Calories Burned From Exercise

flyingcarbaccio
flyingcarbaccio Posts: 92 Member
edited December 21 in Fitness and Exercise
How accurate is MFP's calories burned from exercise calculator? It seems really high.

Replies

  • nmf062174
    nmf062174 Posts: 171 Member
    See to me there are some that seem low
  • twinmom01
    twinmom01 Posts: 854 Member
    I have found it to be quite high for most of the things I do on a normal basis.

    For example when I put in my elliptical for 20 minutes it wants to give me about 240 calories burned whereas I actually burned about 150-175....

    Your best bet is to get a Heart Rate Monitor or barring that try and figure out how much you burn at high exercise a minute...

    For example i know at full speed I burn about 10 calories a minute...so if I do something for 20 minutes I know I burn a little less than 200 calories, since the first 3-5 minutes are spent getting your body up to a good heart rate.
  • RealHealthQuest
    RealHealthQuest Posts: 42 Member
    It's not accurate at all. I just got a new heart rate monitor with calorie output for this reason. MFP greatly overestimates. I have seen people say that accurate calories are about 80% of whatever MFP tells you. To play it safe, I am weighing food and using my own calorie output.
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,903 Member
    Some things are higher, while some things are lower for me. Overall, it's fairly close to what my body bugg shows for me during a whole workout, though.
  • flyingcarbaccio
    flyingcarbaccio Posts: 92 Member
    What's a body bugg?
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,903 Member
    What's a body bugg?

    Their website would probably have more technical information, but basically it's an armband I wear most of the day that tracks factors other than heart rate to give me an idea of how many calories I'm burning.

    Heart rate monitors (HRMs) are great for seeing how much you burn during cardio workouts, but they tend to be less accurate elsewise.
  • quevedor
    quevedor Posts: 1
    Does anyone use there exercise calories every day????
  • JaneyPid
    JaneyPid Posts: 1
    Hi all...I add on my Hatha Yoga and it says its only 12 calories for an hour...me thinks its a tad wrong somewhere and that this computer needs to have a lesson with my teacher! :happy:
  • blhenn
    blhenn Posts: 10
    for me MFP calorie burn is WAY TOO HIGH! I am 5'1" tall and 112 lbs so it is way high because I am not "average". You should invest in a good HRM that you can program to YOUR body and it will track accurate calorie burn.
  • paulsmisses
    paulsmisses Posts: 178
    i am upset at this! been quite chuffed with my calorie burn just to find its not my ACTUAL burn! i have an app on my iphone that estimates calories burned while out walking and its always lower than on here but always thought that was because it didnt take into account my weight/height/age etc.
  • Pablosammy
    Pablosammy Posts: 52 Member
    Yeah, it's a big overestimate compared to my HRM. 75-80% of what MFP tells you sounds right.
  • v70t5m
    v70t5m Posts: 186 Member
    For me, MFP can overestimate by 2x, especially with kickboxing and running. I must be more efficient than their calculator!

    I've found a HRM invaluable in getting off a several months plateau. It now makes sense, since I was eating too many calories back.
  • RuthieCass
    RuthieCass Posts: 247 Member
    for me MFP calorie burn is WAY TOO HIGH! I am 5'1" tall and 112 lbs so it is way high because I am not "average". You should invest in a good HRM that you can program to YOUR body and it will track accurate calorie burn.

    I think the MFP estimates do account for your weight. But you are right that they are definitely overestimates.

    OP, the MFP estimates are too high. To get a rough idea of how much you burn, you could take 80% of the MFP estimates (or multiply the time you worked out by 0.8 and enter that into MFP. If you want to be more accurate, you could get a HRM, measure your exercise burns, and then create your own exercises. Something to keep in mind is whether your estimates are of the NET calories burned (total cals burned during exercise minus BMR calories). A simpler option is to choose your correct activity level on MFP to get the suggested calories and not "eat back" exercise calories. Then you wouldn't have to worry about how accurate the calorie estimates are.

    For those of you who run and walk a lot for exercise, better estimates of net calories burned PER MILE are:
    0.63 X weight in lbs for running
    0.30 X weight in lbs for walking
    Source: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html
  • paulsmisses
    paulsmisses Posts: 178
    for me MFP calorie burn is WAY TOO HIGH! I am 5'1" tall and 112 lbs so it is way high because I am not "average". You should invest in a good HRM that you can program to YOUR body and it will track accurate calorie burn.

    I think the MFP estimates do account for your weight. But you are right that they are definitely overestimates.

    OP, the MFP estimates are too high. To get a rough idea of how much you burn, you could take 80% of the MFP estimates (or multiply the time you worked out by 0.8 and enter that into MFP. If you want to be more accurate, you could get a HRM, measure your exercise burns, and then create your own exercises. Something to keep in mind is whether your estimates are of the NET calories burned (total cals burned during exercise minus BMR calories). A simpler option is to choose your correct activity level on MFP to get the suggested calories and not "eat back" exercise calories. Then you wouldn't have to worry about how accurate the calorie estimates are.

    For those of you who run and walk a lot for exercise, better estimates of net calories burned PER MILE are:
    0.63 X weight in lbs for running
    0.30 X weight in lbs for walking
    Source: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

    i do a 3 mile walk in about 45 mins most days - does this mean that i am burning about 158 cals, where MFP says i am burning 227? thats a big difference!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories