I keep hearing this about MFP and logging exercise!

Options
Creamshakes
Creamshakes Posts: 38 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Can someone clue me in? I'm scyurrrred now.

Basically, a few people are saying that MFP dramatically over-estimates calorie burn for logged physical activity. Like, by a 100+ margin in terms of calories. Is this true? Is there anyway I can work around this when logging my food and it adjusts my calorie limit for what's been 'earned' through working out?

Halp. ):
«1

Replies

  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    The best way (not perfect mind you, but the best way we have) is to get a heart rate monitor with a chest strap to use during your cardio workouts. That will give you a more accurate calorie burn. I have a Polar FT7.

    For what it's worth, when I got my HRM, my calorie burns were actually much higher than what MFP or the treadmill said. I believe because of my poor level of fitness and obesity. It seems to overestimate for more fit people.
  • decdav
    decdav Posts: 41 Member
    Options
    I have found my HRM and MFP to be pretty close (which surprised me). I know the equipment at the gym over estimates a lot.

    If you use a HRM, make sure that it's data is accurate (your age, weight, etc).
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Options
    If you can't get hold of a HRM, eat 75% of the exercise calories rather than them all to account for some of the overestimation.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    Options
    It really depends on you and the exercises you're doing. For me, MFP and my heart rate monitor agree when I'm doing aerobics, but my heart rate monitor says I burn way more calories when I walk (must be all the hills).
  • chiera88
    chiera88 Posts: 155
    Options
    my heart rate monitor has a strap and cost $119 i got about the same numbers... mfp estimates that you are truly working hard. i assume that most people are just standing around and taking a lot of breaks during the time that they input and therefore it will obviously be wrong. input the time you actually are working out. i feel like i wasted my money...

    if you do something like a jillian michaels video, input it as circuit training general :)
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    I have found my HRM and MFP to be pretty close (which surprised me). I know the equipment at the gym over estimates a lot.

    If you use a HRM, make sure that it's data is accurate (your age, weight, etc).

    Also a good point. I set my HRM to 10 lbs. less than I really weigh. Then once I reach that weight, I change it down another 10 lbs.
  • janalayn
    janalayn Posts: 510 Member
    Options
    Always remember that they are estimates. I worry more about my calories eaten than burned (I try to always eat close to my BMR). And only you know what intensity you were exercising at. If you are only doing low intensity then you probably burned less, if you are doing high intensity then you probably burned more. You will know if you don't lose weight.
  • Stpjudge
    Stpjudge Posts: 129 Member
    Options
    Can someone clue me in? I'm scyurrrred now.

    Basically, a few people are saying that MFP dramatically over-estimates calorie burn for logged physical activity. Like, by a 100+ margin in terms of calories. Is this true? Is there anyway I can work around this when logging my food and it adjusts my calorie limit for what's been 'earned' through working out?

    Halp. ):
    You have lost 41 lbs. It's working for you. don't worry, be happy.
  • acstansell
    acstansell Posts: 567 Member
    Options
    I've heard this too and have found that MFP is surprisingly not that far off. However, I never walk or run w/out my pedometer or my iPod Nano that has a built in pedometer.
  • cjaharmon
    cjaharmon Posts: 46 Member
    Options
    My first thing I do is not eat every calories back! I put my exercise in and then make sure that my net calories are above 1200 just to be safe and leave it at that. Some days I do eat most of my calories back and some days I do good to get to 1201. I just go with it and don't sweat the small stuff.
  • goblynn
    goblynn Posts: 152
    Options
    I don't have a HRM but have noticed that the gym elipticals, arc trainers, and treadmills always tell me I have burned more calories than MFP give credit. I don't mind though, the way I look at it is these are bonus-burned calories.

    I also round down on my minutes of exercise and round up on my portions. For example- if I walk the dogs for 28 minutes, I would enter 25min. If my chicken breast weighed in at 3.4oz, I would enter as 3.5oz. :)
  • roachhaley
    roachhaley Posts: 978 Member
    Options
    Everything is an estimate, from your BMR to your TDEE to calories burned. Remember that. Shoot for a general range and don't worry about being a bit under or over.

