Calories burned are way off on MyFitnessPal?

13»

Replies

  • bicoastalgirl
    bicoastalgirl Posts: 85 Member
    I was told that, too. I never bought a HRM. I just ate about half my exercise calories back. That worked out ok for me.
  • Quasita
    Quasita Posts: 1,530 Member
    This is per person, really... I have found that some exercises are pretty much spot on for what my BodyMedia Fit Link records. There are also plenty of people on here that give you crap because they think it looks too high and yet it really is what you burned... So I say, keep it as true to yourself as possible and go with your brain turned on ;)
  • Andrea681
    Andrea681 Posts: 178 Member
    Get an HRM. I never rely on MFP for an accurate calorie count because you are right, they are off.
  • Quasita
    Quasita Posts: 1,530 Member
    Yes, the calories are off.

    I no longer have a heart rate monitor, but I use this calculator: http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php and it seems to be pretty accurate (compared with what I was burning when I had a HRM, and compared to my Nike+ calculations).

    Interesting... I normally use MFP for calories but I thought I would test the above. I sewed for 6 hours on Saturday - MFP said I burned like 226 calories which I thought was really low. The above website said I burned 1619 calories which I think is high but considering how much I was doing, I wouldn't be surprised if it was correct. Thoughts?

    Sewing? I wouldn't even log that as an exercise. That's like logging typing. I burn maybe 1 calorie more a minute while typing than I do just sitting put.
  • scmcgee
    scmcgee Posts: 165
    I have two different calorie estimators and they seem to match pretty closely with MFP. Then again, everyone is different and you get out what you put in. It can estimate all it wants but only I can determine how hard I work during any particular exercise. I say go with your HRM if you want a precise calculation.

    Speaking of...I'm considering getting one. I want one WITHOUT a chest strap (as my chest is 50+ inches around and I don't think the belt would fit on me). Anyone have any good recommendations on a good HRM that does NOT have a chest strap?

    Thanks! :bigsmile:

    Can you get an HRM without a chest strap? I can't see it providing that much of an accurate reading just from your wrist heartbeat...

    I do not recommend getting HRM without a chest strap - it is a waste of mondy because you have to constantly check your heartrate with the watch. If you don't want a chest strap - get a FitBit or a BodyBug. You will like it so much more.
  • Sumo813
    Sumo813 Posts: 566 Member
    To me... it's all really a guessing game no matter how you look at it. I initially used MFP... but then reactivated my bodybugg. Then eventually bough a Polar HRM. What I have found is MFP > Machine > Bodybugg > HRM. So I use the HRM and figure that the lower number is safer. But then, I suppose that has potentially flawed thinking as well, because if I'm burning more than the HRM says, then am I taking in enough to fuel the burn? See. Craziness all around. lol

    I even went so far as to try and calculate out the percentage of what the HRM burns compared to the bugg et al. If you want to use MFP's calculations, I'd say you're safe calculating between 60-65% of what it says you've burned.

    I think the only way you're going to do this is by doing something like a VO2 max test... which I have not yet done, but would love to. But your safest bet is to go to a dealer for an HRM (I have found bodytronics.com to be the cheapest with 2 Polar HRMs so far - FT7 and RS400). Just make sure to keep it up-to-date with your weight so it's calculating as accurately as possible.
  • skb12573
    skb12573 Posts: 182 Member
    Just today I got on my Gold's Gym recumbant stationary bike and the calories in 22 minutes burned was listed by it as 102. My speed was 11-12 with moderate resistance and when I put this into MFP it listed 238 burned! I went with what the bike equipment said. Although, when on treadmill, I find that what MFP and what treadmill says as calories burned are VERY close.
  • MissMaryMac33
    MissMaryMac33 Posts: 1,433 Member
    Buy an HRM -- if you use MFP, use about half of what it says and eat them back.
  • SPBROOKS68
    SPBROOKS68 Posts: 561 Member
    I think the sodium content is TOO
  • douglasmobbs
    douglasmobbs Posts: 563 Member
    When I tracked calories in and calories out then worked out predicted weight loss it was accurate within 10%.

