MFP Calories burnt during excerise, how accurate is it?

renee_lee88
renee_lee88 Posts: 23 Member
edited October 4 in Fitness and Exercise
Hi Guys,

I was just wondering how accurate the MFP is with calories that you have burnt during excerise, I do 30mins on my treadmill at 6kph (3.73mph) at a brisk pace and MFP tells me I have burnt 199 calories, but my treadmill tells me that I have only burnt 80! Whats the go with that? because of this I have been going off my treadmill, am I cheating myself out of burning off calories?? please help...

Replies

  • beckystephens
    beckystephens Posts: 117 Member
    Does ur treadmill take your weight into account? I find my walking/running on here is fairly accurate - maybe a little conservative. I used to wear the Bodybugg to count my energy expenditure so it was pretty right on. Not sure about some of the other ones though.
  • xchinad0ll
    xchinad0ll Posts: 101 Member
    well, first off does the treadmill have an option where you can enter your weight and age?
  • renee_lee88
    renee_lee88 Posts: 23 Member
    Hey Guys,

    No my treadmill doesnt have an option to enter my weight, its a realitively El cheapo one but it still has the screen with all the buttons.
  • beckystephens
    beckystephens Posts: 117 Member
    Any now that i think about it - 80 calories seem pretty low. That would be low even more me, given that speed and amount of time, and im 120ish lbs. If you are heavier, you will definitely burn much more.
  • Amber82479
    Amber82479 Posts: 629 Member
    Personally, MFP calories are always lower than what my HRM says I actually burned. My HRM takes into account age, gender, height, etc... I would recommend a HRM to get an accurate account of how many calories you're burning. The added benefit is that you'll know where your heart rate is as well. Good luck!
  • HMonsterX
    HMonsterX Posts: 3,000 Member
    To me MFP is always waaaay over on the estimated calories.

    If you are serious about knowing your calories burned, get a HRM.
  • k8bugz
    k8bugz Posts: 64 Member
    I also suggest getting a HRM if you really want an accurate count of calories. Definitely worth the investment!

    Also, when I'm trying to determine how many calories to eat back, I also take into account how many calories I would have burned just sitting there. For example, my BMR (basal metabolic rate) tells me I burn about 90 cal/hr just being alive. So when I do an hour workout, and my HRM tells me I burned 400 cal, I still only log 310 cal in to mfp, because I would have burned those 90 cal regardless.
  • renee_lee88
    renee_lee88 Posts: 23 Member
    Thanks guys,

    I think I'll go out and buy myself a HRM... Its just seems too good to be true buring all those calories in such a short time. I know weight loss can be easy for some but I was thinking to myself "Surely I haven't burnt that much in such a short workout"
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,225 Member
    I can only speak for the elliptical calories, but the MFP elliptical numbers seem to be almost double the actual calories burned. I don't use MFP for elliptical numbers.
  • DopeItUp
    DopeItUp Posts: 18,771 Member
    I wouldn't trust either. MFP is a decent guideline but it's not perfect. Fitness machines seem to be completely terrible in my experience. I did 30 mins interval training on an elliptical last night and I got:

    MFP: 527
    HRM: 513
    Elliptical: 64 (wtf?)

    I went with the lower and logged in 513. My HRM is an FT60 and it has all my stats including my VO2max so theoretically it should be the most accurate. But MFP wasn't off by much. Same thing when I do my walks, it's within 10-20.
  • agthorn
    agthorn Posts: 1,844 Member
    General rule of thumb for walking/running is 100 calories per mile. So the MFP number is fairly close.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories