How accurate are the calorie counts?

andrea_marie3
andrea_marie3 Posts: 39 Member
edited October 5 in Fitness and Exercise
How accurate are the calorie counts on the MFP exercises? Do they take into account your weight, etc...? If they're just an estimate, how do you accurately calculate your own calorie burn? Thanks for the help!

Replies

  • Whisker58
    Whisker58 Posts: 11
    Bump! :smile:
  • kalexander2005
    kalexander2005 Posts: 223 Member
    IDK about the accuracy of MFP counts, but there are a number of resources that can help you determine a rough estimate of your burn at various exercises. I would recommend (if you can't get a heart rate monitor at this time -- and please do as soon as you are able) checking several resources for a basic exercise and maybe average those. I noticed MFP gives me a few extra calories burned than my HRM on basic cardio exercises.

    Good luck!
  • juli3b2011
    juli3b2011 Posts: 77 Member
    I use a heart rate monitor (Polar FT7). My numbers from the HRM are definitely a LOT lower than the mfp numbers. I've done better with weight loss when using the HRM numbers.
  • oswaldbowser
    oswaldbowser Posts: 164 Member
    Not accurate as everyone burns calories at a different rate !
  • Laces_0ut
    Laces_0ut Posts: 3,750 Member
    i dont use MFP's estimates.
  • markszcz
    markszcz Posts: 2 Member
    I take the numbers that I get from here as more of a rough guideline. It gives me a better understanding of where I stand instead of being oblivous to it.
  • gatorflyer
    gatorflyer Posts: 536 Member
    Everyone burns differently and the numbers are based on either what someone has entered as their own numbers or, in the case of some of the online tools, it's an average burn based on an average person of a certain weight . Use a heart rate monitor to track your won progress. Once you start entering your own numbers, then if you use those for future measurements, it *should* be more accurate than just using someone else's numbers, but your best bet is to check it with your heart rate monitor that is set for you personally.
  • Maidei
    Maidei Posts: 114 Member
    I got a Polar FT60 HRM and found out the elliptical at my gym over estimated calories burned by 27%! While MFP over estimated by almost 27% as well if you use the generic "Elliptical trainer" option. But the treadmill numbers were pretty accurate on MFP with only a 10-15% overestimate. The actual treadmill readout, depending on how intensely you work out can range from being 10% -27% off (The less intense your workout the more inaccurate the calorie estimate became).
    And the other poster was right in saying that it also depends on how in shape you are, how intensely are you working out and your personal stats. It really does vary from person to person. But those numbers above have been holding true for me. So now I just take off 20-25% of whatever readouts I get on machines, while MFP numbers I take off ~15% depending on what machine was used.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    Not very accurate, they do take into account age, gender and weight, but fail to look at intensity and fitness level, which is why HRMs are more accurate, but even a HRM fails to take into account your real BMR, not your calculated BMR, this can differ due to amount of lean muscle even at the same weight.
  • UponThisRock
    UponThisRock Posts: 4,519 Member
    You can't really get an accurate count, any method used is an estimate. The best bet, imo, is to keep activity and calories consistent, and adjust things as needed. When you have consistency, you don't have to worry about accuracy.
  • CallMeCupcakeDammit
    CallMeCupcakeDammit Posts: 9,377 Member
    They're not taking into consideration any warm-up or cooldown time, so it's going to be higher than your actual burn, but my guess is that it's basing what your calorie burn should be using your stats. Any time I've used the preprogrammed workouts on the site, it's always given me a much higher burn than my heart rate monitor gave me. I use a Polar F4, which has been replaced with a different model since I bought mine, but it was the cheapest one that gave me just what I needed. I work out at home, so I don't need one that's coded (meaning there's no cross-talk between your heart rate monitor and someone else's). I did use it at a gym once while I was on vacation, and the guy on the elliptical next to me couldn't figure out why our heart rates were the same! Oops! If you go the heart rate monitor route, get one with a chest strap, like Polar. I've heard great things about Fit Bit and BodyBugg, too.
  • PeaceLuvVeggies
    PeaceLuvVeggies Posts: 375 Member
    I had use MFP's exercise calorie counts before and I was actually burning 200+ calories less than I thought I was, so all in all, I was overeating which was why my weight loss stalled. Yikes.
  • ifucsam
    ifucsam Posts: 40
    I usually don't log anything other than walking, running or cycling because I've found the counts to be a bit off. I use Run Keeper for all 3 of those activities and just go by what it tells me. It's all just a rough guideline though because everyone is different.
  • caseyp1122
    caseyp1122 Posts: 79 Member
    Most people under count their calories, so unless your meticulous about measuring things out to a tee, I'd assume that your probably under reporting your caloric intake (like most people do),
  • rjbram
    rjbram Posts: 12 Member
    I'm interested in this topic. Also wondering why people believe that heart rate monitors are a "gold standard" for estimating calorie burn during exercise. I believe that my heart rate has changed over time, as I get older, and as I rack up the running miles, but not sure that that really changes my calorie use. I would think the only way to actually determine caloric use is to measure some sort of metabolic thing, like total CO2 output or similar. Anyone know why heart rate would really be that accurate? Thanks
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    I'm interested in this topic. Also wondering why people believe that heart rate monitors are a "gold standard" for estimating calorie burn during exercise. I believe that my heart rate has changed over time, as I get older, and as I rack up the running miles, but not sure that that really changes my calorie use. I would think the only way to actually determine caloric use is to measure some sort of metabolic thing, like total CO2 output or similar. Anyone know why heart rate would really be that accurate? Thanks
    HRMs have an assumed V02Max build in. If you get an HRM and know your V02Max the the HRM allows you to enter it you will get the best estimates. around 85% (I beleive it is 84% subject to check) of total caloric burn can be derived by using the info in a HRM that allows you to enter V02Max with the other 15% being estimated, which get you to around 90-95% accurate readings.

    For HRMs that don't allow you to enter V02Max the amount that can be determined by the info in the HRM is around 75% with the other 25% being estimated which should have about 85-90% accuracy.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    I've found them to be pretty close estimates. At least I lost at about the rate it said I should. They do take weight into the equation because I now (after losing weight) get less "credit" for my exericse.
  • Carrie_D
    Carrie_D Posts: 120
    I have a BoddyBugg that I use to get my calories burned. It is usually quite a bit lower than the MFP estimate. For example, yesterday I did a ciruit training workout and according to my BB I burned 316 calories in 45 minutes. When I entered it into MFP, I had to reduce my time worked out by almost half to get the calories to equal.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories