Measuring calories burned

trekkiebeth
trekkiebeth Posts: 172
edited September 23 in Fitness and Exercise
When I lived in a condo that had a gym, I would use the calories burned that the machine told me because I was able to enter my weight. I usually burned the same or slightly more than what MFP estimated. Now I just have my much cheaper exercise bike. It doesn't take my weight into account, and it's saying I'm burning about 30 calories less than what MFP estimates. The bike is kind of old and for a while I thought the display didn't even work but it was actually that the batteries had leaked acid. Since MFP takes my weight into account, should I go with its estimate for calories burned? Or should I stick to what the bike says?

Replies

  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    In the absence of a HRM I would always go with the lowest caloric burn.
  • agartin
    agartin Posts: 274 Member
    Does the bike have a HRM? Can you get your avg heart rate from it?
    If so, you can double check with this calculator. http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    Of course, it won't be completely accurate but you will have a better idea. Otherwise, if it were me, I would go with the lower calorie count since MFP and my machine always seem to be slightly higher counts than my HRM.


    This is exactly why I purchased a $40 HRM with a chest strap.
  • tuckers08
    tuckers08 Posts: 5
    You should use the MFP calorie counter because people of different weights burn different calorie amounts.
  • trekkiebeth
    trekkiebeth Posts: 172
    I can't afford a HRM.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories