MFP Exercise Accurateness

OmegaGator
OmegaGator Posts: 37 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hey everyone, so I did some cardio at the gym today and as soon as I got home I went and played some basketball. My question is how accurate is the calories burned on MFP? It says I burned almost 3000 calories today, and I don't feel that it was that hard of a day. I know you can't feel calories being burned, but any insight on this?

Replies

  • bschoo01
    bschoo01 Posts: 175 Member
    i use a different website to calculate my calories burned and find it to be pretty accurate after borrowing a friends HR monitor a few times to compare... hope it helps! :)

    http://www.fatburn.com/free_tool_activity_burn.asp
  • alexbair
    alexbair Posts: 6
    Good point. I also have that same question. I golfed 18 holes the other day with a cart and it said I burned just over 1800 calories riding in a cart? How is that possible
  • crazytreelady
    crazytreelady Posts: 752 Member
    I ALWAYS input less than what I've actually worked out.

    That way, even if it is correct, I'm secretly burning more than I think I have.
  • jsapninz
    jsapninz Posts: 909 Member
    3000 cals burned....VERY unlikely as far as I could guess. Treadmills are bad estimators too..

    ANY time you use an average estimator for things, it is going to be inaccuate. Get a Heart Rate Monitor if you want to have an accurate burn rate. Otherwise, eat your cals burned back with caution....
  • Toddrific
    Toddrific Posts: 1,114 Member
    Obviously it's going to estimate on activities that have a HUGE variance.

    I'd say instead of logging specific activities, log them as activity levels.
    Aerobic exercise light, intense, etc.

    People seem to be pro-HRM, but I honestly don't see wearing one
    playing a pickup game of basketball.
  • marekdds
    marekdds Posts: 2,231 Member
    In my experience, mfp is off by at least a third. I finally got an hrm. If mfp says 300, my hrm is usually b/w 150-200.
  • jsapninz
    jsapninz Posts: 909 Member
    People seem to be pro-HRM, but I honestly don't see wearing one
    playing a pickup game of basketball.

    Lol, why? because a watch like mechanism will get in the way of your mad skillz? :wink:
  • OmegaGator
    OmegaGator Posts: 37 Member
    Thanks for the link, however, the link shows I actually burned more calories using their website than MFP's tools. Is there any chance that MFP takes your weight into consideration?

    Alexbair, that is definitely not right, lol. I think maybe they mean if your playing the whole time? I don't know a whole lot about golf but I don't think it takes too much energy. Maybe just count the time you actually swing and walk to the ball?

    CrazyTreeLady I think im going to start doing that, but people are saying you have to eat back your calories. So I have to eat an extra 3000 calories, and im full already :(
  • Toddrific
    Toddrific Posts: 1,114 Member
    People seem to be pro-HRM, but I honestly don't see wearing one
    playing a pickup game of basketball.

    Lol, why? because a watch like mechanism will get in the way of your mad skillz? :wink:

    Hold up guys, I have to put my chest strap on...=P
  • TheFunBun
    TheFunBun Posts: 793 Member
    I don't find it accurate for anything that I do. I own both a Body Media Fit and a Polar HRM and both of them are usually within 50 calories of eachother per hour.... whereas MFP will give me hundreds of extra calories.

    For instance, if I spend an hour on the elliptical climbing the molasses mountain, my HRM says I burn about 650 calories, a little over 10 calories per minute. My BodyMediaFit says about 640 and then MFP says over a thousand.

    That free tool gives me quite a bit more as well at 850 for moderate- when I'm operating outside of my "target heartrate" on the high end. If you had asked me, I would have said vigorous, which was listed at over 1000 calories per hour, too. :(

    YOU CAN'T TRUST ANYONE. heheh.
  • jsapninz
    jsapninz Posts: 909 Member
    People seem to be pro-HRM, but I honestly don't see wearing one
    playing a pickup game of basketball.

    Lol, why? because a watch like mechanism will get in the way of your mad skillz? :wink:

    Hold up guys, I have to put my chest strap on...=P

    "Hold up guys, I have to get into my work out clothes..."?!?! I don't see many people playing pick up in slacks or jeans....:happy: Just playing devil's advocate.
  • jsapninz
    jsapninz Posts: 909 Member
    people are saying you have to eat back your calories. So I have to eat an extra 3000 calories, and im full already :(

    You only HAVE to eat them back if you are eating very few calories to start with, like at the minimum 1,200. If you don't want to eat them back, don't. People tend to be fear mongers.
  • Robin_Bin
    Robin_Bin Posts: 1,046 Member
    I expect it's a good "average". But I know even from day to day, I can do the same exercise and put more or less into it and get more or less out of it. This is especially true for somethings like water aerobics or resistance training, where the more you push or pull, the more of a workout you get.
    For another example, if you spent every moment you could while golfing sitting in the cart, you'd get less exercise than if you stood some of the time, searched through the weeds, parked near the green, but walked over to it, etc.
  • jedikrissy
    jedikrissy Posts: 106 Member
    I find it fairly accurate. It all depends on you and the intensity of your workout, everyone's body is different and there for everybody will not burn the same calories doing the same exercises. So I got a Heart Rate Monitor awhile ago to be more accurate. I have found for things like my yoga the MFP's calories is way under by almost 100 calories. For things like running on my elliptical MFP is only about 10 to 20 calories under. For bike riding again MFP's calories are way under. But you got to remember that MFP is basing the calories burned from a larger group of info then averaging it out to apply to everyone. So it's better I think that MFP is a little under most of the time, it's better than being over.

