Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

TOPIC: Calories Burned - Accurate??

 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
October 15, 2012 11:35 AM
So I recently downloaded a new app to my phone. It appears to be taking into consideration how much I weigh when determining how many calories I burn. It just put me at 277 burned for a 2.1 mile per hour walk that lasted 47 minutes. the MFP calculator would have put me at 198 calories burned, quite a difference. Is it that MFP isn't taking into account my weight? Or is the other calculator off? Just wanted to hear what others thought on this. Thanks!
October 15, 2012 11:38 AM
MFP calorie count is not accurate. If i was you, I would invest in a Heart Rate Monitor that comes with a strap. Other apps and MFP in mY opinion has nothing on the actual HRM readings..Jus my thoughts :)
October 15, 2012 11:43 AM
My Fitbit says we averaged about 3 mph, with 290 calories burned. So I think it was closer than it seems - the speeds can be off with the apps sometimes since they usually run on GPS data and that can get bungled sometimes. I mean, I weigh more than you, but I'm pretty sure we walked the same pace and distance. :)

So, the 2.1 you saw is probably the distance, not speed. Mine is showing 2.19 miles for the distance walked in 47 minutes.
Edited by Wenchilada On October 15, 2012 12:14 PM
October 15, 2012 2:27 PM
I don't eat all of the extra burned calories that MFP and my Fitbit gives me. I was advised by my nutritionist to try not to eat back exercise calories. I took that with a grain of salt, though, and let my hunger be my guide. My weight loss has increased a bit since I stopped eating back as many calories. It's nice to have the option to do so when I'm hungry though.

Back to the original question, I feel like my Fitbit is more accurate, just based on perceived effort. Everyone's a little different though, play around with it and see what works best for you.
October 15, 2012 3:11 PM
Accurate enough. More than accurate enough, really. No one needs a hyper accurate accounting of their exercise output or their food input. You only need be reasonably close, and you can use common sense judgment from there. People spend way too much time searching for the perfect tracking method when it's completely unnecessary
October 15, 2012 3:16 PM
QUOTE:

MFP calorie count is not accurate. If i was you, I would invest in a Heart Rate Monitor that comes with a strap. Other apps and MFP in mY opinion has nothing on the actual HRM readings..Jus my thoughts :)


Because a HRM will tell you *exactly* how many calories you burned and everything else is just an estimate, right?
  8625464
October 15, 2012 3:21 PM
I used a HRM until the strap just got too uncomfortable (chafing in areas that no woman wants chafing). For a 1 hour bootcamp class the HRM always put me at right around 1,000 calories. When I use the MFP 1 hour intense calisthenics (closest I could find to bootcamp) it only gives me 606. I figure that's fine. I do tend to eat back most of my exercise calories so if MFP underestimates my calorie burn a little it just helps with my deficit :-)
  10281039
October 15, 2012 3:24 PM
QUOTE:

So I recently downloaded a new app to my phone. It appears to be taking into consideration how much I weigh when determining how many calories I burn. It just put me at 277 burned for a 2.1 mile per hour walk that lasted 47 minutes. the MFP calculator would have put me at 198 calories burned, quite a difference. Is it that MFP isn't taking into account my weight? Or is the other calculator off? Just wanted to hear what others thought on this. Thanks!


MFP knows your weight and uses it.

MFP doesn't have a description of 2.1 MPH. Was it perfectly level, which is what MFP is assuming?

MFP will be just as accurate if you did the exact pace as the description, and level walking.

Calculator is probably right on for change in elevation it knows about., or differences in speed you really had.

More accurate than HRM if walking actually. HRM's are no where near this accurate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150
October 15, 2012 3:28 PM
QUOTE:

More accurate than HRM if walking actually. HRM's are no where near this accurate.


Blasphemer!!!

Everyone on MFP knows that HRMs are infallible and clearly the One True Way to calculate calories burned.

You, sir, should have your MFP privileges revoked for this egregious transgression.

I will pray for you.
  8625464
October 15, 2012 3:30 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

More accurate than HRM if walking actually. HRM's are no where near this accurate.


Blasphemer!!!

Everyone on MFP knows that HRMs are infallible and clearly the One True Way to calculate calories burned.

You, sir, should have your MFP privileges revoked for this egregious transgression.

I will pray for you.


Ya, I'm really thinking about posting something I've got prepared on testing your HRM to see how accurate it is - but alas, no solution if it's way off. Can't reverse engineer Polar's formula when there is no VO2max stat.

I'm going to get shocked by a couple of big paddles as punishment, aren't I?
March 21, 2013 3:44 PM
says the super fit hot guy!
March 21, 2013 3:50 PM
Honestly for all walking / running exercises I stick to 100cal per mile, regardless of incline / speed.

Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.