How accurate do you think this is?

Options
nikki_marie05
nikki_marie05 Posts: 92 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
The exercise counter, that is. You know when it says you've burned so many calories doing a certain workout, do you think it's right, or close to it at least?
«1

Replies

  • sarahbetherck
    sarahbetherck Posts: 270 Member
    Options
    I usually try to eat back most but not all of my exercise calories because it seems high
  • Divagettinfitin2011
    Divagettinfitin2011 Posts: 500 Member
    Options
    I have a heart rate monitor and mine was way off!!
  • nikki_marie05
    nikki_marie05 Posts: 92 Member
    Options
    I have a heart rate monitor and mine was way off!!

    Way off like how? More? Less?
  • CurveAppeal86
    CurveAppeal86 Posts: 269 Member
    Options
    I got the Polar FT4 and MFP is so off it's crazy. It would tell me I would burn almost 800 calories doing 50 mins of turbo jam when I'd really burn 465. It's always MUCH higher.
  • Toddrific
    Toddrific Posts: 1,114 Member
    Options
    I have a Polar FT7 and MFP guesstimated me within 80 calories of what I was doing.

    To be on the safe side only eat back 70-80% of your exercise calories.

    HRM aren't the be all end all of accuracy either. Polars for example are only 75% accurate.
  • hyde1977
    hyde1977 Posts: 476 Member
    Options
    I have found the site much higher then my actuals.

    Even the machines at the gym are hughly off!

    HRM is the best way to understand what you are buring as we are all different.....
  • fitoverfat
    fitoverfat Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    I think it also has alot to do with who entered the exercise and calorie burn. For instance, it is extrememly accurate that every mile jogged is about 100 calories. It is NOT and CANNOT be accurate that 50 minutes of zumba burns 900 calories. I have to jog 9 miles to do that! There's just no way. What I'm saying is- as far as traditional exercises- I find MFP pretty right on, but as for certain workout videos and/or brands... it's way off because the people entering it are super proud. On the other hand, I had a friend do P90x the other day and it only read 190 calories. Seems like it should have been way more. For the most accurate measurements, get as generic as you can. If you did a workout video, catagorize it under "aerobics" and then either general/moderate or intense.
  • zoom2
    zoom2 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    I find that MFPs estimates for the calories I burn running meshes pretty well with other charts...but it WAY overestimates calories on the bike. I think it assumes I'm riding a 30# mountain bike with squishy, wide, knobby tires, not a 20# road bike with 23mm wide 700cc tires at high PSI. With that knowledge I've been known to under-report my time to guesstimate a more accurate burn.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    MFP was about 20% UNDER what my HRM says. From being on the site, it seems that MFP overestimates for fitter people and underestimates for less fit people. MFP was always pretty close with my treadmill though.

    I also don't buy the 'going 1 mile is about 100 calories thing'. That's probably true for someone more fit than I am, but it's not true for me. Though as I become more fit, I see my calorie burn per mile reducing. For example, tonight, I walked 5 min, ran 8 min, walked 5, ran 8, and walked about another 8. I went about 2.5 miles. My HRM said I burned 355 calories. A couple days ago, I walked 2.9 miles and burned 352 calories. The walking is much closer to the 100 calories per mile estimate, but I was working much less intensely than when I was running.
  • monty619
    monty619 Posts: 1,308 Member
    Options
    EXTREMELY INACCURATE... heart rate monitor is about as close as you will ever come to knowing how many calories you burned but its impossible to know for sure there are way to many variables... kind of pointless to try and count seeming we burn calories doing anything.. any calorie counter on a cardio machine is very inaccurate as well. think of that as a high score on a video game not actual amount of calories burned
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    Anyone on the slim side able to tell me if it over or under estimates? Curious if it differs with sizes. Most people I ask find it to be a little more then half of mfp values
  • sirihermine
    sirihermine Posts: 123 Member
    Options
    MFP estimates are lower than what my HRM says for me? I keep hearing people say that MFP overestimates, but that's not true for me.
    Everythhing is really an estimate though, even calories in food. So I try not to get to hung up on it.
  • monty619
    monty619 Posts: 1,308 Member
    Options
    Anyone on the slim side able to tell me if it over or under estimates? Curious if it differs with sizes. Most people I ask find it to be a little more then half of mfp values

    the more fat or muscle you have you will burn more calories, especially muscle... and if you are in better cardiovascular health you will burn less than someone who is out of shape.
  • warmachinejt
    warmachinejt Posts: 2,167 Member
    Options
    i think most estimates assume you weigh around 150lbs so i'm lucky i'm around there somewhere.
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,248 Member
    Options
    i think most estimates assume you weigh around 150lbs so i'm lucky i'm around there somewhere.

    No, it goes by your weight in your profile.

    But it depends on the individual and what exercise you're talking about. Walking or running are pretty close, because it goes by your exact (or close to it) pace. Something like "elliptical" can't be accurate because it doesn't take your pace or resistance into consideration.

    I had the progress I wanted by using MFP's estimates, so I had no interest or need in getting a HRM. Your mileage my vary.
  • jcpmoore
    jcpmoore Posts: 796 Member
    Options
    Some estimates are close and others are way, way off. I got a heart rate monitor so I'd know for sure.
  • marcoscu
    marcoscu Posts: 99 Member
    Options
    I have to doubt at least some of the calorific burns rates estimate by MFP and other websites for at least some activities They claim that an hour on an elliptical trainer uses 8-900 calories. I personally doubt this as it tires me far less than a couple of hours brisk walking which apparently uses fewer calories.. Now when on the Elliptical trainer I let my iPhone app (iSmoothrun) track it as a custom activity which it estimates at about 300 calories used per hour. This I feel is closer to the mark and so this is the figure I now enter manually on MFP when using the elliptical. I wish I was wrong but I suspect not!
  • flyingwrite
    flyingwrite Posts: 264
    Options
    I just recently got a Polar FT4 and was pleased to see that MFP wasn't that off for me. Like within 50 calories or so. And sometimes my HRM says I burn more than MFP does and vice versa. So, I figure it averages out. But like others have said, it depends on the exercise.
  • GalwayGal18
    GalwayGal18 Posts: 7
    Options
    I'm so glad you posted - I was about to ask the same thing. I am on my second week of MFP journaling and I just realized that their estimates are SO, SO much higher than the measure on the gym machine. And that's when I can actually find a listing for the machine or exercise. I wish it was more accurate because I like the idea of having it in one place.

    For now, I guess I'll enter what I can manually but go by the measurements on the machine or Fitlinxx.

    Does anyone have a website to suggest that they feel gives more accurate calorie burn from exercise??
  • ktbollman
    ktbollman Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    You shouldn't eat back any of the calories you burned! I try not to or else you just even out in the end!

Categories