Calorie Burn on MFP

cloza12

Someone told me to go to this website http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html to calculate my calorie burn accurately. On MFP when I do 30 min on stationary bike it says I burned 402 calories, when I go to that website it tells me I burned 182 calories, a BIG difference. I don't have a hrm watch but my bike can calculate hr.
Which is the more accurate calorie burn? Does anyone use that site?

3dogsrunning

403 calories in 30 minutes is extremely high. To burn that, you would have to be going at a very hard pace, i mean almost unsustainable, the entire time.
I always always always choose the lower estimate. I also use the slower paces on MFP when walking. For example swimming - I use the lowest intensity even if I had a hard workout. Running, I'll choose one pace down.

now_or_never13

I haven't used that site before.

MFP is WAY overestimated in their calorie burns. The machines are not all that accurate as well. You need to input your height, sex, weight and constantly have your HR being checked for them to be accurate. Best thing to do is either get a HRM or half the calories MFP says. When I don't have my HRM with me I use half the amount MFP tells me and select a lower intensity than I think I Have done if it is available.

Lone_Wolf70

403 calories in 30 minutes is extremely high. To burn that, you would have to be going at a very hard pace, i mean almost unsustainable, the entire time.
I always always always choose the lower estimate. I also use the slower paces on MFP when walking. For example swimming - I use the lowest intensity even if I had a hard workout. Running, I'll choose one pace down.

quite frankly that is ridiculous. Now I do think MFP overestimates, but 403 in 30 is very attainable, even for a woman (thats not a sexist statement, but men and women burn at diff rates.)

Mokey41

Not sure about on a stationary bike because I hate using one but on my road bike I average about 350 calories per hour actually having to negotiate the rigors of the road, not just pedaling along.

cloza12

I weigh 252 if that helps...

now_or_never13

403 calories in 30 minutes is extremely high. To burn that, you would have to be going at a very hard pace, i mean almost unsustainable, the entire time.
I always always always choose the lower estimate. I also use the slower paces on MFP when walking. For example swimming - I use the lowest intensity even if I had a hard workout. Running, I'll choose one pace down.

quite frankly that is ridiculous. Now I do think MFP overestimates, but 403 in 30 is very attainable, even for a woman (thats not a sexist statement, but men and women burn at diff rates.)

I am 200lbs at the moment and using my stationary bike with my HRM I burn an average of 300 cals per half hour if I am going as fast as I can from start to finish and have the tension set higher.

I doubt the OP burned over 400 cals in 30 minutes on a stationary bike.

OP, I would be more inclined to take the lower reading... or just half what MFP tells you.

cloza12

403 calories in 30 minutes is extremely high. To burn that, you would have to be going at a very hard pace, i mean almost unsustainable, the entire time.
I always always always choose the lower estimate. I also use the slower paces on MFP when walking. For example swimming - I use the lowest intensity even if I had a hard workout. Running, I'll choose one pace down.

quite frankly that is ridiculous. Now I do think MFP overestimates, but 403 in 30 is very attainable, even for a woman (thats not a sexist statement, but men and women burn at diff rates.)

I am 200lbs at the moment and using my stationary bike with my HRM I burn an average of 300 cals per half hour if I am going as fast as I can from start to finish and have the tension set higher.

I doubt the OP burned over 400 cals in 30 minutes on a stationary bike.

OP, I would be more inclined to take the lower reading... or just half what MFP tells you.

My stationary bike has 19 levels of resistance, I did 30 mins at level 14 and the bike said I burned 294 calories

aliciab307

Someone told me to go to this website http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html to calculate my calorie burn accurately. On MFP when I do 30 min on stationary bike it says I burned 402 calories, when I go to that website it tells me I burned 182 calories, a BIG difference. I don't have a hrm watch but my bike can calculate hr.
Which is the more accurate calorie burn? Does anyone use that site?

MFP, in my experience, always over estimates on calories burned. I only go by what the machine says, or by a HRM

3dogsrunning

403 calories in 30 minutes is extremely high. To burn that, you would have to be going at a very hard pace, i mean almost unsustainable, the entire time.
I always always always choose the lower estimate. I also use the slower paces on MFP when walking. For example swimming - I use the lowest intensity even if I had a hard workout. Running, I'll choose one pace down.

quite frankly that is ridiculous. Now I do think MFP overestimates, but 403 in 30 is very attainable, even for a woman (thats not a sexist statement, but men and women burn at diff rates.)

How is it ridiculous? I never said it wasnt attainable, however, it would be 13 calories a minute, which is quite a high burn. If she wasn't really pushing it the entire time, I doubt she burned that much.
I've gone through other tables, that account for weight and different intensities, and still haven't come up with a number that high.

now_or_never13

403 calories in 30 minutes is extremely high. To burn that, you would have to be going at a very hard pace, i mean almost unsustainable, the entire time.
I always always always choose the lower estimate. I also use the slower paces on MFP when walking. For example swimming - I use the lowest intensity even if I had a hard workout. Running, I'll choose one pace down.

quite frankly that is ridiculous. Now I do think MFP overestimates, but 403 in 30 is very attainable, even for a woman (thats not a sexist statement, but men and women burn at diff rates.)

I am 200lbs at the moment and using my stationary bike with my HRM I burn an average of 300 cals per half hour if I am going as fast as I can from start to finish and have the tension set higher.

I doubt the OP burned over 400 cals in 30 minutes on a stationary bike.

OP, I would be more inclined to take the lower reading... or just half what MFP tells you.

My stationary bike has 19 levels of resistance, I did 30 mins at level 14 and the bike said I burned 294 calories

Does the bike have HR checks on it? Were you holding them the whole time? If you were than use that number.

JustPeachy044

I think MFP's burn is too high. So is the burn on the machines. When I use my HRM on my treadmill, the treadmill display says I burned much more than my HRM says (in 45 minutes, a difference of 150 calories!). I'd use either the other site you mentioned or spring for a good HRM.

cloza12

403 calories in 30 minutes is extremely high. To burn that, you would have to be going at a very hard pace, i mean almost unsustainable, the entire time.
I always always always choose the lower estimate. I also use the slower paces on MFP when walking. For example swimming - I use the lowest intensity even if I had a hard workout. Running, I'll choose one pace down.

quite frankly that is ridiculous. Now I do think MFP overestimates, but 403 in 30 is very attainable, even for a woman (thats not a sexist statement, but men and women burn at diff rates.)

I am 200lbs at the moment and using my stationary bike with my HRM I burn an average of 300 cals per half hour if I am going as fast as I can from start to finish and have the tension set higher.

I doubt the OP burned over 400 cals in 30 minutes on a stationary bike.

OP, I would be more inclined to take the lower reading... or just half what MFP tells you.

My stationary bike has 19 levels of resistance, I did 30 mins at level 14 and the bike said I burned 294 calories

Does the bike have HR checks on it? Were you holding them the whole time? If you were than use that number.

It does and it read between 125-135 the whole time

cwolfman13

There are a lot of factors that go into the estimate, the greatest of which is the intensity of the workout. If you're just casually pedaling away, it's probably closer to the lower number. Best bet is to get a HRM that also calculates calories burned...still not 100%, but a much closer estimate than arbitrary estimates in MFP. I'd guess a HRM would be within 10-20 calories or so...who knows with the arbitrary estimate.

umer76

MFP cals burn are always higher. If your machine says 294, I think this should be correct if you have entered your weight and sex in the machine. 182 is very low for 30 min of bike riding and at level 14 which is quite good level 294 looks to me correct number.

cloza12

MFP cals burn are always higher. If your machine says 294, I think this should be correct if you have entered your weight and sex in the machine. 182 is very low for 30 min of bike riding and at level 14 which is quite good level 294 looks to me correct number.

On my machine you can't enter weight or sex

Bobby__Clerici

There are a lot of factors that go into the estimate, the greatest of which is the intensity of the workout. If you're just casually pedaling away, it's probably closer to the lower number. Best bet is to get a HRM that also calculates calories burned...still not 100%, but a much closer estimate than arbitrary estimates in MFP. I'd guess a HRM would be within 10-20 calories or so...who knows with the arbitrary estimate.

I had to experiment to find my zone, and once it became clear, I felt empowered.
MFP exercise burn rates are a bit high for me, so I needed to trim it down.
No calculator can ever predict these things definitively; there all estimates based on universal variables.

now_or_never13

MFP cals burn are always higher. If your machine says 294, I think this should be correct if you have entered your weight and sex in the machine. 182 is very low for 30 min of bike riding and at level 14 which is quite good level 294 looks to me correct number.

On my machine you can't enter weight or sex

If you can't enter weight or sex the calorie burn the machine gives is pretty much useless.

I would use a lower intensity and only use half the numbers MFP gives.

PikaKnight

I'm waiting on getting my HRM, but I have MFP buddies that do use HRMs and they have gotten a 400+ cal burn in 30 minutes. It is very possible.

3dogsrunning

I'm waiting on getting my HRM, but I have MFP buddies that do use HRMs and they have gotten a 400+ cal burn in 30 minutes. It is very possible.

On stationary cycle?
Her heartrate was 125-135. If you plug that (i used 135 for the entire time) into calculators that estimate based on HR, you won't get close to 400 for 30 minutes.

Again, I never said it was impossible, I am stressing that intensity plays a huge role here. 13 calories a minute is intense.
Weight also plays a huge role.

And again, I would rather estimate conservatively than to over estimate.

gfbrummer

I would say the most accurate count would be from a heart rate monitor. But picking between the bike, websites, and MFP I would probably go with the bike since it is more than likely has the sensors and can get closest (as long as your info is input). As for the amount you burn in 30 minutes it depends on your current weight. I am 300 lbs and can burn 600-700 calories running for 30 minutes per my heart rate monitor. There are quite a few factors that would help determine the calorie burn.