Calories Burnt?

Mandi98U
Mandi98U Posts: 115 Member
edited November 10 in Fitness and Exercise
When I uses an excercise machine like a stationary bike the amount of calories burnt is always significantly less than what mfp says when I go to log i. What number should I use?

Replies

  • carrieous
    carrieous Posts: 1,024 Member
    mfp is really off on calories burned, IME. I go by the machine.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Even the lower number is likely an over-estimate.
  • Fattymatty89
    Fattymatty89 Posts: 10 Member
    MFP calorie burn numbers are any where from 3-6x too high… Do not follow the values on mfp…. It will lead you astray
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited January 2015
    MFP is more of a guess for a stationary bike than anything else.

    The bike could be reasonably accurate if it measures your power output (watts typically).
    If the bike asks you for your stats and measures your heart rate (and you are using the bike for steady state cardio) then again it could be OK. Not accurate but usable - a bit like heart rate monitors.

    If the bike doesn't measure output or ask for your stats then it's also a guess.

    As long as your weight loss results over time work out then that's the best you are going to get.
    Pick a method and stick to it, monitor results. Adjust if required.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Fattymatty89 wrote: »
    MFP calorie burn numbers are any where from 3-6x too high… Do not follow the values on mfp…. It will lead you astray

    3-6 too high? Thanks for the laugh.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Fattymatty89 wrote: »
    MFP calorie burn numbers are any where from 3-6x too high… Do not follow the values on mfp…. It will lead you astray

    3-6 too high? Thanks for the laugh.

    They sure can be. There are tons of diaries out there with out of shape people logging 1000 calorie burns for 40 minutes of Zumba/etc "because MFP said so".

    The fitter the person, the less-bad the MFP estimates. Which is ironically backwards, I know.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Fattymatty89 wrote: »
    MFP calorie burn numbers are any where from 3-6x too high… Do not follow the values on mfp…. It will lead you astray

    3-6 too high? Thanks for the laugh.

    They sure can be. There are tons of diaries out there with out of shape people logging 1000 calorie burns for 40 minutes of Zumba/etc "because MFP said so".

    The fitter the person, the less-bad the MFP estimates. Which is ironically backwards, I know.

    Which is really closer to 2-3 for a larger person. For other activities, MFP is pretty spot on. The generalities used here are as preposterous as toxinz.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    Ive only noticed a few times where MFP was close to being what the HRM said for cardio. but the walking calories burned are always way too high. I did 5 hrs of walking the other day I checked with MFP and it said for a slow,2mph pace I burned 1001 calories. I didnt burn that many it was closer to 600.If walking that slow burned that many calories I would walk more and workout less lol
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    CharlieBeansmom wrote: »
    Ive only noticed a few times where MFP was close to being what the HRM said for cardio. but the walking calories burned are always way too high. I did 5 hrs of walking the other day I checked with MFP and it said for a slow,2mph pace I burned 1001 calories. I didnt burn that many it was closer to 600.If walking that slow burned that many calories I would walk more and workout less lol

    Walking is one of the more inflated activities ... on MFP and HRMs.

    .3 * miles * weight in pounds for net burn is a rough approximation.

    The difference between net and gross calories is something that is often overlooked on MFP.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories