We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

How accurate is the calorie burn?

maijageorge
maijageorge Posts: 6
edited December 2024 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