How accurate are the MFP exercise calculations?

sijomial

CindyJNC1963 wrote: »

show previous quotes

lemurcat2 wrote: »

Sometimes people log stationary biking as regular biking, and that's going to mess up the calorie count.

Even if you log stationary biking as a separate exercise (which one should, if one lacks calorie information), you have to make a call on effort, and effort doesn't really mean "how it feels to you," but how hard are you really going (i.e., what level is the bike on, how hilly is the ride, what # of miles do you get in a given time period -- MFP doesn't ask these things so you need to put them in)? To get calories right, most people who are relatively new to exercise should probably pick light effort.

I just tried stationary biking, light effort on MFP and it gave me 234 cal for 45 minutes.

However, most stationary bikes in gyms do give calories, so it's easy to change and use them instead.

It must just depend on the person. I just did stationary bike, light effort and it gave me 450 calories. I still have 100 lbs to lose so maybe I get extra "credit" on MFP for being so overweight.

Yes, I use the Schwinn Trainer and Fitbit apps to log my exercise. I know there is some doubling of calories burned between the two of them, but I just ignore that part. Both apps give me different information I need....more than just the calories.

@CindyJNC1963 @lemurcat2
That's a problem with using METS related to bodyweight for an inappropriate exercise.
For a non-weight bearing exercise such as stationary cycling your weight is irrelevant - it's the power you produce that is in relation to the calories burned.
If your bike tells you your average watts (power) then multiply by 3.6 per hour of exercise.
Average 100watts for an hour gives you 360 net cals as an example, a skinny TdF rider who can average 400w for an hour will quadruple that despite being very lightweight. It really does depend on the person - but not on the person's weight in this case.

For many exercises the database here simply isn't the best option for accuracy. It's a shame as the method (eating back exercise calories) is a good one but the execution hasn't been done well.

lalalacroix

Duck_Puddle wrote: »

Like...hiking. I’ve been on hikes over the river and through the woods, and I’ve been on hikes with 2k ft elevation gain. I’m quite certain that calorie estimates from the single DB entry were high for both, but comically so for less strenuous endeavors.

I agree. I'm always very wary of the hiking calculations. Hikes can vary greatly. I don't really think enough factors are considered, like elevation gain.