How accurate....

maryd4love
maryd4love Posts: 164 Member
edited September 29 in Fitness and Exercise
How accurate is the calories burnt according to MFP. It says when I do the stationary bike for an hour i burn a little over 600 calories. Just wondering. I would love to purchase a HRM but I can't afford it so please do not suggest that I do.

Replies

  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    Not very accurate at all. If you go by MFP I would suggest only eating 75% of the cals burned instead of all of them.
  • jrich1
    jrich1 Posts: 2,408 Member
    Using my HRM, I find that MFP OVERESTIMATES the calories by a whole lot
  • spacecase76
    spacecase76 Posts: 673 Member
    at 150, I borrowed my boyfriend's HRM and changed the settings to me, and MFP was consistently about 20-30 cals under per 30 minutes. I try to eat half my exercise calories, so this is close enough for me.
  • kelseyk14
    kelseyk14 Posts: 95
    VERY OFF especially on cardio. I used my HRM and it said around 250 calories where MFP said close to 600..that can make a HUGE difference in weight loss! I suggest getting a HRM even if its a cheap one until you can save up for a Polar. I have a Polar F11 AMAZING.
  • anna_lisa
    anna_lisa Posts: 486 Member
    try this site it is what I use when I am unsure. This site caLculates your weight and the activity providing that you heart rate stays in the specific range (you can also calculate on that site the range for you). I use my bike and just check HR with the thing on the bike that you can check it with.

    http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc
  • MinnieInMaine
    MinnieInMaine Posts: 6,400 Member
    Normally I say ditto to whatever eric recommends but in this case, I have to disagree slightly. Yes, the calorie burn numbers MFP gives us are quite high but I'd suggested eating more like half.

    Not sure how tall you are or how hard you're working but....per the info on your profile page, you weigh about the same as I do and doing a moderately vigorous 30 minute session on the bike will gain me about 300 calories according to my heart rate monitor.

    And just an little extra unsoliticited advice - for a little change of pace, try doing some upper body resistance moves while pedaling with a light weight (2-4 pounds in each hand) like bicep curls, tricep pushbacks, shoulder presses, punches, etc. This will also work your core because you have to balance while you're moving your arms. It will also get your heart rate up a little more and help you burn a few extra calories. :)
  • tramaine81
    tramaine81 Posts: 113 Member
    I don't eat my calories. It forces me to exercise for exercise's sake and then I don't log stupid things like...hmmm... I walked from my apartment to my car...10 calories...I went to the bathroom for five minutes...15 calories....
    In addition, I was able to stabilize and create a healthy diet plan without worrying about varying intake day to day. Just a suggestion. I will probably eat my calories once I reach my goal.
  • bassettpig
    bassettpig Posts: 79 Member
    Agreeing w/those above who said the estimates here are extremely high. I find that walking estimates here are almost double what my HRM gives me and running is about 25% higher. This is not going to be huge if you exercise 20 minutes or a half hour a day, but if you do an hour a day or have one day a week where you spend a LOT of time in an activity, your numbers are going to be way off.
  • CoachKaren
    CoachKaren Posts: 90
    The calorie counts for ALL of the stuff in the exercise mode log is NOT accurate for each individual person. I need mine to be accurate, so I use the BodyBugg. :-)
  • cspence2270
    cspence2270 Posts: 229 Member
    My husband just bought me a HRM- and I was floored by the difference- I burned about 100 calories less when I tracked with the HRM compaired to what MFP had been telling me I was burning. I'm glad I made it a habit of not eating those exercise calories that I had burned. That would be my advice if you're not using a HRM then try to limit how many exercise calores you eat back. Thank you honey.
  • tbisca1
    tbisca1 Posts: 142
    I exercise 6 days a week for 50 to 60 mins each day. I log my calories burned based on my treadmill. I have been using the same treadmill for over a year and have lost 82lbs. So even if the number it gives me (which is more than MFP) is not correct then I am not worried about it bc I am doing something right! I don't eat back any of my calories burned so I don't have to worry about cutting it down by 25%, 50% or even 75%. No one knows your body like you do so if you see you gain a couple of pounds then you know you need to change it up a bit and eat less of your exercise calories.
  • wrgawife
    wrgawife Posts: 61 Member
    Hello I am a newbie and i been hearing about eating back your exercise calories. Does that mean if i burn like 800 calories for the day i should eat about another 800 I have not been doing that. I have to release this weight.What is the purpose of doing that.?
  • Jennloella
    Jennloella Posts: 2,286 Member
    Hello I am a newbie and i been hearing about eating back your exercise calories. Does that mean if i burn like 800 calories for the day i should eat about another 800 I have not been doing that. I have to release this weight.What is the purpose of doing that.?

    the purpose is because when you enter your goal (lose 1 pound a week, say) and MFP gives you your calorie goal, the calorie deficit to attain that goal is built in. When you burn extra calories and don't eat them back, you are doubling your calorie deficit, *possibly* denying your body the energy it needs to sustain weight loss. That being said, it seems as if the community is split on who eats them back and who doesn't. I personally only eat some back......unless we go out to a restaurant then I somehow manage to eat them all back lol
  • jfinnivan
    jfinnivan Posts: 360 Member
    It's all a crap shoot. The HRMs are not necessarily accurate. We have two Polar HRMs, and they use default settings for max heart rate (it used 167 for me). If you put in a number that is closer to your real max heart rate (mine is around 195), the calorie count it gives you drops dramatically. Some of the numbers I've seen look way off. I usually eat half of my exercise calories just because of the calorie count problems.
  • bassettpig
    bassettpig Posts: 79 Member
    It's all a crap shoot. The HRMs are not necessarily accurate. We have two Polar HRMs, and they use default settings for max heart rate (it used 167 for me). If you put in a number that is closer to your real max heart rate (mine is around 195), the calorie count it gives you drops dramatically. Some of the numbers I've seen look way off. I usually eat half of my exercise calories just because of the calorie count problems.

    This is exactly why a HRM is more accurate--you DO put in information about yourself. Mine asks for age, weight, gender and fitness level (choices range from beginning exerciser to competitive athlete). It also will use default settings if you choose not to enter your actual numbers for max HR and so on. It also offers a "fitness test" setting so you can choose the correct fitness level. This is usually going to be more accurate than an elliptical or treadmill that gives you a number based on some generic formula w/o getting any of your personal info.

    Yes, the calorie burns for someone who is more fit will be significantly less than for someone who is less so, even if they are the same weight. The body becomes efficient at doing what it does a lot (which is why some folks believe we need to change up our exercise every so often). From personal experience, I can say that when I first started getting in shape, the calorie burns for running that I found online were fairly accurate for me. Now, w/several years of consistent running under my belt, according to my HRM, I use more like 2/3 to 3/4 of what most online calculators give.

    I agree that they are not accurate down to the calorie, but the info they give is certainly more useful than completely non-personalized figures from a machine whose manufacturer has an interest in making it look like you are burning a ton of calories, regardless of what is really happening.
  • Qarol
    Qarol Posts: 6,171 Member
    I think it's wholly inaccurate. I'll see feeds on my main page of friends who've done small amounts of exercise and burned crazy amounts of calories. I find it very difficult to believe they actually burned that many calories.
  • maryd4love
    maryd4love Posts: 164 Member
    Thanks everyone for your advice. I very rarely eat all my exercise calories back. I have yet to gain anything back. So...I will just jeep doing what I am doing. I was just curious how off MFP was on the exercise calories.
  • DonPendergraft
    DonPendergraft Posts: 520 Member
    Not accurate. At all. Here's a comparison. Today I ran 7 miles before work. My Garmin told me that I burned about 725 calories. MFP said I burned 1328.

    Here's what I did: create a custom "food". I call mine "Exercise Calorie Adjustment Due to MFP's Crappy Method of Measuring Calories". A mouthful, but I don't know how to make it much shorter. Anyhoo, I made one unit worth 100 calories. So this morning I "ate" this custom food to the tune of the difference between what I know I burned and what MFP says I burned (about 600 calories). That way my balance is right. Viola!

    Now for you, it's a bit different. You don't have anything to tell you what you actually burned. You will have to guess. By looking at my example, I really burned 55% of what MFP says I did. So just to get in the ball park, when you enter your exerise and it give you a number, get out your calculator and multiply that number by .55 and that will give you how many you really burned. Now subtract that number from what MFP says you did and that's how much to make up with "fake" adjustment calories. Clear as mud? Good luck!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories