Are exercise calories shown on MFP on the higher side?

lemonginger35
lemonginger35 Posts: 38 Member
edited December 19 in Success Stories
Should I be entering a lower value? If so, how do I calculate it?
Thanks.

Replies

  • Nixoncat1
    Nixoncat1 Posts: 22 Member
    I always subtract 20% from whatever calories it says I burned. I talked to a trainer at the gym about it one time & he said cardio machines overestimate so 20% is a safe bet. The same might apply to MFP? Easy math is 300 calories x .20 = 60. So I would record 240 calories.
    Hope that helps! :)
  • kami3006
    kami3006 Posts: 4,979 Member
    The numbers are spot on for me and off for others. They are all just estimates so pick a number, stay consistent and evaluate after four weeks and adjust if needed. Real life numbers are best.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,401 Member
    It depends on the what for the exercise and the intensity of it. Some estimates seem much closer than others. If you let people know what exercises you are doing, they might be able to suggest a formula or app that gets you close.
  • longkathleenann9291
    longkathleenann9291 Posts: 110 Member
    ashphilli wrote: »
    I always subtract 20% from whatever calories it says I burned. I talked to a trainer at the gym about it one time & he said cardio machines overestimate so 20% is a safe bet. The same might apply to MFP? Easy math is 300 calories x .20 = 60. So I would record 240 calories.
    Hope that helps! :)

    Easier calculation: 0.8 x 300 = 240

  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,179 Member
    longkathleenann9291 wrote: »
    ashphilli wrote: »
    I always subtract 20% from whatever calories it says I burned. I talked to a trainer at the gym about it one time & he said cardio machines overestimate so 20% is a safe bet. The same might apply to MFP? Easy math is 300 calories x .20 = 60. So I would record 240 calories.
    Hope that helps! :)

    Easier calculation: 0.8 x 300 = 240

    Says the math teacher.
  • lemonginger35
    lemonginger35 Posts: 38 Member
    Hi All, It is just walking or running. What will be the calculation in both cases?
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,401 Member
    lemonginger35 wrote: »
    Hi All, It is just walking or running. What will be the calculation in both cases?

    Walking - .3 x your weight x miles
    Running - .63 x your weight x miles

    Both of the above are based on a study, and should get you fairly close. Those are for net calories, so they work well if you are tracking with MFP.
  • Nixoncat1
    Nixoncat1 Posts: 22 Member
    Robert,
    What about jogging? .45 x weight x miles?
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Nixoncat1 wrote: »
    Robert,
    What about jogging? .45 x weight x miles?

    If you're jogging, you are running
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,401 Member
    Nixoncat1 wrote: »
    Robert,
    What about jogging? .45 x weight x miles?

    Running is essentially running. If both feet are off the ground as you go forward, it's running. There are some exceptions for really fast walking vs normal pace and such, but for the most part it's either feet on the ground of off.

    Numbers from a study, which is referenced in the below article that explains some of it....

    https://runnersworld.com/nutrition-weight-loss/a20825897/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning-0/
  • lemonginger35
    lemonginger35 Posts: 38 Member
    robertw486 wrote: »
    lemonginger35 wrote: »
    Hi All, It is just walking or running. What will be the calculation in both cases?

    Walking - .3 x your weight x miles
    Running - .63 x your weight x miles

    Both of the above are based on a study, and should get you fairly close. Those are for net calories, so they work well if you are tracking with MFP.

    I’m assuming the weight is in lbs.

  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,401 Member
    lemonginger35 wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    lemonginger35 wrote: »
    Hi All, It is just walking or running. What will be the calculation in both cases?

    Walking - .3 x your weight x miles
    Running - .63 x your weight x miles

    Both of the above are based on a study, and should get you fairly close. Those are for net calories, so they work well if you are tracking with MFP.

    I’m assuming the weight is in lbs.

    My bad. Yes it's pounds and kcals. IIRC the actual original study they used was all metric based for speeds, as well as usual kJ rather than kCals.
  • k8tjane
    k8tjane Posts: 20 Member
    I usually go by the calories Strava gives me for walking and running. Based on the calculations given for running 3 miles Strava gives me an extra 50 calories but for walking 12 miles it gives me an extra 1200 😳. Obviously that calculation doesn’t take into account elevation and speed but that’s still a massive difference.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,401 Member
    k8tjane wrote: »
    I usually go by the calories Strava gives me for walking and running. Based on the calculations given for running 3 miles Strava gives me an extra 50 calories but for walking 12 miles it gives me an extra 1200 😳. Obviously that calculation doesn’t take into account elevation and speed but that’s still a massive difference.

    I know Strava changed some calculations some time back, but something seems way off there. At your size I doubt you would burn 100 calories a mile on anything that any sane person would call a "walk". Maybe a sheer rock cliff at high speed?

    The calculator below seems reasonable based on flat surfaces, but I'm not sure how it handles grades. As far as I know it's based on ACSM methods, which were mentioned in the study as being reasonably close.

    https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

Do you Love MyFitnessPal? Have you crushed a goal or improved your life through better nutrition using MyFitnessPal?
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!