Why is there such disparity between mfp exercise cals

Options
caroltina
caroltina Posts: 453 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
i am wondering why there is such disparity between mfp cals for exercise, and my heart rate monitor, both are working off my age, height and weight.

Replies

  • curiousmissclay
    curiousmissclay Posts: 72
    Options
    i had the same thing when i started now i just work off what the gym equipment says and i make a new excercise for what iv done because whatever i put in its wildly out.
    x
  • Libby9
    Libby9 Posts: 45
    Options
    Is it under or over??
  • RNewton4269
    RNewton4269 Posts: 663 Member
    Options
    When I started using my HRM...noticed a drastic change from what the machines in the gym said. I go by it...because I feel it is more accurate.
  • CountryDevil
    CountryDevil Posts: 819 Member
    Options
    Your HRM is going to to the most accurate as long as it is calibrated properly and you have your stats configured. Using MFP does and can not take into account your heart rate and is only an estimate even though you have that same state configured on MFP.
  • caroltina
    caroltina Posts: 453 Member
    Options
    Over estimating by loads
  • JustMichelleB
    JustMichelleB Posts: 290
    Options
    MFP does not take into consideration your effort (heartrate, essentially).
  • caroltina
    caroltina Posts: 453 Member
    Options
    After 2 years of 5 nights a week in the gym I am loads fitter but the calorie difference is wildly different, no wonder I haven't been loosing at the rate I thought
  • SarahC75
    SarahC75 Posts: 45
    Options
    I thought the exercise was user input .... Meaning that it is what THEY burned for whatever amount of exercise they input. So if they are not the same weight / height etc as you, the burn will be totally different. If you have a HRM, it's probably best to just go by that and enter your own exercises in. You should only have to do that once (maybe it will need altering when you lose more weight etc)
  • PeachyKeene
    PeachyKeene Posts: 1,645 Member
    Options
    My HRM and the calories here in the MFP database are surprisingly close. I think it all depends on the intensity of your workout. It seems to me that MFP assumes you are going to be aggressive/intense. Is it possible your HRM is not set up properly, I understand your height, weight, and age are, but what about the distance of your step. The way I knew mine was correct, is when the miles it showed I ran was the actual same amount I had ran. I had to reset mine because at first it was really off.
  • Dottie27
    Dottie27 Posts: 159 Member
    Options
    Have a brand new HRM, first-time user, good to know these ideas!
  • Grimmerick
    Grimmerick Posts: 3,342 Member
    Options
    I really feel that it overestimates on some of the exercises but not on others, I have noticed the circuit training, strength training, and running/walking calorie burn estimates right but that the ones that use machines like the elliptical seem to be way over.
  • liftingbro
    liftingbro Posts: 2,029 Member
    Options
    Well, the HRM is probably more accurate since it is at least estimating from your effort level, size and age in most cases.

    However, all your HRM is doing is calculating an estimation and to be honest heart rate isn't that great of a barometer of how many calories you are burning.
  • prettylittlechubby
    prettylittlechubby Posts: 125
    Options
    I try to eat the calories I am allowed without exercise and then the exercise is just a bonus on top so if it does calculate it wrong im still within my calories. Dont know if im right doing this but it keeps me on track x
  • caroltina
    caroltina Posts: 453 Member
    Options
    That's what I do too, if not the exercise would be pointless for weight loss no? I did circuit training yesterday and it was a tough one lots of runs, but my monitor showed 490 cals, I know I worked very hard-my fitness pal says 870 which is almost double?
  • caroltina
    caroltina Posts: 453 Member
    Options
    I also saw on so ones status that they had done 20 min walking at a slow pace= 134 cals, when
    I cycled vigorously for 30 min and my monitor clocked 200
  • Tracysteele
    Tracysteele Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    Don't forget that MFP figures your Basic Metabolic Rate--mine is 1700 cal a day--and then subtracts 500 because I said I wanted to lose 1 pound a week (500 x 7 = 3500-one pound) So if you exercise you should defintely eat back those calories, just perhaps round exercise calories down and round food up to make up for any disparities? Just a thought.
  • caroltina
    caroltina Posts: 453 Member
    Options
    Hold on, my bmr is 1738 and I said I want to loose 2lb a week but my cals goal for food is 1600? Don't get it?
  • caroltina
    caroltina Posts: 453 Member
    Options
    Wow just checked my profile and due to my weightless it has reassessed my calorie intake to 1340 ouch, not sure if I like that!
  • FatBoyTriathlete
    FatBoyTriathlete Posts: 21 Member
    Options
    I see a big disparity too when I compare MFP to my Garmin edge. The MFP calories are often nearly 1.5 times what the Garmin says. The Garmin is pretty accurate in my experience so I think MFP is just overestimating the exercise calories.
  • caroltina
    caroltina Posts: 453 Member
    Options
    Glad it isn't just me!!!!!

Categories