How accurate are the MFP exercise calculations?

Options
2»

Replies

  • mk2fit
    mk2fit Posts: 730 Member
    Options
    I spent my first 8-12 months here using only the MFP credits for exercise. Something must have been close to accurate because I lost 1-1.5#/week, for a total lost of 71#. I got a fitbit three years ago Christmas and it now tracks my calories burned. Please keep in mind I was already on maintenance when I got the fitbit. Frankly, I am not too sure how accurate it is either, but my weight is staying within the same 3#

    P.S. Something to think about. Once I had the fitbit, I realized that I could be on the elliptical for an hour today and an hour tomorrow and the calories burned could/would be wildly different! (Or running, aerobics, etc)
  • CindyJNC1963
    CindyJNC1963 Posts: 895 Member
    Options
    I just got a new Schwinn 270 stationary bike where I input my height, weight, etc. It calculates my calories burned and it is waaaaay lower than what MFP says. I am up to 46 minutes a day (11 miles) and that is about 220 calories. My HR varies from about 110 to 130 during the ride so I would say that is moderate for me. MFP would give 740 calories burned for that same level of exercise. It seems it is way off for some things and accurate for others.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited January 2019
    Options
    Sometimes people log stationary biking as regular biking, and that's going to mess up the calorie count.

    Even if you log stationary biking as a separate exercise (which one should, if one lacks calorie information), you have to make a call on effort, and effort doesn't really mean "how it feels to you," but how hard are you really going (i.e., what level is the bike on, how hilly is the ride, what # of miles do you get in a given time period -- MFP doesn't ask these things so you need to put them in)? To get calories right, most people who are relatively new to exercise should probably pick light effort.

    I just tried stationary biking, light effort on MFP and it gave me 234 cal for 45 minutes.

    However, most stationary bikes in gyms do give calories, so it's easy to change and use them instead.
  • Deviette
    Deviette Posts: 979 Member
    Options
    Honestly I've found the Martial Arts entry to be more than a little inflated.

    I tend to work it out as 800kcals for my 90 minute Judo session. I've been using that estimate for several months and it seems work about correct with my actual weighloss and logging, so I'd say it's about right.

    I originally came across that number by breaking the session down by minutes, into: light/no intensity, medium intensity, and high intensity. (So for example the warm up & drills would be medium; learning, drinks breaks, and between activity would be light; and randori would be high) Then I assigned the time to either walking, jogging or sprinting and used the calorie numbers from that to give an estimate for the whole session.
  • CindyJNC1963
    CindyJNC1963 Posts: 895 Member
    Options
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Sometimes people log stationary biking as regular biking, and that's going to mess up the calorie count.

    Even if you log stationary biking as a separate exercise (which one should, if one lacks calorie information), you have to make a call on effort, and effort doesn't really mean "how it feels to you," but how hard are you really going (i.e., what level is the bike on, how hilly is the ride, what # of miles do you get in a given time period -- MFP doesn't ask these things so you need to put them in)? To get calories right, most people who are relatively new to exercise should probably pick light effort.

    I just tried stationary biking, light effort on MFP and it gave me 234 cal for 45 minutes.

    However, most stationary bikes in gyms do give calories, so it's easy to change and use them instead.

    It must just depend on the person. I just did stationary bike, light effort and it gave me 450 calories. I still have 100 lbs to lose so maybe I get extra "credit" on MFP for being so overweight.

    Yes, I use the Schwinn Trainer and Fitbit apps to log my exercise. I know there is some doubling of calories burned between the two of them, but I just ignore that part. Both apps give me different information I need....more than just the calories.

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    CindyJNC1963 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Sometimes people log stationary biking as regular biking, and that's going to mess up the calorie count.

    Even if you log stationary biking as a separate exercise (which one should, if one lacks calorie information), you have to make a call on effort, and effort doesn't really mean "how it feels to you," but how hard are you really going (i.e., what level is the bike on, how hilly is the ride, what # of miles do you get in a given time period -- MFP doesn't ask these things so you need to put them in)? To get calories right, most people who are relatively new to exercise should probably pick light effort.

    I just tried stationary biking, light effort on MFP and it gave me 234 cal for 45 minutes.

    However, most stationary bikes in gyms do give calories, so it's easy to change and use them instead.

    It must just depend on the person. I just did stationary bike, light effort and it gave me 450 calories. I still have 100 lbs to lose so maybe I get extra "credit" on MFP for being so overweight.

