Calories burned are way off on MyFitnessPal?

1235»

Replies

  • Masterdo
    Masterdo Posts: 331 Member
    Calories estimations from activities that are not aerobic in nature plainly sucks, with online tools, MFP, and especially with HRM. HRM assumes that your heart rate is elevated in direct correlation with increased VO2 consumption, and that part is not true for most activities that are not aerobic.

    Weight lifting, 30 day shred... while your heart rate increases with those activities, the HRM is THE WORST possible estimation for them, since your HRM always assumes (from it's formula) that your VO2 increases as well. For those cases, rigorous online tools that are backed up by specific sources for those activities are more reliable.

    HRMs for weight lifting is indeed a gimmick, but if you are training for endurance sports, they are as invaluable as a pair of running shoes. Sure you can do without, but there is no way it will be as efficient :)
  • Oh my gosh, you guys are FABULOUS! I really feel like I've found a home here. Thanks for the great advice and for so many responses to my question!
  • ive looked up the calories burned doing the exercises at light, moderate, vigorous and very vigorous that i do and take an average between the 2 (my calculation and mfp's). i map my runs on g map pedometer and that also calculates calories for my weight, i also calculate my pace when ive been running so i can judge it on that also and of course im honest about how hard i work! it seems to be working im upto 17lb loss :-)
  • appi1981
    appi1981 Posts: 45
    Always go by your hrm as that's true to your own burn , i see to many logging like 1000 cal s for a 30min walk and then eating into them cal s and wondering why there gaining!
  • Pebble321
    Pebble321 Posts: 6,423 Member
    I've always used estimates from either MFP or Runkeeper (no heart rate there, just speed and distance) and those numbers have worked out just fine for me, I lost weight at pretty much the rate I chose as long as I ate the suggested net calories (which means eating the base amount plus the extras from exercise).

    Everything we add (food and exercise) is an estimate, as is the amount of calories MFP suggests you eat.
    I don't think the fact that you can't guarantee the accuracy of MFP calories is a good reason not to log (and eat!) them. But then, I'm not a fan of setting myself up to fail by deprivation.

    I suggest that you accept that everything is an estimate, run with it for a month and see how your body responds. If you are losing weight too fast or too slow (assuming you have set a realistic goal) then you can change things around as needed.
  • Whether you are using MFP or a heart rate monitor, it uses a formula-base calculation to tell you how many calories you are burning. The more information you have to put into it, the more accurate it will be to you. However, if you really want to know how many calories YOU specifically burn and at different heart rates, I would suggest getting a Metabolic Assessment done. You can go to www.mewleaffitness.com to find a testing location near you.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Oh my gosh, you guys are FABULOUS! I really feel like I've found a home here. Thanks for the great advice and for so many responses to my question!

    Don't get too used to receiving useful, relevant information from the MFP forums. It doesn't happen very often.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Always go by your hrm as that's true to your own burn , i see to many logging like 1000 cal s for a 30min walk and then eating into them cal s and wondering why there gaining!

    I'm personally suspect of anything over 600-800 cal/hour for any activity that isn't absolutely life-or-death intensity.
  • furby1
    furby1 Posts: 114 Member
    When I bought my exercise bike a few weeks ago and spent 10 mins on it at a rate of about 25km per hour it said I had used over 250 calories........Brilliant I thought, then my HRM arrived and when I used that for the next 10 minutes it showed I'd actually only used 40 calories!!!....and i'm afraid that I know that it is a more realistic view......just think what would have happened to my weight if I'd eaten back the "bike" calories which were 210 more than actually used!!!
  • Masterdo
    Masterdo Posts: 331 Member
    When I bought my exercise bike a few weeks ago and spent 10 mins on it at a rate of about 25km per hour it said I had used over 250 calories........Brilliant I thought, then my HRM arrived and when I used that for the next 10 minutes it showed I'd actually only used 40 calories!!!....and i'm afraid that I know that it is a more realistic view......just think what would have happened to my weight if I'd eaten back the "bike" calories which were 210 more than actually used!!!

    For this case I'd say it depends on the accuracy of the "25km/h", but if you were to go outside and ride at 25km/h for 10 minutes, the burn would be much closer to 250 than 40. 40 would be like 10 calories per km, that's plain idiotic.

    HRMs are not magical tools guys, the formula that Polar, Garmin and as far as I know, every other company out there uses (except the Firstbeat technology on some models of Garmin) have 10-30% error margins, which is huge.