Difference between MFP cals burned and my exercise bike

famlyluv

So my exercise bike told me that I burned 200 calories for 60 min of going over 14mph but MFP tells me that for 60 min of moderate I burned 441 calories. Big difference. Which one should I go by?

Ritzbrit

I usually always go with the lower one or somewhere in the middle. I need to get a HRM!!

famlyluv

I usually always go with the lower one or somewhere in the middle. I need to get a HRM!!

my bike has a hrm on the handles but they are not accurate...my heart could be pounding and if my hands arent on exactly it will say like 74 or something haha

famlyluv

bump

TeenaJay

I would suggest getting a heart rate monitor.
Not very expensive. I got mine at Wal-Mart.

I would also suggest getting the one with the strap. That way you don't have to constantly press your watch.

Hope that helps!

secretlobster

The lower estimate is probably more accurate. But you'd need a heart rate monitor to know for sure.

redfroggie

I've tested the bike at the gym along with my HRM and they are closer to each other than the number MFP gives me, so go with the lower one until you get your own HRM.

jennifer52484

Go with what the bike said. I just got an HRM today.. I'll see tonight whether or not i'm burning more or less than the machine says. But always go for the lower number... You'll win more often :P

NovemberJune

I'd go by MFP's estimate. I used to ride an exercise bike a lot, and I logged it as stationary bike, moderate effort. I got a HRM and it's really close. Maybe knock like 5-10% off the MFP estimate just in case.

And 400 calories in 60 minutes is a lot more reasonable than 200 IMO. You'd probably burn 200 calories on a 60 minute leisurely walk.

brendaj39

It also depends on how much you weigh too, if your bike has a way to enter in your weight then go by what the bike says, MFP calories burned is determined also by your weight, so a 250lb person will burn more calories riding 60 minutes than a 150lb person will. If your bike doesn't have your weight entered in, its going by an average sized person, found this out at a gym i was at.

MikeInAZ

Get a heart rate monitor. Not the cheapy kinds where you press your finger on it, the kind with a chest strap. I have a Polar FT7, but the Polar FT4 is just as good, it costs about $75 and is well worth it. I wear it when I exercise and I know with certainty how many calories I burn.

Another good option is the BodyMedia or BodyBug, these are arm bands you wear all day long. They use motion sensors. They're supposed to be very accurate. but for me I like to know what my heart is doing, so I go the HRM route!

Check Amazon, REI, Sports Authority, or D icks Sporting goods

bleacheblonde

I usually go with MFP's. My exercise machine at home doesn't allow me to enter my height and weight, so I can be huffing and puffing and feeling like I want to die for 40 minutes and it will tell me I only burned 300 calories. I think a lot of machines base calories burned on an average weight (like 150 lbs. or something), so if it doesn't allow you to enter your stats, I would think that MFP's estimate is more accurate because it takes your stats into account in its calculations.

famlyluv

thanks everyone for your opinions! until i get a hrm i will go by what the bike says.