My stationary bike says 116 calories burnt(vigorous)... MFP

TankGirlio85

So I just used my stationary bike for 25 minutes. It says I burnt 116 calories. It doesn't have the options for me to put in my stats (weight, height, age, ect).. I rode it at an average of 15mph the whole time (is that vigorous?).. I input the minutes on MFP and it was, for vigorous= 389 calories... moderate-259..

I'm going to eventually get an HRM, but until then I'm at a loss... I don't know what to put down for calories burnt.... I don't want to eat some back and it turn up to have been all of them. I'm at a 1200 calorie diet, which has been hard...

Anyone have any suggestion. All will be appreciated. Thanks

I'm 26
Height: 5'5
CW:196

shady1987dre

Id believe here more ive read (from personal research) that most of these things are programmed for like a 40 year old male that weights 150 (unless you enter your own weight), so id say this site is more accurate, it has your stats.

IggyL

When I'm really not sure I take the info from MFP and then the info from WebMD and average them.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/calories-burned

wmlpd6

I agree with shady, go with MFP numbers since they have your stats. Also, Nice ride!

aekaya

Id believe here more ive read (from personal research) that most of these things are programmed for like a 40 year old male that weights 150 (unless you enter your own weight), so id say this site is more accurate, it has your stats.

Really? I heard that the site used the average calories burned for everybody, but I could be wrong.

crb1988

I would do an internet search and find a few different calculators. Find the average and use that number. And if you aren't confident in the accuracy, eat back only 75% of the calories.

TamsinEllis

Id believe here more ive read (from personal research) that most of these things are programmed for like a 40 year old male that weights 150 (unless you enter your own weight), so id say this site is more accurate, it has your stats.

Really? I heard that the site used the average calories burned for everybody, but I could be wrong.

It doesn't, it creates the average calories burnt using your stats, since previous to my weight loss 80 mins rowing = 800+ calories burnt, now it's under 800. It's not the most accurate but when you don't have a HRM it's your best guess (well when you're too lazy to go hunting and averaging things online) but yeah like someone else said if you're not sure it's accurate then don't eat back all of your exercise calories.

SherryR1971

Thanks for posting this question, as I had the same one...I am 230 pounds, ride the bike for 60 minutes and it says I have burned 300 calories (I don't have any way to put in my weight, either) and MFP says 560...

revjames

interesting. My treadmill registers approx 700 cals/hr at 10kmh but when I put it in MFP it gives me nearly 1000 so theres a 25% difference between the machine and MFP. Looks like a similar story on the stationary bike then. Its all pretty academic and never going to be 100% its just a guide. Even the food intake calories we log are pretty approximate.

pen2u

I've been using MFP numbers for my stationary bike time (my main mode of exercise) and have steadily lost weight. I do try to err on the high side when posting calories in and the low side for calories burned. Just in case.

koosdel

Neither is correct. Get that HRM.

agthorn

The moderate number MFP gave you seems the most reasonable to me. Most people tend to burn an average of 40 calories per mile on a bike, so if you did 25 minutes at 15mph that would would be about 6.25 miles or 250 calories.

amymeenieminymo

I was here on MFP for 8 months before I got my HRM and I usually just went with what MFP said. No way is going to be an exact science until you get your HRM, so you might as well just pick one and go with it. I successfully lost 20 pounds without an HRM (though I do love it now that I have it) I just figure any over or under estimating you do with work out calories probably evens out with over or under estimating with food calculations (because lets face it we can't for certain trust what food companies say is in their food).

agthorn

Thanks for posting this question, as I had the same one...I am 230 pounds, ride the bike for 60 minutes and it says I have burned 300 calories (I don't have any way to put in my weight, either) and MFP says 560...

If you don't have to put in your weight, then I think they typically default to something between 150-180 for the average "person". MFP knows your weight, so it's going to be closer than a machine that doesn't know your weight.

TonyNMitchell

Just a thought for you MFP, the Cal counter on the bike, MedMD are all guides. Using any one as a GUIDE is best. Just be consistent, honest, and not slack off. I have found that all these calculations have some flaws but if you understand and accept that going in you will do fine. The truth and honest measurement for you is reaching your goal and having a visual to GUIDE you not to live by. Best of luck and keep counting but most of all keep working hard and achieving your goals! (60lbs 6 months and still going!)

CRSE1214

I would say use MFP stats and deduct 10% and not eat all of the calories back. Nice burn!!!

TankGirlio85

Omg, thanks everyone for answering. I'm going to log as moderate for now untill I get my HRM. I really want it, money is tight (from Xmas and now my 2yr old bday in a week) so around the 10th I should be able to get it.

Also I will try REALLY hard not to eat back ALL my calories.. I'm still getting use to only 1200. I use to eat so much more. Ugh.


Thanks again everyone

koosdel

Omg, thanks everyone for answering. I'm going to log as moderate for now untill I get my HRM. I really want it, money is tight (from Xmas and now my 2yr old bday in a week) so around the 10th I should be able to get it.

Also I will try REALLY hard not to eat back ALL my calories.. I'm still getting use to only 1200. I use to eat so much more. Ugh.


Thanks again everyone

Oh no Girli, this is way too little! Just guessing, your BMR is probably closer to 1,500-1,800 calories. Under-eating is possibly worse than over-eating. I suggest you reconsider.

TankGirlio85

I will look more into this and reconsider my intake.

thanks