We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Accuracy of MFP exercise calories burned?

Lannie79
Lannie79 Posts: 27 Member
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
What is the general thoughts on the accuracy of the MFP estimated calories burned for cardio? I use a Polar Flow watch for my long swim today....the calories per my watch were half of MFP. In MFP I select light effort b/c I'd rather estimate low than high....I was surprised that MFP came in twice as much as the watch. I realize it's an estimate but trying to gauge which system is more accurate.

Replies

  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,487 Member
    In my opinion MFP gives extremely inflated calorie values for exercise.
  • U2Bad1
    U2Bad1 Posts: 41 Member
    Agree, go with the watch calories burned.
  • Damian45
    Damian45 Posts: 85 Member
    I've been wondering how accurate it is myself. I did five miles of moderate peddling on the stationary bike at my gym and it showed only 80 calories burned. On here it shows 211 calories. A different website that gives you calories burned says I burned over 400.
    Which is correct?
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    I'm sure some are pretty close, while others are obviously terrible. I don't think the entire database is the same amount of good or bad.

    If you have a better (more reliable) way to estimate, use it over the database.

    I have a power meter on my bike and when I've entered data into MFP to match what I did, it's been about 2x reality.
  • BigDougie1211
    BigDougie1211 Posts: 3,531 Member
    To be honest, when I compare with my HRM, I usually find it really close, so I was always happy to go with the numbers on here.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Depends on the person (especially their fitness levels), their effort and their particular set of exercises selected.

    If there was a singular percentage deviation for all exercises it would have been corrected by now.

    Where exertion levels aren't specific it's a complete shot in the dark - "elliptical" for example. Could be someone going flat out or could be someone doing a long slow workout while watching the TV.

    In your case OP, I would go with the watch.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Damian45 wrote: »
    I've been wondering how accurate it is myself. I did five miles of moderate peddling on the stationary bike at my gym and it showed only 80 calories burned. On here it shows 211 calories. A different website that gives you calories burned says I burned over 400.
    Which is correct?

    @Damian45

    Tough one as you didn't actually move so the 5 miles is also an estimate/assumption by the bike. How long did that take you?

    If anything near a real 5 miles worth of effort then would guess 80 is very low and 400 is far too high.

    Which is correct? None of them most likely, but they don't actually need to be absolutely correct.
  • Damian45
    Damian45 Posts: 85 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Damian45 wrote: »
    I've been wondering how accurate it is myself. I did five miles of moderate peddling on the stationary bike at my gym and it showed only 80 calories burned. On here it shows 211 calories. A different website that gives you calories burned says I burned over 400.
    Which is correct?

    @Damian45

    Tough one as you didn't actually move so the 5 miles is also an estimate/assumption by the bike. How long did that take you?

    If anything near a real 5 miles worth of effort then would guess 80 is very low and 400 is far too high.

    Which is correct? None of them most likely, but they don't actually need to be absolutely correct.

    It was a 30 minute ride so I was doing 10 an hour. (obviously) I know its never going to be perfectly accurate. But I would like to be in the ball park so I can make sure I don't over or under eat during the day.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Damian45 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Damian45 wrote: »
    I've been wondering how accurate it is myself. I did five miles of moderate peddling on the stationary bike at my gym and it showed only 80 calories burned. On here it shows 211 calories. A different website that gives you calories burned says I burned over 400.
    Which is correct?

    @Damian45

    Tough one as you didn't actually move so the 5 miles is also an estimate/assumption by the bike. How long did that take you?

    If anything near a real 5 miles worth of effort then would guess 80 is very low and 400 is far too high.

    Which is correct? None of them most likely, but they don't actually need to be absolutely correct.

    It was a 30 minute ride so I was doing 10 an hour. (obviously) I know its never going to be perfectly accurate. But I would like to be in the ball park so I can make sure I don't over or under eat during the day.

    Of the options I would say go with the 211 estimate.
    There's some accurate stationary bikes around with power meters - if you have access to one you can get a much better idea of your personal output. Calibrating yourself if you like.
  • Lannie79
    Lannie79 Posts: 27 Member
    Thanks for the help. I'm going to go with the lower value. Rather under report calories burned than over estimate.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories