Help with calories burned on stationary bike

valbar61

I just rode a stationary resistance bike for 60 mins and on the display it said that I burned 390 cals but when I go to my exercise on MFP and put in 60 mins of stationary bike it says I burned 749 calories.

Why such a difference and what should I log in fo rmy exercise.

Wildflower3475

I've noticed things like that before. The other day I was looking up playing darts for 3hrs it said for wall or lawn darts...it came to something like 700 some odd calories...how can that be right??

twooliver

Good question! How about averaging them out?

Good job by the way!

Tammy

doesgo

I don't get the darts one, but for stationary cycle, there are simply so many variables! Speed, amount of resistance in the system, legs only or arms-and-legs (Airdyne style), etc. There are different listings on MFP for the level of effort you put in (moderate, vigorous, etc.), so see if you can use that to make the numbers more logical. It's still a guess by MFP, but at least it's an educated one.

marissaaustin

most likely the MFP number given is for a cycling class that you would take at a gym. they are more intense. they include jumps, hills and hovers. i would not average the numbers. the number your stationary bike gave you will be the most accurate number. you can just create your own exercise and then you can enter in your own caloric number. )

anubis609

Well for accuracy's sake, if the stationary bike displays calories burned based on weight and/or heart rate, I'd go by what the bike says. If it's just displaying calories burned with out basing it off of input, MFP might be more accurate, since it takes into account your weight and appoximated calorie burn for that weight.

If you want to be "safe" you could use the lower calorie burn if it motivates you to do more physical activity.

My elliptical machine (which is pretty accurate) takes into account my weight and heart rate and it says I burn about 36 - 38 calories a minute. In an hour that's roughly 2200 calories. So, just to be "safe" I set the weight significantly lower than my actual weight, and I have my sweaty towel over the heart rate monitor to constantly read 46bpm. It still says I burn 30-33 calories a minute.

Still, whichever method you use to track your calories, consistently use that method. In the long run, as long as you have a manageable intake along with calorie expenditure, you'll still be losing weight.

valbar61

Well for accuracy's sake, if the stationary bike displays calories burned based on weight and/or heart rate, I'd go by what the bike says. If it's just displaying calories burned with out basing it off of input, MFP might be more accurate, since it takes into account your weight and appoximated calorie burn for that weight.

If you want to be "safe" you could use the lower calorie burn if it motivates you to do more physical activity.

My elliptical machine (which is pretty accurate) takes into account my weight and heart rate and it says I burn about 36 - 38 calories a minute. In an hour that's roughly 2200 calories. So, just to be "safe" I set the weight significantly lower than my actual weight, and I have my sweaty towel over the heart rate monitor to constantly read 46bpm. It still says I burn 30-33 calories a minute.

Still, whichever method you use to track your calories, consistently use that method. In the long run, as long as you have a manageable intake along with calorie expenditure, you'll still be losing weight.

iI just uses calories burned because I don't put in my heart rate or weight. I think I will use the number on the machine instead of MFP so that whay I will be under my calories for the day.

valbar61

Thanks everyone for your input.