ARE THE CALORIE COUNTS FOR EXERCISE TOO HIGH FOR MFPal???

lryorke
lryorke Posts: 1
in Fitness and Exercise
hi all-
every time i put in an exercise my fitness pal website gives me an amazing amount
of additional calories for the day.
for example, i do 1/2 an hour on the treadmill and i get 320 additional calories.
i am not asked if i ran, walked, had it on an incline or anything.
it does not seem right..
any thoughts or comments?

Replies

  • RH786
    RH786 Posts: 2 Member
    I believe you can search walking or running and adjust the number of calories burned depending on the treadmill count.
  • lizziem90
    lizziem90 Posts: 22
    oooo I don't get that!!! I get about 150 cals for walking on a steep incline at 5.5 mph (20 mins) on an interval setting. I usually keep a note of what the machines say and if MFP matches up here or there I go with it ....
  • LishieFruit89
    LishieFruit89 Posts: 1,956 Member
    Get a heart rate monitor.
  • saraheblack
    saraheblack Posts: 4
    Try getting a heart rate monitor, it is the best way to track calorie burn, it turns into a game to burn more and more day after day. You can get one on amazon for $40 or so. Good Luck :)
  • SVallatini
    SVallatini Posts: 49
    Not really sure why you are not being prompted to put in specifics on wether or not you walked, jogged etc. When I log my exercise in for treadmill it gets specific like 4.5 mph or ten minute mile at 6 mph. I have been using another tool to calculate calories burned on treadmill as MFP always seemed too low and treadmill seemed too high. I use treadmill calculator on the web to calculate calories burned. I can input my weight, incline, time and speed. In answer to your question, I think MFP is too low for calorie counts.
  • NathanJ79
    NathanJ79 Posts: 36
    I used to think so, but now I don't. I do a lot of walking, and I've noticed as I lose weight, I get less and less "credit" (calories burned) for the same amount of walking. Not by much, but enough that I notice. Speaking of myself only (I don't want to make assumptions about anybody else), when I walk, my body has to carry so much weight. It's not just the walking, it's the walking with all that weight on my feet. You would burn more calories if you were walking while carrying a child. The military has soldiers run with 75 pounds of gear on their back, same thing. So I think it's taking weight into consideration as well.
  • Jeebs71
    Jeebs71 Posts: 41
    I thought the calories burned count on MFP was too high, so I bought myself a Fitbit. You wear it and it monitors steps taken and links with MFP to give an accurate calorie burn. Because you wear it all day, the steps you take also count towards your extra calories and MFP links with the Fitbit dashboard for your food diary. There is definitely a huge difference between the calories burned on my Fitbit and the calories shown on MFP. I go with what my Fitbit tells me.
  • beccala18
    beccala18 Posts: 293 Member
    MFP has a formula based on height, weight, etc that you input that tells you what you burn. However, I think those estimates are high. Search the internet for different calorie burning counts for exercises - and look at the machine.

    A HRM will give you a more accurate reading than MFP. I do not have one. I just cut about half off of whatever MFP gives me (i.e. it says I burn 600 calories/hr doing my kickboxing/muay thai class - I input 250 and eat all of those calories). You can manually change the calorie burns.
  • AJ_Pete
    AJ_Pete Posts: 863 Member
    Both high AND low. My HRM reads higher for walks, but lower for circuit training. Best bet is to get an HRM.... Amazon has the Polar Ft4, which I have, for $60! And it's awesome!
  • NewChristina
    NewChristina Posts: 250 Member
    My default treadmill numbers go way too low. I have to adjust them up a bit. So, I don't know why the difference, but I'm used to it. I varies significantly based on my incline and speed.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    It seems to depend on you and the type of exercise you're doing. My heart rate monitor and MFP agree about the number of calories I burn doing aerobics, but MFP is way lower when it comes to my walking route. The only way to be sure is to get a heart rate monitor and use it while you're working out.
  • mecmic
    mecmic Posts: 45
    Sometimes I feel the sameway. Depends on your weight, like somebody who is 150 lbs and runs 3 miles may burn alot less than somebody who is 200 lbs .

    Check out this site. It has a lot of helpful tips when in doubt.

    Hope this helps.

    http://www.dietbites.com/Pyramid-Diet/calories-burned-actvity-index.html
  • Divatime
    Divatime Posts: 33
    I am so glad you asked this because I thought the same thing! The elliptical says one thing and MFP says something else! I was just trying to figure out how it calculates this! Thanks! :smile:
  • musicgirl99
    musicgirl99 Posts: 252 Member
    A heart rate monitor is helpful so that you don't eat more calories than you actually burn. MFP tends to overcalculate exercise calories.
  • mdspierce1
    mdspierce1 Posts: 4 Member
    Sometimes I find that the calorie count on MFP is a bit high. I used to adjust the calories burned to what the fitness machines say I burn at my gym, but I recently read (I think in Women's Health magazine) that even those machines are off--usually they overestimate the amount of calories burned by 10-30%!!! That was rather disheartening to find out, but it would explain why my weight loss is nowhere near where it should be according to MFP (in other words, I'm not losing weight when it says I should be). So I've started to cut 20% off what the machines at the gym say and what MFP says I'm burning in order to achieve better accuracy. I think, though, the recommendation to buy a heart rate monitor may be the best way to proceed in order to know what your body (which is unique and burns things differently than another body at the same weight, height, and age) is burning.
  • blustar8
    blustar8 Posts: 5
    personally i think mfp is too low for exercise.... well, the exercise i do anyway. the tracker on my phone says i burn more than what mfp says i do.
  • Linda_Darlene
    Linda_Darlene Posts: 453 Member
    Go through the exercise database and find the appropriate walking speed. I enter my walking by the speed and time duration. It doesn't matter if I do it on the treadmill or the ground! I have compared the calorie usage I get from MFP to other sites and I have found them all to be in line with each other. MFP showed no higher calorie usage for an equivalent exercise.

    If you want true accuracy, you may consider getting yourself a Heart Rate Monitor. They have them now, reasonably priced, that are simply watches with no chest strap.
  • MassiveDelta
    MassiveDelta Posts: 3,271 Member
    The numbers I get are within 25 cals of my hrm so I m ok with them
  • NewChristina
    NewChristina Posts: 250 Member
    I'm glad my Fitbit is on it's way. I tried the calorie calculators as someone mentioned above. There is a big difference between MFP, my treadmill readings, and the online calculator.
  • mkallie
    mkallie Posts: 110 Member
    Some are right, some are wrong. Sometimes it's good to be vague so you can look at the different options (e.g., if you put in "running" it will pull up a whole variety of runs, and "walking' will pull up a whole variety of walks). In general, I've found that a lot of their calorie counts are pretty overinflated. However, for running, their counts are usually low.

    I've heard that for women who weigh 150 lb, each mile of walking is ~100 calories.

    I ended up just getting a pedometer and HRM and have been happy with those. My pedometer is pretty accurate for most daily roamings. HRM I use for a variety of exercises until I get a sense of what my "normal" calorie burn is. For example, kayaking on MFP tells you you burn a TON, but for me it's maybe 200 cal/hr.

    When in doubt, round down. If you aren't waking up hungry the next morning, you're probably over-inflating calories burned.

Categories