Are the calorie estimates from exercising accurate?

This is just me, but I find most caloric expenditure estimates to be comically inflated.

When I do an hour on my treadmill, it says I've burned maybe 300 calories. MFP suggests it something like double that. So, I go with my treadmill, and manually enter that.

I do a lot of toning, which is more resistance or "strength"...for which MFP doesn't offer estimates, anyway.

I don't actually care too much about the calories. I'm using MFP to try to help me increase my protein, and lower my total carb's.

I think some of them seem to be accurate, but others are a bit high

When I do an hour on my treadmill, it says I've burned maybe 300 calories. MFP suggests it something like double that. So, I go with my treadmill, and manually enter that.

When you run for an hour you really do burn between 500-600 calories, sometimes more depending on how intense your workout is. My treadmill is never correct on the calorie count and I don't think most machines are because they don't take into account age, weight, and level of exertion you are exhibiting.

I like to run and when I plug it into the MFP thing it comes in fairly close. Not sure about the others but the running and walking is fairly accurate.

For me, MFP is pretty much on target. It calculates about ten calories out. Others find it's hundreds out, though.

not even close

I believe calorie expenditure is based on your age, sex and current weight. If your trendmill doesn't ask for these parameters, then it is not accurate.

I use a Polar HRM and for me the MFP estimates were way way over

Since getting my HRM I have found that MFP both overestimates and underestimates on many activities. For walking outside I found once I used my HRM I was burning a lot more than MFP suggested, but the opposite on the elliptical.

I never thought I would be that 'into it' to need or want a HRM, but now that I have one I can't imagine working out without it.

For me, MFP is off/under when I do the elliptical. MFP isn't picking up the intensity of my workout or reading my heart rate. So I go by what the elliptical tells me.

I use a HRM for calculating exercise calories burned, but out of curiosity, compared that to what MFP had as a burn. I found that MFP was generally about 30-50% higher on some exercises, but lower on others (like yoga or stretching). The machines were off as well. I have also read that people nearly always over-estimate their caloric burn and under-estimate their food intake, so it's kind of a double whammy. You think you've exerted more effort than you have and you think you eat less than you did. If you don't want to purchase a HRM, I would say to be safe, reduce the burns MFP gives you by about 30%.

For me, they aren't accurate. Prior to getting a heart-rate monitor, I thought my calorie-burns were much higher than they really were!!

Example...
Zumbacalories.com tells me that I burn 810 calories for an hour of Zumba. I actually only burn 612 (HRM).
I was logging the 30 day shred as circuit training. MFP told me that I would burn 328 calories. I actually only burn 146.
I was logging Richard Simmons as low impact aerobics. MFP told me that I would burn 295 calories. I actually only burn 123.

I have a Polar FT4 with a chest strap, so my HRM is accurate. MFP database is not. At least not for me.

If you really want to be accurate - buy a heart rate monitor.

I find there is a difference in the site and the HRM. and if you want to be more precise, you need to be measuring your body's heart rate and exertion based on your resting heart rate, and weight.

If you aren't too concerned with being dead on and exact.. the MFP is fine..

Just remember to only use HRMs for calorie estimates when performing aerobic exercise. Using an HRM while lifting weights can give you good info about your heart rate but that heart rate doesn't translate to calories burned.

Sucks.

i would knock off 30% off MFP calculations. Running machines and HRM are closer in agreement. Most accurate for certain are heart rate monitors.

Not for me they weren't.

I invested in an HRM and when comparing the same workout (no worries, my treadmill was not cross talking with the HRM) the numbers were laughably different. The machine calculated I was burning around a hundred more calories per hour then I was actually burning! MFP was even worse.

Anyway. Not sure if MFP, the treadmill, or my HRM was at fault but I've chosen to go with the HRM. It's numbers were the lowest.

And as a side note, running won't burn THAT much... it does depend on your weight but at 195 pounds I was only burning 130 calories during a 30 minute run. And yes I was running at my max (lots of sweat!). Maybe I have a difficult time burning but I never got big calorie burn from running.

I don't think it is so I just dont take those calories off my daily intake.