are MFP workout calorie counts acccurate?

alisonrose01
alisonrose01 Posts: 34
edited October 5 in Fitness and Exercise
I've still new to MFP and I've noticed the calorie counts for workouts being crazily high. I'm not overestimating what I am doing (at least not by much) but the counts seem way off for what I've come used to....seeing how many calories on average burned based on cardio equipment at gyms and a heart rate monitor I used to wear.

Has anyone else experienced this?

For example, 40 minutes of circuit training is 486 calories burned according to MFP. But that's not even an hour of a workout!! Can that really be accurate?? It seems 300 is most likely the max a person could lose in an hour!

Thoughts?

Replies

  • doornumber03
    doornumber03 Posts: 221 Member
    they are a bit off....really more of a guide. Best suggestion would be to get a heart rate monitor. Gives you the exact amount you burned. Good luck
  • JenOman
    JenOman Posts: 97 Member
    I also recommend a heart rate monitor. I use one and usually burn about 350 calories for 45 minutes of circuit training, but it is a class and the teacher kicks my butt.
  • applebobbrush
    applebobbrush Posts: 235 Member
    I don't have a HRM yet, I'm hoping for Christmas I'll get one. I've been going by the machine (elliptical) since I put in my age and weight. For 33 minutes on the elliptical I burn about 300ish calories. MFP says I burned like 450ish. I just manually input the calories that the machine tells me I burned. Weight lifting seems about right to me, at least for me. By the time I'm done with the weight lifting boot camp I am a breathless sweaty beast so I am hoping I'm not too far off what MFP says. Then I usually try to leave some calories not eaten to make up any difference in error on MFP's part or mine.
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    It seems the more precise an exercise is, the more accurate it is.

    Something like "Walking 3.0 mph" or "Running 6.0 mph?" Pretty close.

    "Elliptical?" There's no way of knowing what kind of speed or resistance you're using, so it's as accurate as a stopped clock.
  • mkallie
    mkallie Posts: 110 Member
    When I do circuit training at my gym I usually burn around 550-600 cal in an hour, and I'm 126 lb...

    I think it might depend on what you're doing and what intensity.

    I am highly skeptical of some of the counts on MFP though -- for instance, fishing from bank, archery, and bowling. :)

    I've actually found that my HRM tells me I burn more on the treadmill than the treadmill tells me, and MFP in general is fairly reasonable in its estimates.
  • schnugglebug
    schnugglebug Posts: 330 Member
    I use my HRM, and I burn SO MUCH more then they say.. I tweaked it and played with it and even reset my HRM to make sure it was reading accurately and it is...

    HRM is the best way to go I think... everyone is going to burn differently depending on weight, endurance etc.

    I NEVER go according to what the equipment at the gym says...I use to take my heart rate the old way (counting how many beats of my pulse in 6 seconds and multiplying that by 10) to give me an approximate number, and multiplying that by the amount of time I exercised... to see what was what.
  • alisonrose01
    alisonrose01 Posts: 34
    Wow overwhelming suggestions to get a HRM! Thanks for the input everyone. I now know not to trust the counts but will most likely input my own number. It's mostly about the boot camp/circuit traning type activities that I think are off.

    Thanks for all of your responses!
  • kevin3344
    kevin3344 Posts: 702 Member
    I found MFP to be accurate.

    As a ballpark I burn about 100 cals per 10 min of running/cross training once I get my heart rate up...

    3 miles for me at 9 min/mile is about 300 calories...5 miles about 500 give or take. Cross training is 200 cals for 20 minutes of work.

    Of course a heart rate monitor will give you more of an exact figure but you can burn 500 cals in an hour, if you're working hard.
  • Crystal_Pistol
    Crystal_Pistol Posts: 750 Member
    When I first started and my unfit body worked harder, the calorie estimates were a *little* high, but closer. Now, they are WAY too high. I think the default settings assume a pretty minimal level of fitness. Your body adjusts and it becomes harder and harder to raise the heart rate. I do interval training now and still can't reach the estimated calories burned from the site.

    Ditto from other posters, get a HRM as soon as possible because it provides a more appropriate estimate.
  • kevin3344
    kevin3344 Posts: 702 Member
    40 minutes of circuit training is 486 calories burned according to MFP.

    That's not out of the norm. 1,000 calories would be a bit much, but it's quite possible you burned 486 in 40 minutes.

    Btw, I don't have a HRM but I have an iPhone with an app that are often over MFP's numbers.
  • PennyNickel14
    PennyNickel14 Posts: 749 Member
    I just got a HRM and the numbers are SHOCKINGLY accurate for me. I thought that MFP would be way high. But it seems to be almost dead on for me within a 10% margin.
  • MzFury
    MzFury Posts: 283 Member
    You can definitely burn 10 calories a minute or more, especially if you're bigger/heavier. That said, MFP probably overestimates a lot.

    Another approach when logging stuff is to be less concerned about the calories reported, and rather know that you are working out very hard (by RPE or HR, whether manual or through a monitor). 'Cause all you can do, in the end, is work as hard as you can in the time you have, and eat a sensible calorie deficit, and whether the computer is spitting out accurate numbers or not is not going to affect your results... :wink:
  • Radcliffe83
    Radcliffe83 Posts: 82
    MFP good for me.
  • kevin3344
    kevin3344 Posts: 702 Member

    For example, 40 minutes of circuit training is 486 calories burned according to MFP. But that's not even an hour of a workout!! Can that really be accurate?? It seems 300 is most likely the max a person could lose in an hour!

    I just ran the Turkey Trot 8k (about 5 miles) in 39 minutes...that was 550-600 calories...because the pace was fast -- at least fast to me! (<8 minutes/mile).
  • ShannonMpls
    ShannonMpls Posts: 1,936 Member
    MFP overestimates a lot for me for most things compared to my HRM.
  • kevin3344
    kevin3344 Posts: 702 Member
    OP, Google "how many calories can I burn for <your activity>?" and see what you come up with. I found this:

    "On average, a 150-lb. person can expect to burn 536 calories during an hour of Zumba. By comparison, the same person would burn 413 calories during an hour of moderate swimming, 477 for an hour of casual racquetball and 684 for an hour of running at a 10-minute-mile pace."

    Read more: How Many Calories Do You Burn During One Hour of Zumba? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5368632_many-during-one-hour-zumba_.html#ixzz1f2Qya9WO
  • MrsM1ggins
    MrsM1ggins Posts: 724 Member
    I've found it to be pretty accurate for me compared to my HRM.
  • therealangd
    therealangd Posts: 1,861 Member
    It seems the more precise an exercise is, the more accurate it is.

    Something like "Walking 3.0 mph" or "Running 6.0 mph?" Pretty close.

    "Elliptical?" There's no way of knowing what kind of speed or resistance you're using, so it's as accurate as a stopped clock.

    This
  • maemiller
    maemiller Posts: 439 Member
    ditto with the HRM.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories