Calories Burned - Question for all the "Exercise Gurus" out

miabrown66

I have been riding a recumbant bike since I started back on MFP and I have a question about calories burned. My bike shows a much smaller number of calories burned for the type exercise I am doing than MFP does and even on a chart I received from the program I am on. I put all of my information into the bike so it should be showing an accurate account of what I am doing and I am actually putting in a slower time, i.e., <10 mph when I actually did an average of 13-14 mph. Which one is right, the bike or MFP or is it somewhere in between? Thanks,

garysgirl719

I am sure the answer you are going to hear is to get a heart rate monitor, as that is the most reliable. I can tell you that I have the same problem. MFP estimates the calories burned at almost double what the machine scores it as. I always go with the machine since it is measuring my pulse rate as well as the level of exertion, which MFP can't do. For example, if I am doing 3.0 mph on the treadmill at 10% incline, the calorie burn will be much less than at 50% incline. MFP can't factor that in.

janalayn

I always go with what the machine says...MFP is always higher and I prefer to err on the side of caution.

pkd1

Id go by what your bike says

Trishkit

From my experience, MFP seems to calculate things a bit too high. I use a HRM to track my calories burned, and it's always lower than MFP's numbers. But maybe that's just me. :-)

EDIT: Never mind that last bit -- apparently it's not just me!