How accurate is the calorie burn?

maijageorge
maijageorge Posts: 6
edited December 18 in Fitness and Exercise
I was just wondering if anyone had a fancy heart rate moniter while they worked out to see how many calories you really burned vs what mfp says .. after my two workouts today, it said I burned 1617 calories.. Just wondering if these numbers were close to accurate.. Thanks!
«1

Replies

  • skylark94
    skylark94 Posts: 2,036 Member
    Most folks here find the MFP numbers to be ridiculously high. Before I got my HRM, I took whatever number MFP gave me, then cut it by at least 25%.
  • frilly7483
    frilly7483 Posts: 56 Member
    I'm afriad I have no idea what the answer is, but I use an HRM and I'm interested in knowing too!
  • deadstarsunburn
    deadstarsunburn Posts: 1,337 Member
    Mfp over estimates everything except running it seriously under estimates how much I burn. Hrm are not accurate in weight lifting calories just an FYI =]
  • Will_Lift_4_Shoes
    Will_Lift_4_Shoes Posts: 238 Member
    bump...I am thinking about getting and HRM and checking this out for myself.
  • lporter229
    lporter229 Posts: 4,907 Member
    Everyone says that MFP numbers are biased high, but I do not find the MFP numbers to be that high. Do they vary a lot with weight? I am only 117 lbs so maybe there is more emphasis placed on weight in the MFP calculations?
  • Pakitalian
    Pakitalian Posts: 218 Member
    Once I got my HRM I found that it was off by 150-200 cals or so. Not sure if this helps a whole lot... if you are thinking of investing in a HRM, DO IT!!!

    I thought LONG and hard about it before I did, but I LOVE mine. Got it on Amazon for $60... totally worth it!
  • AmandaLAcosta
    AmandaLAcosta Posts: 87
    MFP is so generous with cals burned. I was really disappointed when I got my polar FT4 and it was so low compared to MFP. There was at least a 125-200 cal difference.., I recommend getting a HRM with a chest strap !!
  • jamielynas
    jamielynas Posts: 366 Member
    For me the MFP calories are insanely overestimated, it depends how fit you are and a bunch of other variables but I would strongly recommend a good HRM with a chest strap!
  • 1_Happy_Camper
    1_Happy_Camper Posts: 63 Member
    I have found some to be very high - especially "circuit training general" under cardio. I find a good estimate to be a brisk run burns about 10 calories a minute and gauge my exercise off that. If MFP estimates calories higher than that for what I'm doing then I decrease it accordingly. best of luck.
  • juliegin
    juliegin Posts: 77 Member
    Which one did you get for $60?? All the Polar ones I was looking at were like $110.
  • juliegin
    juliegin Posts: 77 Member
    Once I got my HRM I found that it was off by 150-200 cals or so. Not sure if this helps a whole lot... if you are thinking of investing in a HRM, DO IT!!!

    I thought LONG and hard about it before I did, but I LOVE mine. Got it on Amazon for $60... totally worth it!

    Which one did you get for $60?? All the Polar ones I was looking at were like $110.
  • mwestonp
    mwestonp Posts: 77 Member
    From my experience MFP is both high and low on their calorie calculations, which should be expected as it's impossible to make it accurate for everyone. I definitely recommend getting a heart rate monitor. I can only speak to a few of the cardio categories. I have found that the MFP elliptical and stairmaster calculations a bit high depending on how hard I work. I have found that the MFP strength training calculation is insanely low (MFP is around 250 cal / hour and I'm burning closer to 600 cal / hour). Hope that input helps.
  • JessK78
    JessK78 Posts: 26
    this explains why i'm not losing weight then! (aside from all the food)
  • ChitownFoodie
    ChitownFoodie Posts: 1,562 Member
    HRMs and MFP have never been accurate for me. Plus, they don't tell you what your EPOC is.
  • maijageorge
    maijageorge Posts: 6
    I think it does vary with weight, example I weigh 278 so I have to work harder moving my extra weight in that hour of cardio than say your 117 frame..Its like me adding a 161 pound weight , so it makes since I would burn more calories..I just don't know if 50 minutes of turbo jam like classes are burning 1050 calories a class for me..
  • sunshine45356
    sunshine45356 Posts: 78 Member
    I totally agree with everyone here. The estimates on MFP are way higher than on my FT4. I too was dissapointed to see that I was burning much fewer calories but at least I have an accurate burn now. I love my FT4!
  • JBott84
    JBott84 Posts: 268 Member
    I don't have a HRM, anxiously awaiting buying one....but my friend does have one and she says her HRM is usually about 30-50 cals less than MFP on an hour walk at 4.0...so take what you will...Hers doesn't have a chest strap the one I am getting will, so I'll update you on that comparison later...lol....I always an in the green for calories so if it is high like everyone says I compensate that way?...Everyone is different so I assume for some it's WAY off and for others it's closer....
  • lporter229
    lporter229 Posts: 4,907 Member
    I have found some to be very high - especially "circuit training general" under cardio. I find a good estimate to be a brisk run burns about 10 calories a minute and gauge my exercise off that. If MFP estimates calories higher than that for what I'm doing then I decrease it accordingly. best of luck.