    There are some exceptions such as elliptical but it is a really good start.
  • Starzy696
    Starzy696 Posts: 133 Member
    I have a polar watch and I find that the calories I have burned are higher than what is listed on MFP. For example, if I put in walking for 40 mins at 4 MPH, it normally says I burn 350 calories, but my polar watch says 402.

    I also am finding that the machines at the gym are normally double what my polar watch says. :(
  • REYES702
    REYES702 Posts: 2
    I haven't read through this topic but I know on my Garmin Edge 705, the calories are way off. If you multiply your weight by .60 then input that as your weight, it's pretty accurate. For example, I weigh 216 so I put in 129.6. This has been tested and confirmed to be accurate by those with Power Meters and what not. Give that a shot and compare it to MFP and see if it'll work.
  • katy84o
    katy84o Posts: 744 Member
    I have no clue if they are correct for me, I don't have an HRM. But I add it so that I can log what I do, and the minutes. I try to not eat all of my exercise calories back, so I don't really worry to much about it. I use it to just keep track of minutes. And anyway, some of the foods in the database are wrong but that doesn't mean you shouldn't log them right?
  • raystark
    raystark Posts: 403 Member
    Because I couldn't get myself to buy a HRM, I just started logging half of my workout so a 60 minute swim I put in as 30 minutes. It seems to do a good enough job of fixing the problem. Good luck! I definitely like logging the exercise. More calories to eat!

    *mind boggled*

    Wouldn't it make more sense to accurately record your time, but override the calories-burned amount by half?

    Thereby ending up with the exact same result. :smile:
  • charmingtrouble
    charmingtrouble Posts: 54 Member
    I just got a HRM, the New Balance Pearl :bigsmile: I went through 40 minutes of Jillian Michael's Extreme Shred and Shed and had an average heart rate of 144 through out the video, as compared to 70ish at rest

    I plugged the average into two calculators online, one said 530 calories were burnt while the other said 512.... compared to MFPs circuit training, general, for only like 337 calories burnt

    I'm only 5'1 and 140lbs, not in very good shape, and was sweating like crazy after :laugh:
  • ErinBeth7
    ErinBeth7 Posts: 1,625 Member
    MFP calorie calculations have always been a little bit low for me. I always thought they were too high until I got a heart rate monitor. Like others have said, its really a personal thing. I would recommend an HRM.
  • KarenisPaleo
    KarenisPaleo Posts: 169 Member
    I was going to say the same thing. Sewing? Wouldn't log it.
  • mcrowe1016
    mcrowe1016 Posts: 647 Member
    I just got a HRM, the New Balance Pearl :bigsmile: I went through 40 minutes of Jillian Michael's Extreme Shred and Shed and had an average heart rate of 144 through out the video, as compared to 70ish at rest

    I plugged the average into two calculators online, one said 530 calories were burnt while the other said 512.... compared to MFPs circuit training, general, for only like 337 calories burnt

    I'm only 5'1 and 140lbs, not in very good shape, and was sweating like crazy after :laugh:

    I weigh more than you, have a higher avg heart rate than you when I am doing cardio (160ish), but rarely burn more than 10 calories a minute. I think that your calculations might be off.
  • Yori1
    Yori1 Posts: 142
    Bump
  • albinogorilla
    albinogorilla Posts: 1,056 Member
    So........go by your weight...........some people have HRM and they say it shows double the calories burned as MFP says, some say it shows half...........which means its not a useful tool. If you stay the same weight, lower your calories or increase exercise. If you gain, same, if you lose.......keep it up. Never had a HRM, its a gimic like everything else. If you know your body, its not necessary.

    This is your life, knowing every single calorie you burn and take in down the the last one isn't as important as making a positive change you can keep going forever.

    Measure yourself, weigh yourself, look in the mirror, take pictures, then adjust accordingly...........thats all real.
  • 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 :)
  • 13kathysue
    13kathysue Posts: 4
    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!
  • ladypenelopemk2
    ladypenelopemk2 Posts: 24
    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.
  • Fit4lifestlouisbethpennington
    Fit4lifestlouisbethpennington Posts: 51
    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.

Categories