    When I log my exercise I log the lowest intensity and cut the time I actually did it about in half. So if I walked 3.0mph for two hours I'd log it as 2.0mph for 1 hour.
  • jennifeffer
    jennifeffer Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    I have a polar FT4 and it gives me numbers way lower than MFP. Like you said, sometimes 100 cal.........and i work out hard. No standing around and dripping with sweat. I see a lot of people with crazy high exercise burns and i'm like, really???
  • Chagama
    Chagama Posts: 543 Member
    Options
    For simple exercises I have found the HRM to be close to MFP. I see the variations when running some long steep hills, but on flat ground they are close. Same with biking, hills and wind tend to make a big difference, but short relatively flat rides come out close. As far as gym machines, I find they are generally lower than the HRM, so you can use those numbers and know you aren't over estimating.

    The bottom line is I wouldn't worry about it. There is a lot of estimation in every bit of the process, and it's close enough. If you really want to play it safe, I've seem people only enter 75% of whatever the gym machine or MFP comes up with. I would just try following MFP blindly for a while and see what happens. Then adjust after several weeks if it seem like something is out of whack.
  • rocketqueen81
    rocketqueen81 Posts: 35
    Options
    I was concerned about this at the beginning of my journey as well, but have not found it to be a problem. I have found that at times MFP overestimates, and at times underestimates.
    What I usually do (which was taken from advice from other MFP members when I had the same question months ago), is if the machine at they gym takes into account my weight and heart rate, I will log the calories that the machine gives me over what MFP gives me.
    I never made the investment in a HRM, and so far I am still losing weight without one. I don't typically eat all my exercise calories back anyway, so the estimates seem to be working ok for me. I figure as long as I'm moving and pushing myself, and as long as I continue to see resluts there's no worries :-)
    Good luck!


    13784785.png
    Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    You can manually enter the calories burned. You just need to find a good estimate. A previous poster said 75% ... you could start there. If your weight loss slows, or you feel tired all the time, ... you will need to tweek it.

    Heart rate monitors use height, weight, gender, age, and exertion level to calculate calories burned. If you are using a (higher end) machine ... you will plug in some of these values. The more information the machine has, the more accurate it "can" be.

    MFP can't know your exertion level. It has to use an average. The more fit you are, the fewer calories you burn. Low end machines may "assume" you are male ... men have more muscle mass and burn more calories.
  • stfuriada
    stfuriada Posts: 445 Member
    Options
    I don't use MFP's exercise module at all.

    I don't even trust the calorie meter from the machines at the gym, really. If I'm not directly hooked up, I don't trust the readings. If the machines say I burned 300 calories, I estimate only 70% of that as accurate.
  • SunKissed1989
    SunKissed1989 Posts: 1,314 Member
    Options
    I don't have a HRM and can't really afford one so I've just been using MFP for my exercise calories. However, I went to another website when I started swimming to get another estimation based on my weight and the time I spent swimming and it was basically the same (+/- 10 calories or so) as MFP so I'm sticking with that.
    I also use the wii fit to get my exercise calories which have been going down as I've been losing weight. I saw a nurse to get some advice on weight loss and the likes and she said the wii fit is quite good in its estimations.

    I do have a pedometer when I go for long walks (will be using it when I do the Race for Life on Sunday) and that tends to read quite a higher number of calories than MFP even though it has my age, weight, stride etc...but then again, when walking, I'm not always walking at the same speed so MFP is more estimated than my pedometer.

    I don't eat ALL my calories back, but I do my best to get as close to my goal as possible :smile:
  • jones137
    jones137 Posts: 89 Member
    Options
    MFP is pretty much dead on for me. I train on the ellipitcal a lot and my FT4 HRM says I burn around 550 calories for 35 minutes at an average HR of 152-154. MFP says 510......the elliptical machine says 175 calories.

    I've found MFP to be pretty accurate for me but I still rely on my HRM for more accurate numbers.
  • dawlschic007
    dawlschic007 Posts: 636 Member
    Options
    I haven't found MFP to overestimate the calories burned. I also use a HRM and they tend to have the same numbers. The only notable difference is when I'm running outside I tend to burn 100+ more calories than what MFP suggest but that's because it doesn't take in to account the inclines and I tend to run at different paces.

Categories