    If you want to be more accurate you can get a HRM or just always try not to eat all your exercise calories since you know on average MFP's calories will be under or a bit over, again depends on the person and your metabolism. I would not be eating my 3000 extra calories for the day, that's for sure.

    Hope this helps, Cheers :smile:

    P.S I have read some other post's on this topic and just a FYI you don't have to use a HRM with a chest strap they come in watch form and are just as accurate.
  • jenbusick
    jenbusick Posts: 528 Member
    I gauge it by a known burn. For example, if (based on experience and other factors) I know that I burn 450 calories doing an hour of Zumba, i'll compare the other activities I do to that as far as intensity and duration. If it's more intense than zumba, I'll estimate that i burned more calories per hour; if it's less intense than Zumba, again, I'll estimate based on that. So today, when I did housework ALL DAY, I knew it was more activity than I usually do throughout the day and probably burned more calories, but not as many as an hour of zumba, so I gave myself a fraction of what I would have burned doing zumba.

    As far as eating back calories, if I'm not confident in my estimate, I won't do it. Also, if it's late in the day, I won't do it, because trying to finish off 1400 calories or whatever insane amount between supper and bedtime is just going to make me sick.

    If I'm confident of my calorie estimate and eating that much won't make me feel sick, I do eat back my exercise calories.

    So my advice is, find a way to get a good estimate of calories burned for something you do regularly, and use that to gauge your exertion for other activities and decide whether MFP's counter is accurate or needs to be adjusted.
  • thekarens
    thekarens Posts: 254 Member
    My personal experience is MFP is really off, like someone else said, about 1/3. HRM is the way to go IMO.
  • llkilgore
    llkilgore Posts: 1,169 Member
    I'm in maintenance and use the calculator at http://www.mapmyrun.com/nutrition/calculate/ , workout tab, to estimate my exercise calories. I'd gain weight on what MFP wants to give me.
  • kazzari
    kazzari Posts: 473 Member
    Wow, those numbers sound crazy high. I am new to this site, but not new to the fitness world. I wore a BodyBugg for 2 years and I can tell you my total calorie burn for an intense weight training session is about 300 calories. I might burn another 50 calories running. Nothing like the 600 and up I've seen here for a cardio machine. Of course, the more you weigh the more you burn, and as you lose weight and as your body adapts, and very quickly, to a given exercise mode, the fewer calories you burn. So I certainly cannot compare my numbers to anyone elses as we all burn differently and that number is always changing. For those of you who have been on here a while, do you notice the calories burned for a particular exercise decreasing as you progress?
  • OmegaGator
    OmegaGator Posts: 37 Member
    P.S I have read some other post's on this topic and just a FYI you don't have to use a HRM with a chest strap they come in watch form and are just as accurate.

    Thanks, was actually going to look that up.

    And yea, I thought the bigger you are the more you relatively burn. I am 6'7 ~360lb so I would burn more than a smaller person.

    Looks like a HRM is the way to go.
  • thinkpositive3
    thinkpositive3 Posts: 85 Member
    Love my POLAR FT4. TOTALLY worth the purchase- it actually makes me work harder.

    Check out bodytronics.com with the promo code of POPO. Mine came in under $60.
  • domsmoms
    domsmoms Posts: 174 Member
    i use a different website to calculate my calories burned and find it to be pretty accurate after borrowing a friends HR monitor a few times to compare... hope it helps! :)

    http://www.fatburn.com/free_tool_activity_burn.asp

    Thanks for the link! I am highly skeptical of MFP calorie burns.
  • domsmoms
    domsmoms Posts: 174 Member
    I ALWAYS input less than what I've actually worked out.

    That way, even if it is correct, I'm secretly burning more than I think I have.

    I didn't start off doing this, but I do now. My treadmill has a calorie counter and I always shave some calories off whatever it says I burned. And I do the opposite for what I eat - overestimate, or at least try.
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    if it gave you the right number it would be mostly a coincidence.
  • SusanleeBee
    SusanleeBee Posts: 144 Member
    i use a different website to calculate my calories burned and find it to be pretty accurate after borrowing a friends HR monitor a few times to compare... hope it helps! :)

    http://www.fatburn.com/free_tool_activity_burn.asp

    That website gives me even more than MFP. I think the estimates here are better/more accurate if yheavier, like me. Every other site I've checked has been higher than mfp. I don't have an HRM yet, but I'm losing on target, so i guess I'm doing something right!
  • BaconMD
    BaconMD Posts: 1,165 Member
    According to MFP, I burn only a fraction fewer calories by fishing compared to what my HRM says I burn when I am busting my *kitten* in my basement gym. If I relied on MFP's estimates, I'd probably still weigh ERR2.
  • Tourney3p0
    Tourney3p0 Posts: 290 Member
    Using elliptical as an example, I find that MFP is pretty close (to within 5% or so) compared to my HRM. I also go all out on the elliptical at very high resistance. In a typical hour, I will lose a little over 3 pounds in sweat. For the vast majority of people around me, I see them working out much slower at less resistance. I would expect MFP to be way off for them.

Categories