How accurate is MFP's calorie burning guide, really?

Options
2»

Replies

  • brigbug
    brigbug Posts: 34
    Options
    Bobby and I have HRM (heart rate monitor) watches that tell us our calories burned per workout. So, we just change it when it's off. I have found that it's much more accurate than on here. MFP gives you the average for tour age, weight etc...so it's subjective at best.
  • arc918
    arc918 Posts: 2,037 Member
    Options
    For running (which is 95% of what I do) I actually find it pretty accurate. MFP comes in a little lower than my Garmin.

    A guy my size (~ 175) should be burning ~ 130 per mile.

    As far as some of the other things in the database, they are WAY the hell off.
  • BeLightYear
    BeLightYear Posts: 1,450 Member
    Options
    i actually have a timex, and i just realized that both my cardio app and HRM were set to my original weight. i generally use the MFP calories, because i don't want to over estimate my calories burned.

    I had a Timex (yes, with chest strap) for a while, it doubled my actual burn! Beware of the Timex:smile:
  • gp79
    gp79 Posts: 1,799 Member
    Options
    Buy yourself a HRM and see the difference for yourself. Everyone is different. It's all an estimation based off of some algorithm.
  • atsteele
    atsteele Posts: 1,358 Member
    Options
    This site might give you a better estimation: http://www.fitday.com/webfit/exerciseinfopage.html
  • spacecase76
    spacecase76 Posts: 673 Member
    Options
    I don't use a HRM every time I exercise, but, I have worn one for a week at a time (when exercising), and, I gotta say, MFP is usually about right. It is a tad under what the HRM says, but, that is negligible....MFP will say 152, the HRM will say 170 - I mean close!

    Now, I don't generally log cleaning unless I am doing some serious, for sure cleaning - and then I log it "light". At my weight, 30 minutes is like 46 calories or something. It really isn't worth it to log it...

Categories