Calories burned are way off on MyFitnessPal?

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

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.

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.

Buy an HRM -- if you use MFP, use about half of what it says and eat them back.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.