How accurate are the MFP exercise calories burned estimate??

Options
annatin1018
annatin1018 Posts: 43
in Health and Weight Loss
I work out at least 4-5 times a week. I also weight 281 ( 11lbs down!!) but the machine I'm on says I've burned only 250 cals. for 30 min. (I don't set my weight on the machine, though). When I log my exercise MFP says I've burned like almost 3 times that.....I've heard MFP over estimates calories burned??? Any thoughts, please??
«1

Replies

  • megmo_7
    megmo_7 Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    I always put in a lower time on MFP. For instances yesterday I did intense work but only registered half the time. I plan on getting a heart rate monitor ASAP to help give a better estimate on how many calories I truly burned.
  • annatin1018
    annatin1018 Posts: 43
    Options
    Even if I've burned 400 calories, I'm still only going to put what the machine says, bc I'm an eater, lol. And if I MFP gives me all those calories to eat back that I didn't burn, I am only defeating the purpose. I eat back 50-80% of my exercise calories, so to me it makes sense to be safe not sorry.....thank you for you thoughts :)
  • jessicas0215
    jessicas0215 Posts: 47
    Options
    I think it's a great idea to get a Heart Rate monitor. When I started using one, I noticed that in some instance MFP seriously underestimates the amount of calories I burn....
  • beckylawrence70
    beckylawrence70 Posts: 752 Member
    Options
    They way overestimate, you need to get a HRM with a chest strap for the most accurate readings........everyone does not burn the same doing the same exercise.......
  • Ke22yB
    Ke22yB Posts: 969 Member
    Options
    I burn about 10 cal an hour for moderate intensity exercise usually a match between my machines my HRM MFP is a little higher than that for me but not much the HRM is I feel essential the 2 treadmills and the bike are mine so I have entered my weight it does make a difference I burned almost 40% more at 360 than I am burning at 228
  • jillomahony
    jillomahony Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    When I go running MFP really over estimates the calorie burn compared to my GPS watch plus HRM. Sometimes by 200 plus calories. I'd get a HRM and take the MFP numbers with a large grain of salt. Or just make sure to never eat back more than one third of your calories burned!
  • Narisong
    Narisong Posts: 191
    Options
    I enter my burn based on what my Bodymedia says I have burned and MFP is always off.
  • DBiddle69
    DBiddle69 Posts: 682 Member
    Options
    This is just MY OPINION....when I started out I had the same problem. My treadmill said one thing and MFP said another. What I learned was that unless the exercise equipment allows you to enter your current weight it will be based on a person weighing about 150 lbs. When I hit that weight I noticed there was little differences between the treadmill and MFP.

    I personally began using MFP's numbers from that point on.
  • LoraF83
    LoraF83 Posts: 15,694 Member
    Options
    Everyone burns differently.....and the machines don't know enough about you to calculate your burn accurately. Get yourself a heart rate monitor that uses your age, height, weight, gender, along with your heart rate to calculate your calories burned. It will be precise and help you so much in the long run.
  • firedudecndn
    firedudecndn Posts: 25
    Options
    My experience is that MFP under estimates by about 25%.

    When I use my HRM for cross country skiing I burn between 1000 and 1200 calories per hour but MFP estimates it around 800.

    Use a HRM for the best guess...
  • Ely82010
    Ely82010 Posts: 1,998 Member
    Options
    The more you weight, the more calories you burn, so enter the weight in the machine and then compare the numbers.

    MFP has your profile (age, height and weight), so with that information it can be more accurate than the gym equipment, which is probably just calibrated to an arbitrary profile, and probably less than your actual weight.

    I don't have a HRM, so I always used MFP values or what ever the machines gives me, but I always enter my weight in the equipment, and I take the smaller number to record my calories.

    Although a HRM is probably more accurate and reliable, is still possible to lose weight without it. Eating habits are more important.

