Do you trust MFP calorie burn estimates?

shw112
shw112 Posts: 60 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I (22 y/o female, 5 ft 10, 155 pounds) allegedly burn 366 calories running 3 miles, not sure whether this is accurate, it seems like an overestimate given that running is only supposed to burn 100 cals per mile? I’ve only recently started logging and eating back exercise calories, as pre lockdown I was walking 15,000 steps ish a day just getting about so I had my activity levels set higher. Now I have ‘sedentary’ as my activity level and MFP only gives me 1420 on that, which is unsustainable for me. So I’ve started tracking the calories I burn on my runs and eating these back, but I’m worried that I’m overestimating calorie burn?

Do you guys trust exercise calories on MFP and do you eat them back? If so, have you lost weight as expected doing so?

Replies

  • Shortgirlrunning
    Shortgirlrunning Posts: 1,020 Member
    100 per mile is just a general estimate. How much you actually burn per mile depends on your height/weight, if your running path had hills or was completely flat, how fast or slow your pace was.

    366 for 3 miles isn’t an unbelievable calorie burn. But if you feel more comfortable, don’t eat back the extra 66 calories.

    For running, I generally trust the app. Though I actually use my Garmin watch calorie burn. Before I had the watch I used the app and lost weight though.

    I don’t trust the app’s calorie burn for strength training though.
  • 2snakeswoman
    2snakeswoman Posts: 655 Member
    I don't.
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,743 Member
    I've been using MFP calories for walking and running for the past 7 years or so. They look high, but have actually worked well for me and seem to be similar to the calories Garmin states. I eat all my exercise calories. If anything, I burn more calories than they give me, but I run in a hilly area, which probably has an effect.
  • mjbnj0001
    mjbnj0001 Posts: 1,268 Member
    I've come to the place where I think MFP isn't entirely wrong, and it surely isn't a rigorous scientific answer. As they say in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie, "them rules is more of a guideline."
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    shw112 wrote: »
    I (22 y/o female, 5 ft 10, 155 pounds) allegedly burn 366 calories running 3 miles, not sure whether this is accurate, it seems like an overestimate given that running is only supposed to burn 100 cals per mile? I’ve only recently started logging and eating back exercise calories, as pre lockdown I was walking 15,000 steps ish a day just getting about so I had my activity levels set higher. Now I have ‘sedentary’ as my activity level and MFP only gives me 1420 on that, which is unsustainable for me. So I’ve started tracking the calories I burn on my runs and eating these back, but I’m worried that I’m overestimating calorie burn?

    Do you guys trust exercise calories on MFP and do you eat them back? If so, have you lost weight as expected doing so?

    100 calories per mile running is not even close to a one size fits all. The largest variable component of energy expenditure for running is mass moved over distance. A heavier person is going to expend more energy over the same distance than a lighter person, just as a Honda Civic is going to burn less fuel than a Ford 3-350 over the same distance.

    366 calories for a 3 mile run doesn't seem like some crazy high number, and it's a mere 66 calories more than the very generic 100 calories per mile...in the grand scheme of things, that's not hugely significant to your overall deficit...but if you want, you can just eat the 300. I've never done too much hand wringing over trying to determine some exact number because everything is an estimate outside of a laboratory. I just used reasoning to determine if something seemed plausible and reasonable.
  • Zimm7
    Zimm7 Posts: 44 Member
    Calorie burn on MFP is just an estimate at best. IMO eating back calories seems nonproductive unless you're mountain climbing, riding the Tour de France, or doing a Triathlon.
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,237 Member
    If you want something “safe” calories burned while running are about .63 x weight (in pounds) x miles run. So you’re looking at about 98 calories/pound. Or 294 for the 3 miles. Mfp estimates for running aren’t that off-they are pace-based so they will be more close if the pace matches yours (vs if you are rounding up/down). But as mentioned above, 60-70 calories isn’t a HUGE deal in the Grand scheme of things.