    MFP gives me 324 calories for 50 minutes of circuit training which is less than 7 calories/minute. Like I posted earlier, I think MFP puts too much emphasis on weight.
  • sunshine45356
    sunshine45356 Posts: 78 Member
    FT4 is 67.00 from the Polar website and it comes with the strap of course. Very much worth the investment!
  • deadstarsunburn
    deadstarsunburn Posts: 1,337 Member
    Once I got my HRM I found that it was off by 150-200 cals or so. Not sure if this helps a whole lot... if you are thinking of investing in a HRM, DO IT!!!

    I thought LONG and hard about it before I did, but I LOVE mine. Got it on Amazon for $60... totally worth it!

    Which one did you get for $60?? All the Polar ones I was looking at were like $110.

    amazon has them =]
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    well, I would say 1050 is a rather high estimate for an hour of almost anything. however, only you can tell if it's too high. Are you losing as predicted?
  • coopersmom2006
    coopersmom2006 Posts: 839
    I think MFP and most machines are a bit high. Then again I'm at my goal weight and very active so I tend to have to work harder to burn more calories.
  • Chagama
    Chagama Posts: 543 Member
    I constantly read that the calories on here are way too high, but I recently purchased a HRM and I haven't found them to be drastically off. For running, I have compared my GPS watch with the HRM with the MFP numbers, and they are typically all within 5% of each other. Not worth worrying about, and who knows which one is correct. For bike riding I have only one sample so far and MFP was about 6% lower than the HRM.
  • graelwyn
    graelwyn Posts: 1,340 Member
    I ordered an FT4 so I can be sure, though to be honest, I am scared to find out just how high my heart rate goes when cycling, lest I end up fearing exercising. I know my heart rate gets pretty high as I have impaired lungs so have to work that much harder up hills etc.

    I tend to put cycling 12-14 mph in for my cycling because although I only tend to get to 10mph mostly, I have a lot of hills to get up and down rather than level roads. It estimates I burn about 440 per hour.
  • VanessaGS
    VanessaGS Posts: 514 Member
    If you go on the Tools tab...there's a neat little device that I'm thinking about ordering for myself. Check it out.
  • maijageorge
    maijageorge Posts: 6
    well, I would say 1050 is a rather high estimate for an hour of almost anything. however, only you can tell if it's too high. Are you losing as predicted?


    Not at all! I have been stuck for months now.. I am given 1760 calories a day, I work out 5-6 times a week and almost always stay under my calorie goal. I started hitting the gym a bit harder to try and break this cycle, and nothing is happening...
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    well, I would say 1050 is a rather high estimate for an hour of almost anything. however, only you can tell if it's too high. Are you losing as predicted?


    Not at all! I have been stuck for months now.. I am given 1760 calories a day, I work out 5-6 times a week and almost always stay under my calorie goal. I started hitting the gym a bit harder to try and break this cycle, and nothing is happening...

    so do you eat your exercise calories back or no? What is your GROSS intake? Your NET intake?
  • aproc
    aproc Posts: 1,033 Member
    I wore a bodymedia for a while once and for 300 calories burned according to here and the machine, my band said only around 100. I always put half the time I did into MFP when logging any exercise since it's quite high.
  • MissTattoo
    MissTattoo Posts: 1,203 Member
    I have a BFM Link and MFP way overestimated for me. I was eating way too much based on MFP estimates. Since I've gotten this I've dropped 2 pounds. I'm aware of my TDE and base my calories consumed off of that. On non exercise days I adjust it.
  • Raddichio
    Raddichio Posts: 162 Member
    Mfp over estimates everything except running it seriously under estimates how much I burn. Hrm are not accurate in weight lifting calories just an FYI =]




    If HRM does not accurately measure calorie expenditure for weight lifting, how do you determine that, or can you? I've noticed that when I keep my HRM on for strength training the calorie count for an hour is much lower than 1/2 hour of cardio.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories