Wow, MFP says calories burned for cycling (at correct mph rate) more than double what's correct??

LisaMighton

I did an hour of light cycling and MFP gave me over 1000 calories burned for that. I knew that was really high for 10 miles per hour and checked it at this cycling calculator http://www.bicycling.com/training/fitness/cycling-calories-burned-calculator and it is more than double the reality.

How come, and must I manually correct every time I ride??

Other cyclists?

Mr_Knight

Yep, that's pretty normal for MFP. I've given up trying to correct - I know what I burn, and just ignore the numbers MFP gives.

Nekrachael

If it helps, you can just adjust the calories on the activity to be closer to reality.

Sutnak

It's really hard to calculate bicycle calories accurately. There's no way to account for cadence, incline, wind resistance, and how often you're coasting vs pedaling.

I suppose you could use a heart rate monitor, but in my experience, it gives a ridiculous amount of calories for the effort.

MPH is pretty bad indicator. 14-16 mph on my road bike is basically sleep-mode. 14-16 on my heavy hybrid with fat puncture proof tires is a lot of work.


The above is one of many reasons I just calculated my TDEE, and set a (healthy) deficit based on that.

LisaMighton

I've read about it quite a bit now here and went to a TDEE calculator and got the 1800ish number, but still find TDEE quite confusing! Maybe my moderate-math-disorder brain.

Sutnak

TDEE makes a lot more sense when you throw out the eat-back-your-exercise-calorie model in MFP. I'd be happy to help with it - do you have any specific questions?

BobJ19956

Check to see if the type of cycling entered in the app was changed. That can really impact the projected calorie count.

zoeysasha37

I don't even bother using the calories burnt on mfp, it's crazy over estimated. I just log my workouts as 1 calorie burnt.

mwyvr

Calories reported for running seem reasonable, somewhere in between what my Garmin / HRM report and what Strava reports using the same data. I use the lowest of the three.

Cycling is another matter; unless I'm putting in a constant hard workout I don't trust what most report and use a very conservative amount.

PopeyeCT

I use MapMyRide for cycling, and enter the numbers it gives me into MFP. I think that MFP only goes by duration, while MapMyRide actually looks at your elevation changes and speed.
MapMyRide works for me.

Others use Strava for cycling. Maybe it's better, maybe it's not. But MFP is certainly not the most accurate for cycling.

portugaline

it would never be accurate unless you use some kind of heart hate monitor with MFP.
For that ones that want better calorie count can use something like a fitbit surge that have a heart hate monitor and can use that for better results.

coreyreichle

I don't trust the calorie calcs from MFP, because they diverge from runkeeper by so much. And, when I allow runkeeper to update the numbers, rather than MFP, my weight loss gets back on track.

MFP is great a food logging, so I use it for that. For exercise tracking, I use an app that is great at that.

csman49

HRM, speed sensor and cadence sensor will get you into a ball park figure.

omma_to_3

Yes, cycling is quite overstated. My HRM (when I used to wear it) was much better. MFP is pretty accurate for walking and running though.

K_saine

I use what the exercise bike says

Nuke_64

MFP is within 20% of my Garmin/Endomondo HRM calories burned for mountain biking. I try to eat half of my exercise calories back the same day and bank the rest for later.

Funny thing is, when my I connect my Garmin to a speed/cadence sensor and no GPS, it ignores the HRM and gives a much lower result.

tycho_mx

Even heart rate monitors are pretty inaccurate for cycling, especially for non-steady group rides. Hot day? Elevated HR - more calories estimated. Took some coffee? Same thing. Spinning higher cadence? Drafting? Idem.

If it is really material to you, the way to go is to shell the $ and buy a power meter... It was an eye opener for me.

brianpperkins

There are so many variables in cycling that it is hard to estimate caloric burn using generalities. Weight of equipment, weight of rider, wind, incline, gearing, air pressure in the tires ... all factor into how much energy it takes to propel the system forward. Power meters currently come the closest to accurate measures ... then HR, cadence, and speed fed into a calculator that factors in weights of rider and bike, speed, and generic air resistance ... then more generic calculators that include fewer variables.

I've uploaded the same data file from a ride to various apps and received caloric estimates that vary by over 1000 calories.

sijomial

@LisaMighton
Think you have messed up your numbers somewhere OP.

I would only get 449 from MFP's estimate which sounds entirely reasonable.
And got exactly the same from your linked calculator as they are clearly using the same METS.

Are you sure you have entered your weight correctly in both, kilos in one and pounds in the other perhaps?

kcjchang

You can always refer to the research parameters (sex, weight, conditioning, environment, etc) for the calorie estimation and see if your ride is a good match. Estimate for bicycling 10 -11.9mph is probably based on McArdle, W. D., F. I. Katch, et al. (1981). Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance. Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger. (Check with MFP for the actual reference). Most likely you'll find that your input does not match the study's parameters and you are grossly overstating what was performed.

And heart rate monitor only measures your heart rate, period. Any correlation to work done and calories expended is more or less useless if you are not operating within a narrow set of parameters. It's a useful metric but don't believe the marketing crap that its a panacea. Its primary use is to gauge intensity and form not calories expended.

Michael190lbs

I count this 50 minutes as 400 calories