like it would be really difficult for ANY sytem to measure all this stuff accurately. I'm glad I've been going with the lower numbers. I think I WILL look into a HRM though. :D
  • kendrafallon
    kendrafallon Posts: 1,030 Member
    Options
    Until I got a HRM I would log the calories burned as what MFP provided and err on the side of caution when it came to eating those calories back. Now with a HRM, the calories burned are accurate (relatively) and I'm not so wary about eating calories back; which I do if I'm hungry or in the mood for a little extra.
  • bassettpig
    bassettpig Posts: 79 Member
    Options
    Agreeing with those who use a heart rate monitor. It may not be absolutely perfect, but it will be much more accurate than either a machine or the estimates here. I find the estimates here EXTREMELY high and machines also quite high compared to my HRM. When I was first losing weight several years ago, the online numbers were closer but as I got in better shape, I burned far less calories doing the same activities, partly thru being smaller and partly thru being more efficient.

    Here's an interesting article w/a calorie calculator at the end from Runner's World magazine: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html
  • OneLostSock
    OneLostSock Posts: 82
    Options
    I def think the site is really generous with it's calorie estimations - i've made a post today asking in the 'feedback/suggestions' section if we can track food and exercise separately because i honestly dont trust it.

    I've done weight watchers online and i had to work a lot harder to get points back. If i wanted to work for a bottle of wine, then i had to work extremely hard - here it's far too easy.

    I think we should have the option here to track food/ exercise separately.
  • sooh2011
    sooh2011 Posts: 134 Member
    Options
    Agreeing with those who use a heart rate monitor. It may not be absolutely perfect, but it will be much more accurate than either a machine or the estimates here. I find the estimates here EXTREMELY high and machines also quite high compared to my HRM. When I was first losing weight several years ago, the online numbers were closer but as I got in better shape, I burned far less calories doing the same activities, partly thru being smaller and partly thru being more efficient.

    Here's an interesting article w/a calorie calculator at the end from Runner's World magazine: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

    Thanks! That was interesting - I've told people that walking a mile and running a mile are the same calorie burn....but looks like I was wrong.
  • AndrewTub
    AndrewTub Posts: 86 Member
    Options
    Also we'll be burning calories after the excercise in muscle recovery etc . so I don't mind taking a generous reading :P
  • bassettpig
    bassettpig Posts: 79 Member
    Options
    Thanks! That was interesting - I've told people that walking a mile and running a mile are the same calorie burn....but looks like I was wrong.

    I had wondered about that myself, since I run and there is simply no way it feels like it takes the same amount of energy to run a mile as to walk one, even if you are running easy. The explanation made sense and once I got my HRM, it confirmed this almost to a T!

Categories