How true are MFP's Exercise Calories Burned?

Options
13

Replies

  • FitToBeFab
    FitToBeFab Posts: 537 Member
    Options
    I use MapMyRun or MapMyFitness calculators. I've always used them (the several times I've started and stopped MFP) and been successful every time.

    I don't know why I feel they are more accurate - maybe because they specifically ask for height and weight, distance, and time (for runs and walks). They are always less than MFP, usually by 20 cals or more.
  • FrugalMomsRock75
    FrugalMomsRock75 Posts: 698 Member
    Options
    I typically get an overestimation from mfp. If I ride my stationary bike in vigorous mode, the moderate effort on mfp is very close to what my HRM tells me.

    The elliptical... if I enter mfp's value, it's over by about 10%-ish.

    walking... I select the carrying load of 15 pounds and it tells me 295 for my walk this AM, but my HRM said I burned just over 500. If I just select the "very brisk pace" (4.0 mph), it says 421-getting closer, but still not there. I think the stroller added that extra burn for me.

    It just depends. It really does pay to get a HRM.
  • amandainez08
    amandainez08 Posts: 87 Member
    Options
    It works for me and what I do. It may overestimate, but only by a few calories. I do Shaun T's Hip Hop Abs, and log it as "Aerobics, high impact." I've lost weight, so it must be close to accurate. However, when I did my elliptical, MFP says I burned I lot more calories than my elliptical machine did. I would suggest buying a HRM and calculate your calories burned that way. That would be the closest thing to accurate as you could get when it comes to calories burned. Everyone is different. My heart rate may start speeding up before the next person, or vice versa; therefore, I'd burn more calories than that person. Your heart rate plays a big role in burning calories. Also, if your body gets "used" to you doing the same thing every day. For example, your body may not burn as many calories this week as it did two months ago when you first started doing the exercise...and only that exercise. In these cases, MFP definitely isn't very trustworthy.
  • sjschewlakow
    sjschewlakow Posts: 120 Member
    Options
    I have used MFp for all my exercises. I eat back most of my calories. I have been on MFP for 145days a of today and have lost 25lbs during that time. I am still losing. Works for me!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    In my experience they are seriously inflated.

    You have gotten seriously efficient compared to the folks in the studies then. :noway:

    How does it feel to be so aerobically fit that it's hard to get a good calorie burn on unless you kill yourself? :grumble:
  • jfrankovich
    jfrankovich Posts: 31 Member
    Options
    Part of why MFP estimates are often too high is that your daily goal is based on a built-in 24 hours of regular activity. So if you log an hour of running on top of that, it's like saying you had a 25-hour day. To be accurate, when logging an hour of exercise, you would have to subtract an hour of normal activity. Since you can't really do that, I just decrease the amount of minutes of exercise I log (versus what I actually did) to make up for it.

    For example, if my daily expenditure is 2400 then my typical hourly expenditure is about 100. If I exercise for an hour and MFP says it burned 400 calories, that's really only 300 calories more than I would have burned anyway. So I would only log 45 minutes of that exercise (instead of 60) since 300/400 = 3/4.

    I've had great success doing it this way, losing weight at very nearly the same rate as expected from my MFP goal settings.

    Overestimating exercise calories in the first place could well be part of why many MFPers are hesitant to eat them all back.

    Another issue is that some activities, like cleaning, bowling, or golfing, for example, can involve a lot of pausing in between actual activity (waiting while others play, etc). You shouldn't get credit for a full 2.5 hours of golfing if a lot of that time was spent just standing or sitting around. Instead, I try to estimate how long it would have taken had there been no interruptions.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options

    That's yet another good reason for just doing a TDEE Deficit based method. With exercise already included in the TDEE method, it doesn't really matter.

    But you did give me a good idea for improvement to a spreadsheet, where you could use your own HRM calorie burn estimates to get better TDEE estimate.

    But of course if doing that to get better estimate, better remove what was planned on happening anyway.

    Thanks for the reminder.

    Also goes to show, unless doing a recovery type workout, if you are going to give 30-60 minutes for a workout, you might as well push it and get some serious calories, so that effect is less.
    Someone barely walking 2 mph just isn't getting much above expected normal anyway.
  • barfleurjo
    Options
    I agree, having spent four sessions in the gym this week, the MFP rates are too high. Today I manually changed the figures to be what my bike & cross-trainer said I'd burned as that was at least working on effort level, weight, age etc so I think it's more accurate.
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,248 Member
    Options
    It depends on how precise the activity is.

    For running or walking, where you're going a set or average pace for a set amount of time... it's probably pretty close.

    For something more vague, like the elliptical, where there's no variation for resistance or pace, it has as much chance of being right as a broken clock.
  • neverstray
    neverstray Posts: 3,845 Member
    Options
    It's about right. Who cares anyway, it's a benchmark, not an actual measurment. If you're not losing, eat less or workout more. Doesn't matter at all. I wish people wouldn't get so hung up on it. NOTHING is accurate. It's all a big giant guessing game. Calories on food are off by at least 20%. Your scale is off by a few lbs give or take 5 lbs. Who cares? All that matters is consistency. Always use the same method, scale, and measurment technique and it will all be relative.

    Also, and this bugs the holy crap out of me, if a 100 calorie food is 100 calories, do you think that means the same thing to everyone? Does an 80-year-old inactive woman process that 100 calories the same as a 20-year-old male athelete, or a 3 year-old kid. Of course not. It's all just a big estaimate. nothing is that accurate. HRM's are not all that either. Biggest scam in the world. People here cling to them like they are the holy grail, and then use them wrong by walking around at work with them on. LOL. Not what they are designed to do, and they are wrong when you do that. Plus, all they know is that your heart is beating, thus the name Heart Rate Monitor, they have no idea how many calories you burn. LOL.
  • Yosemite4vr
    Yosemite4vr Posts: 84 Member
    Options
    I only trust my HRM.
  • ethansmug
    ethansmug Posts: 159 Member
    Options
    I like em, cause I can flick my toes for 5 minutes and it will say I burned 12,000 calories =]
  • MuscleJunkieK8
    Options
    I use my own way to check for calories burned, fat burned, heart rate. Either the machine I am working on in my home gym is set according to my height, weight, gender, or a HRM.

    I rarely ever trust MFP, unless I'm in a hurry and did a quick jog, something like that.
  • amd895793
    Options
    they aren't incredibly innacurate because it factors in your weight with the burn... when i lost about 5 pounds i saw a difference in the same excersises.. small difference of course!
  • MissyBenj
    MissyBenj Posts: 186 Member
    Options
    It sounds like I need to invest in a HRM!
  • MissyBenj
    MissyBenj Posts: 186 Member
    Options
    I like em, cause I can flick my toes for 5 minutes and it will say I burned 12,000 calories =]

    This made me laugh out load. I always feel really good when it says "600" calories burned.. kind of bummed that it's a high guess.
  • wavdawg4
    wavdawg4 Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    No idea how accurate it is but will say one thing, durin my weight loss process ive only eva used MFP's calorie estimates for both foods eaten and what burned through exercise and im dwn 57lb. so they must be doing something right yh? :-)

    That is awesome :-)
    I was using the elliptical's machine "calories burned" for quite some time, but it doesn't take my weight into factor. It just counts the time, the level of difficulty, and calories burned. So for 5 minutes -hard by the way I was only burning a tiny amount but according to MFP's numbers the burn was higher.. I've decided to start using MFP's numbers. On the days where I do use the elliptical I tend to get a little bit hungrier and always eat something else. If I used the ellipticals' numbers I'd be over calorie for that day, MFP's I'd be just fine.
  • Tori_356
    Tori_356 Posts: 510 Member
    Options
    well I just got an HRM. For 35 min on the elliptical MFP said 384 calories. The machine said 297 and my HRM said 257. Guessing is fine and all but if you really want an accurate count a HRM is the way to go! I finally got one after over a year... love it
  • TrailRunner61
    TrailRunner61 Posts: 2,505 Member
    Options
    If you don't have a HRM, using MFP's exercise database is better than nothing. It worked just fine for me and I lost 40lbs in about 5 months using it. I did buy a HRM and I like using it and getting more accurate data because on different days, even weather affects my cals burned. For instance if it's hot out, I will burn up to 200 more cals on one bike ride and the more it cools off the lower that number gets. Also, as I've lost weight, I burn fewer cals. per exercise session. The HRM keeps me from eating too many cals back.

    If you do get one, I love the Polar FT4. It's worth every penny.