218 calories burn for 40 minutes of cycling

glitzy196
glitzy196 Posts: 190 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Mfp gives me 218 calories for this, the machine gave me 228.

I can accept that, however i know that people always say that both mfp and machines wildly over estimate calories burned.

I was sweating, and felt like i was working out, however if it only burns say half of that it hardly seems worth the effort!

I am 5'5" and weigh 180.4

I don't eat my calories back, but i do like the buffer..my logging is not 100%, it is more like 95%.

Replies

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    Does your machine vary your results based on HR (which is a proxy for exertion or work done) and make adjustments based on age and weight? If so, it is probably a better gauge of the actual calories burned than the stock numbers in MFP.

    I've got a LeMond RevMaster Pro spin bike with a Pilot II monitor and the calories burned vary each time I ride it because it calculates the amount of "work" done based on HR and allows for the input of age/weight for further adjustments to the calories burned. Nothing's perfect but this is the "best" calculation that can be done.

    If your machine cannot do such calculations, you can estimate them using one of the various online calculators that take these factors into consideration. Here's an example of one: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml. All you need is to wear a heart rate monitor (there are alot of cheap ones; not just Fitbit) to get an "average" HR figure to insert in the calculator.

    You should see varying results based on your varying heart rate, as adjusted by weight, sex and age.
  • pebble4321
    pebble4321 Posts: 1,132 Member
    I'm a bit shorter and a bit heavier than you (5'4" and 88kg) and my apple watch estimated 105 cals for 20 mins cycling a few weeks ago, so that's about 210 for 40 mins. That was cycling outside with a mixed pace though, so if I was working harder it would be a bit more, closer to your estimate - which makes sense because I weigh more.

    So, for me that sounds like a reasonable guess. Really though, if you aren't eating anything extra when you exercise, it makes no difference!
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited June 2016
    218 calories burn for 40 minutes of cycling
    That's a very modest number. Someone of reasonable fitness should be able to do that with very low effort.
    i know that people always say that both mfp and machines wildly over estimate calories burned.
    A lot of people talk a load of horse manure!
    if it only burns say half of that it hardly seems worth the effort!
    The random halving of all exercise estimates is a great example of horse manure.

    If your bike measures power output, watts typically (more relevant than your weight for cycling) then it could be pretty accurate, far more accurate than using a HRM.

Categories