    I have been on maintenance for over a year.
  • jineat
    jineat Posts: 25 Member
    Options
    For me MFP readings are really close so I just leave it and don't eat a lot of the calories added back in and I also make sure I don't go into starvation mode. I think it depends on the intensity of your work outs.
  • suztheq
    suztheq Posts: 171
    Options
    When I first started using MFP, the calories it estimated were almost twice as high as what my HRM was giving me, so I just manually entered my calories and even added some of my own exercises. I'm finding now that the more I override MFP, the closer their estimates get to my HRM. It's almost like MFP is "learning" my burn. It's usually only off by 10 - 20 calories now -sometimes higher sometimes lower depending on how hard I actually worked that day. Pretty cool, I think.
  • Minnie_Moo
    Minnie_Moo Posts: 239 Member
    Options
    I have a Nordic Track threadmill with iFit live programs that I use at home.

    Here's an example on of one of my workouts......

    My threadmill and iFit Jillian Michaels workout program gave me the info as follows: 45 Minutes, 2.35 Miles (3.79 Km), 4.40 mph (max) (7.08 km/h), 4.00% Incline (max) and 286.5 Calories Burned

    I was wearing my FT40 Polar HRM and it shows that I burned 229 calories....

    I think that using a HRM with a chest strap would be best even with your entering your info into the machine as I believe that is an average number. I questioned the difference between calories on our threadmill vs my HRM and the people at Nordic Track iFit Live told me to use my HRM :noway: as it would be more accurate
  • Tourney3p0
    Tourney3p0 Posts: 290 Member
    Options
    The MFP numbers assume you're really giving it your all. This would mean very high intensity, sweat puddle forming under you after about 10 minutes kind of training.

    Both numbers are probably off for you. Use whichever number is smaller to be on the safe side since the numbers differ drastically. A heart rate monitor will probably be best, as has been mentioned.
  • xXKatrinaXx
    xXKatrinaXx Posts: 234
    Options
    It depends what exercise...but personally I have found that MFP way underestimates calorie burns. Now that I have my HRM, I know that I burn at least twice (once in a while three times) what MFP says for when I do strength training. The eliptical comes pretty close though for me.
  • KareninCanada
    KareninCanada Posts: 797 Member
    Options
    It's all over the map. Sometimes close, sometimes under, sometimes WAY over. Strength training in particular it is completely unreliable, and ice skating is one where it's way out in left field. Since I bought a heart rate monitor (Polar FT7) I don't even look at the numbers anymore, OR the ones on the machines.

    What you need to remember is that the numbers in the database here were generally added by a member. So if they just took a wild guess, then it will be wrong. BUT - once you've added the exercise once and put in your own calorie burn, it seems to do a better job of estimating after that, as long as you just use it out of "my exercises".
  • dg09
    dg09 Posts: 754
    Options
    It's all over the map. Sometimes close, sometimes under, sometimes WAY over. Strength training in particular it is completely unreliable, and ice skating is one where it's way out in left field. Since I bought a heart rate monitor (Polar FT7) I don't even look at the numbers anymore, OR the ones on the machines.

    What you need to remember is that the numbers in the database here were generally added by a member. So if they just took a wild guess, then it will be wrong. BUT - once you've added the exercise once and put in your own calorie burn, it seems to do a better job of estimating after that, as long as you just use it out of "my exercises".

    This is pretty much me now since I got my FT7. I really like it.

    Strap is comfortable and the watch is easy to navigate.
  • stuffinmuffin
    stuffinmuffin Posts: 985 Member
    Options
    If you want accurate cals from working out then I would thoroughly recommend getting an HRM. I love mine and I'm now also looking to get a Fitbit. However....I wouldn't use the calorie estimates on the machines especially if you're not entering your weight. Even entering your weight on the machines doesn't seem to come up with an accurate calorie burn.

    I've just checked my HRM burn against the elliptical estimate on MFP and yes it would be accurate if my heart rate was at 160 average. Today I didn't go above a HR of 145 so my burn was actually less than MFP estimated.

    However, I do generally find MFP calorie burns for walking/running/swimming fairly spot on!
  • jenschnack
    jenschnack Posts: 112 Member
    Options
    I just got a Polar Ft4 HRM. I tried it for the first time today doing 30 Day Shred LVL1. MPF gave me some crazy high number over 300 for circuit training, my HRM said 164. I am been working out since January so I am not in bad shape. I worked out pretty hard today.

Categories