    Yes, I use the Schwinn Trainer and Fitbit apps to log my exercise. I know there is some doubling of calories burned between the two of them, but I just ignore that part. Both apps give me different information I need....more than just the calories.

    Yeah, weight makes a difference, and I always wonder if it should make that much of a difference for the stationary bike vs. walking or running or riding outside (when you really are doing much more work to push more lbs).

    Anyway, sounds like your way is giving you a sensible measure!
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,224 Member
    Options
    Things with distance/pace seem reasonable. Things where you need to choose your level of effort seem to be more of a challenge. And things where there’s one single entry for a highly variable activity tend to be the most off.

    Like...hiking. I’ve been on hikes over the river and through the woods, and I’ve been on hikes with 2k ft elevation gain. I’m quite certain that calorie estimates from the single DB entry were high for both, but comically so for less strenuous endeavors.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,178 Member
    edited January 2019
    Options
    Duck_Puddle wrote: »
    Things with distance/pace seem reasonable. Things where you need to choose your level of effort seem to be more of a challenge. And things where there’s one single entry for a highly variable activity tend to be the most off.

    Like...hiking. I’ve been on hikes over the river and through the woods, and I’ve been on hikes with 2k ft elevation gain. I’m quite certain that calorie estimates from the single DB entry were high for both, but comically so for less strenuous endeavors.

    I'd even quibble with the bolded. Biking has speed, but the basic ones have no distinction as to bike type or terrain (sure feels like 15mph burns more calories on a hybrid than a road bike, and I say that as someone who knows feelz aren't definitive, but has some RPE experience, has a HRM, and knows how to use it).

    The rowing/canoeing combo ones seen way stupid, despite having speed: l do both, and not only does boat matter (in solo canoes, can be the difference between pretty aerobic and pretty anaerobic), but rowing at X speed also feels easier RPE-wise than canoeing: The boat differences and mechanical efficiency differences seem to matter.

    I'm not a physicist, but I know RPE, and have had devices that enable HR/speed comparisons for years now.
  • petethegamer01
    petethegamer01 Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    For me they are fairly accurate but then I mostly only walk and do home workouts. Usually I don't eat any exercise calories back unless I am out for a party or event and even then I try to behave
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    Options
    Muh... close as an app is going to come.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    CindyJNC1963 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Sometimes people log stationary biking as regular biking, and that's going to mess up the calorie count.

    Even if you log stationary biking as a separate exercise (which one should, if one lacks calorie information), you have to make a call on effort, and effort doesn't really mean "how it feels to you," but how hard are you really going (i.e., what level is the bike on, how hilly is the ride, what # of miles do you get in a given time period -- MFP doesn't ask these things so you need to put them in)? To get calories right, most people who are relatively new to exercise should probably pick light effort.

    I just tried stationary biking, light effort on MFP and it gave me 234 cal for 45 minutes.

    However, most stationary bikes in gyms do give calories, so it's easy to change and use them instead.

    It must just depend on the person. I just did stationary bike, light effort and it gave me 450 calories. I still have 100 lbs to lose so maybe I get extra "credit" on MFP for being so overweight.

    Yes, I use the Schwinn Trainer and Fitbit apps to log my exercise. I know there is some doubling of calories burned between the two of them, but I just ignore that part. Both apps give me different information I need....more than just the calories.

    @CindyJNC1963 @lemurcat2
    That's a problem with using METS related to bodyweight for an inappropriate exercise.
    For a non-weight bearing exercise such as stationary cycling your weight is irrelevant - it's the power you produce that is in relation to the calories burned.
    If your bike tells you your average watts (power) then multiply by 3.6 per hour of exercise.
    Average 100watts for an hour gives you 360 net cals as an example, a skinny TdF rider who can average 400w for an hour will quadruple that despite being very lightweight. It really does depend on the person - but not on the person's weight in this case.

    For many exercises the database here simply isn't the best option for accuracy. It's a shame as the method (eating back exercise calories) is a good one but the execution hasn't been done well.
  • lalalacroix
    lalalacroix Posts: 834 Member
    Options
    Duck_Puddle wrote: »

    Like...hiking. I’ve been on hikes over the river and through the woods, and I’ve been on hikes with 2k ft elevation gain. I’m quite certain that calorie estimates from the single DB entry were high for both, but comically so for less strenuous endeavors.

    I agree. I'm always very wary of the hiking calculations. Hikes can vary greatly. I don't really think enough factors are considered, like elevation gain.

Categories