    But .63 x weight x miles is a safe number that you eat back with confidence (assuming you’re weighing food/logging precisely/accurately). Realistically-consistentcy is more important. If you use the same tools in the same way each time, you can make whatever adjustments you need from there (regardless of whether or not they are “accurate”).
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    This above. (Flat road) running has been pretty well quantified as cardio goes. You should be able to trust the calories per mile formula to be a fairly decent estimate.
  • MiepPie
    MiepPie Posts: 4 Member
    My stats are very similar to yours: F, 5’10”, 165 lbs, aiming for about 1400 net calories a day. I run 4 days a week, somewhere between 3 and 7 miles per run. I get the same calorie estimate as you for a 3 mile run, which at first seemed high, but if I don’t eat it all back I feel weak the next day and my fitness suffers. So I do eat all my running calories back based on MFP estimates, and I’m still losing weight as expected.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,943 Member
    I've been using 0.63*weight*distance for years and it works well, regardless of what weight I am. I can eat back my running calories in full with confidence. ... well.. if I do a longer run I don't go on a binge of course.
  • swimmchick87
    swimmchick87 Posts: 458 Member
    You just have to experiment with it and see what works for you. I only do walking, so I don't worry so much about eating exercise calories back. I usually get around a 100-150 calorie adjustment for getting my 10,000 steps in. If I really want something extra, I do use those calories (or walk a bit more if I need more calories) rather than going off the rails, but most often I don't feel I need them. I already have my goal set to only lose 1 pound per week, so I get a decent amount of calories every day anyway. I figure the 100 or so extra fitbit calories makes up for any inaccuracies with logging. I weigh most things, but (pre-pandemic at least) I also eat at restaurants at least 2x per week where the calorie estimate isn't going to be perfect even if the restaurant provides nutrition info. I'd rather have the little buffer and not have to worry about these occasions.

    That said, back when I used to do intensive workouts I did eat a portion of my exercise calories back. In your case it probably wouldn't be good to just ignore 366 calories. Try 300 if you're more comfortable with that and see how it goes. You can always adjust up or down if it's not working for you.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    "Do you guys trust exercise calories on MFP?"
    I just treat MFP as one possible source of exercise estimates.
    For my main exercise (cycling) it's a really poor choice so I use my power meter numbers (very accurate) or Garmin bike computer or Strava app (both entirely reasonable for purpose over 100,000+ exercise cals per year).
    For strength training I use the MyFitnessPal estimate as it's as good as anything, better than some methods and probably quite modest for my volume/duration.
    For walking I use a mass x distance x efficiency ratio formula for net calories unlike MFP's gross calorie estimates (net versus gross calories matter more for low intensity but long duration exercise).

    "and do you eat them back?"
    Yes of course - because exercise is a very significant part of my body's calorie needs. Remember your body uses them and "counts" them even if you don't.

    "If so, have you lost weight as expected doing so?"
    Yes, lost weight on track after a simple adjustment to my calorie goal based on actual results.
    My initial loss wasn't even using particularly accurate methods (exercise bike slightly inflated numbers, elliptical quite inflated numbers, Runkeeper very inflated walking estimates.)
    Maintained successfully for years.

    For the majority of people, the inaccuracy of their food logging is a far bigger factor than the accuracy of their exercise estimates if results over time don't match expectations.
    Think of the significance of percentages of bigger numbers (food intake) versus percentages of small numbers (exercise expenditure).....
  • huntersvonnegut
    huntersvonnegut Posts: 1,177 Member
    edited May 2020
    As far as walking or running, I like this calculator. It factors in weight, incline, speed and net vs gross. Net being the calculation for calories burned just for the exercise excluding basal metabolism. This is the number I log. https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    No
  • Queen_of_Lean
    Queen_of_Lean Posts: 362 Member
    I exercise a lot (5 times a week, mainly HIIT and Tabata), I walk at least 7000 steps a day and sometimes my MFP calories adjustment goes as high as 1500 kcal. If I eat them back, I will be gaining weight for sure! So my advice is to be careful and constantly challenge MFP with your common sense, because it's just an app.
  • corinasue1143
    corinasue1143 Posts: 7,464 Member
    edited May 2020
    Nope. Definitely doesn’t work for me. I use half, and it’s still not very close on some exercises.

    At your height and weight, you’re already at a healthy BMI (22). How much are you trying to lose per week?

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited May 2020
    iyanchovska wrote: »
    I exercise a lot (5 times a week, mainly HIIT and Tabata), I walk at least 7000 steps a day and sometimes my MFP calories adjustment goes as high as 1500 kcal. If I eat them back, I will be gaining weight for sure! So my advice is to be careful and constantly challenge MFP with your common sense, because it's just an app.

    Just to be aware - steps and MFP adjustment means you are syncing with an activity tracker probably.

    That device is giving you the larger than you believe number for total calorie burn, maybe exercise specifically. (if HRM device, then indeed inflated calorie burn for interval workouts is to be expected)

    MFP is merely doing the math with that figure to correct itself.

    So you actually mean you distrust that device.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    No - I've always used devices or calculations that gave more accurate info for calorie burn, because I had them available.

Categories