How accurate is MFP's calorie counter?

Options
JohnnyGrey
JohnnyGrey Posts: 6
in Fitness and Exercise
I don't have a heart rate monitor, or anything really that would tell me how many calories I've burned, so right now I am completely relying on what MFP says I've burned by working out.

For example, I put in 20 minutes of kickboxing, and MFP tells me that I've burned 287 calories. Is this accurate?

Replies

  • vicki81868
    vicki81868 Posts: 262 Member
    Options
    You'll get mixed answers on this, but the majority feel (as do I) that MFP is too high on their calories burned number. Best way to really know is to invest in a good heart rate monitor.
  • JohnnyGrey
    JohnnyGrey Posts: 6
    Options
    I thought it might be, I remember when I did go to the gym, burning calories was not easy! Would you happen to know of a good heart rate monitor?
  • vicki81868
    vicki81868 Posts: 262 Member
    Options
    I'm researching that myself, but from what I can tell from these message boards, any Polar HRM is a good investment. The two models that keep popping up on the boards are the FT4 and FT7. The 7 is more expensive than the 4, but both seem to be highly used.
  • Sumo813
    Sumo813 Posts: 566 Member
    Options
    I say it's definitely too high... when I use the bodybugg, it seems to be around 75% of what MFP calculates. When I use my FT7, it's usually somewhere around 65%. I'd say, it's all a guessing game really. But if you want to be safe, calculate 65-70% of what MFP says. I'd say it's better to err on the side of caution, but that could always derail you, if you aren't getting enough calories in.
  • tammietifanie
    tammietifanie Posts: 1,496 Member
    Options
    I'm researching that myself, but from what I can tell from these message boards, any Polar HRM is a good investment. The two models that keep popping up on the boards are the FT4 and FT7. The 7 is more expensive than the 4, but both seem to be highly used.


    Love my Polar FT7 ...... And yes i also agree that MFP calorie burns are very high !
  • p_barron
    p_barron Posts: 63
    Options
    For myself I found that MFP was actually lower than what my heart rate monitor told me. I use the polar FT4 and it is very simple to set up and use.
  • Aquaduckie
    Aquaduckie Posts: 115
    Options
    It is high. I invested in a Polar HRM and it gives you a fairly accurate reading. I was just dismayed to find that men burn about twice as many calories as women doing the same exercise at the same intensity. I discovered this by borrowing my husbands HRM, set to his parameters. When I put mine on, I burned half as many as with his. And the amount of calories MFP gave me for the same exercise was about triple what I had actually earned. I usually do Turbo Jam, on MFP, it gives me over 700 calories for a 50 minute workout. On my hubby's HRM, it gave me 548 and with my own HRM, about 300. It's a huge difference.
  • ashprather
    ashprather Posts: 227 Member
    Options
    i hear the body media fit is a good hrm!
  • Lori_Henz
    Lori_Henz Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    I have a Polar and absolutely love it! It is easy to use, has a chest strap and links with most gym equipment that has a heart rate monitor. It was one of the best investments that I did towards a healthy me! That...and a great pair of running shoes!
  • love22step
    love22step Posts: 1,103 Member
    Options
    According to my HRM, the numbers are low. Soooo, I use the MFP numbers, and that's worked out just fine! I suppose the difference could have to do with the amount of effort expended. I tend to do every exercise as hard as I can manage. You'll soon figure out what works for you. Experiment.
  • JohnnyGrey
    JohnnyGrey Posts: 6
    Options
    Thanks for the advice everyone, sounds like I better order a monitor ASAP :3
  • Mich3ll36
    Mich3ll36 Posts: 96
    Options
    I thought it might be, I remember when I did go to the gym, burning calories was not easy! Would you happen to know of a good heart rate monitor?

    I read alot on the fitbit. It seems great! I may invest in one.
  • JStanko82
    JStanko82 Posts: 1
    Options
    i'm assuming your husband weighs a significant amount more than you do. calories burned are related to both exercise intensity AND mass. So, a 200 lb. man running a 10 minute mile would burn more than a 130 lb woman running the same 10 minute mile. Reverse that and a 200lb. WOMAN would, in turn, burn more than the 130 lb. MAN. It's not gender, it is mass, the more you weigh the more energy it takes to move. So don't get dismayed, it takes him twice as much work to do the same job.

Categories