Exercise calories- MFP vs. bike calories burned

Greenari

Hi,
Just got a stationary bike (yay!). Did 30 minutes this morning. According to MFP that is 264 calories burned but the machine says 113. My husband says the machine is more accurate so that's what I logged. BUT...264 is obviously better ;-) Would appreciate any thoughts/feedback. Thank you!!

callsitlikeiseeit

always go with the lower number and at that, only eat back half or so

3dogsrunning

The entry on MFP is very general and doesn't account for resistance. The bike should. 260 for 30 minutes would be a very hard intensity.

Personally, I always go with the lower estimate.

AmazonMayan

I always change (lower) the calorie number that MFP gives.

sijomial

No-one, including MFP's database, knows what itensity you exercised at. The resistence and cadence used makes all the difference in the world.

Bike trainers vary from cheap and cheerful to high tech big bucks machines.
If your bike gives you a power output in watts it could be reasonably accurate.

I would find 264 cals in half an hour very easy - but I'm not you!
113 seems very, very low. That's about the same as a two mile walk for me.

Greenari

Thank you for the information. And for the support. This is a new journey for me. Appreciate those of you who took the time to reply and were nice about it.

janejellyroll

Always take the lower number.

I don't know your weight, intensity, etc, but when I use the bike for half an hour sometimes my heart rate monitor estimates I burn as few as 90 calories.

CourtLHM

If the machine has your height, weight, age and took your heart rate the whole time then that is going to be more accurate. My treadmill came with a strap on heart rate monitor and keeps track is what I mean. But like someone else said, only eat back half of what you've burned.

sijomial

Just an observation - you don't make an estimate more accurate by randomly halving it!!