Trusting MFP Calorie Burns

I have found for me that the MFP is close. Since I got a hrm, yes I see a little variance (hrm says I burn 5-7% more) but for me that just validates that MFP is close enough for me.

I also wonder if since I am 80lbs over my " healthy weight" it may be different that for someone who is nearer their "helthy weight".

But for me, I've been encouraged. Everything I have compared against for me, validates that MFP is on track.

EDIT to add: My stationary bike has a counter but now entry for age, height, weight... so I just ignore it altogether.

I can't afford a good HRM right now, and that's the only type I want;) I do believe the count is fairly close. Maybe a little higher than what I actually burn, but I stay mindful of calorie count.

MFP is low on mine. However, I go at a very hard pace...very intense

MFP is crazy low on mine. I've noticed since I got a HRM (polar ft7) that I must be working way harder than the "average" person just to do my slow runs - MFP is usually off by about -20%!

To be honest neither MFP or HRM will calculate your higher metabolic rate after exercising where your body is buring calories at a higher rate anyway. So, I have simply relied on MFP for exercise on the street (Running/ walking) and the machine for whatever I do at the gym.

Ultimately I think that it's as close as we need it to be and use it as you need to. Good luck :-)

MFP is "close enough" to be accurate for me, although some of the exercises, like Elliptical, can't be right any more then a broken clock since, like you said, it has no way of knowing if you're going 3mph or 8mph, at zero resistance or all the way. For everyday life stuff like cleaning, I only log it if I'm doing MAJOR cleaning, and only log half of it at most.

The only way to really know is by trying it. If you're using the estimates provided by MFP and you're getting the results you want, then they're close enough to being right. If not, then you have to tweak things a little.

Even though I probably closest fit the description for sedentary, I needed to have myself set to lightly active to get enough base calories. I have a little bit higher muscle mass and lower body fat than the typical woman my age, height and weight, so that earns me a little more calories.

the machine and the elliptical put me at 1500+ for a 60 min burn...and MFP puts me at 1100. it's close to the truth. i weigh almost 300lbs (very big guy, not insanely overweight) and i push very hard. if MFP is telling me less calories, that's fine because i'm still trying to drop some weight.

let's face it though...2 people on an elliptical....one is at minimal resistance bee bopping along...the other is at max resistance tearing it up....MFP will log them both the same. there's no way MFP could know without more variables.

MFP is low on mine. However, I go at a very hard pace...very intense

^ yeah that. And I have an HRM that tells me my real number.

I've found my treadmill and MFP to be about the same. Today I was on a stationary bike for the first time and MFP was a lot higher than the stationary bike I was on by about 2X. So I gave myself half of what MFP was to be on the safe side. The stationary bike didn't adjust for my weight, but It's a stationary bike, it's not like I'm pushing my weight through the wind or lifting it all like I would if I was running.

It's pretty accurate when running for me, as it should be. You can imput your speed, distance along w/ weight and age and it should be about right on. I can honestly care less one way or the other, as long as I see my weight decreasing as it, it works for me.