Abstract Background Studying animal movement in the context of the optimal foraging theory has led to the development of simple movement metrics for inferring feeding activity. Yet, the predictive capacity of these metrics in natural environments has been given little attention, raising serious questions of the validity of these metrics. The aim of this study is to test whether simple continuous movement metrics predict feeding intensity in a marine predator, the southern elephant seal (SES; Mirounga leonine), and investigate potential factors influencing the predictive capacity of these metrics. Methods We equipped 21 female SES from the Kerguelen Archipelago with loggers and recorded their movements during post-breeding foraging trips at sea. From accelerometry, we estimated the number of prey encounter events (nPEE) and used it as a reference for feeding intensity. We also extracted several track- and dive-based movement metrics and evaluated how well they explain and predict the variance in nPEE. We conducted our analysis at two temporal scales (dive and day), with two dive profile resolutions (high at 1 Hz and low with five dive segments), and two types of models (linear models and regression trees). Results We found that none of the movement metrics predict nPEE with satisfactory power. The vertical transit rates (primarily the ascent rate) during dives had the best predictive performance among all metrics. Dive metrics performed better than track metrics and all metrics performed on average better at the scale of days than the scale of dives. However, the performance of the models at the scale of days showed higher variability among individuals suggesting distinct foraging tactics. Dive-based metrics performed better when computed from high-resolution dive profiles than low-resolution dive profiles. Finally, regression trees produced more accurate predictions than linear models. Conclusions Our study reveals that simple movement metrics do not predict feeding activity in free-ranging marine predators. This could emerge from differences between individuals, temporal scales, and the data resolution used, among many other factors. We conclude that these simple metrics should be avoided or carefully tested a priori with the studied species and the ecological context to account for significant influencing factors.