Calories burned.... who do you believe?

Options
motown13
motown13 Posts: 688 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I went to the YMCA today and biked for 47 minutes at a 10 MPH pace. I had entered my weight ( 275 )..... The machine said I burned just under 300 calories. MFP says I burned 389 calories. I have an app on my iPad that says I burned almost 600 calories..... Maybe I should take all 3 and average them? I know that it is impossible for a 100% accurate number, but this is quite a huge variance, at least by my way of thinking.....

Not sure what to think.

Replies

  • abrandenburger
    abrandenburger Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    Ditto. I use Runmeter on my phone to track my distance/pace and it's always telling me a different calorie burn number than MFP. I go by the smallest number. It helps me keep quiet the little voice that says, "Well you burned 500 calories on that run so go ahead and eat a Snickers."
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    Options
    I went to the YMCA today and biked for 47 minutes at a 10 MPH pace. I had entered my weight ( 275 )..... The machine said I burned just under 300 calories. MFP says I burned 389 calories. I have an app on my iPad that says I burned almost 600 calories..... Maybe I should take all 3 and average them? I know that it is impossible for a 100% accurate number, but this is quite a huge variance, at least by my way of thinking.....

    Not sure what to think.
    I believe that for cycling at that pace 300 cal is probably the closest. Bodyweight has very little effect on calorie burn while cycling since a seat and wheels are supporting the weight. Bodyweight has a large effect on calories burned during exercises where your legs support and move the weight, such as walking and running.
  • caitlyn30
    caitlyn30 Posts: 207 Member
    Options
    I would believe the machine
  • hellraisedfire
    hellraisedfire Posts: 403 Member
    Options
    when in doubt I just go with the lowest amount... but I would probably believe the machine over the iPad.
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    Options
    This is one of the reasons I'm pro the TDEE-based approach to calorie counting. Itemizing exericise burns and adding them back in introduces too much error IMO
  • yo_andi
    yo_andi Posts: 2,178 Member
    Options
    When I still tracked calories burned, and before I got my HRM, I went for the most conservative number.

    A good point of reference is that if you're bustin' your rump to work up a sweat, I mean really working hard, can't make casual conversation because you're breathing too hard, and you're the average exerciser (like most of us are), you're burning about 10 calories a minute.

    ETA: I don't eat back calories anymore because I use TDEE to determine my caloric needs now. Also, exercise has become a totally different experience for me now... my goal is no longer to burn calories, it's to break through the boundaries I set for myself and obliterate each goal so I can move on to the next level :wink:
  • motown13
    motown13 Posts: 688 Member
    Options
    LOL, well now I need to find out what TDEE is.... hello google.
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    Options
    LOL, well now I need to find out what TDEE is.... hello google.

    Here;s a good summary/starting point comparing the TDEE way to the MFP way (note: both are perfectly valid)

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
  • cyberiarob
    cyberiarob Posts: 229 Member
    Options
    Keep in mind the resistance settings on the machines. Any other method of calculating calories burned won't take that into consideration. I guess that's why I tend to take the numbers from the machines.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,121 Member
    Options
    This is one of the reasons I'm pro the TDEE-based approach to calorie counting. Itemizing exericise burns and adding them back in introduces too much error IMO

    This^^

    Here ya go...http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/804485-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
  • rduhlir
    rduhlir Posts: 3,550 Member
    Options
    The best bet would be to get your own HRM and track it that way. It would be a lot more accurate. I always trust my HRM over MFP or the machines.
  • Heyyleigh
    Heyyleigh Posts: 268 Member
    Options
    An HRM or fitbit is your best shot. I wouldnt worry over it, Remember MFP way over calculates and this is not an exact science. Go with the lowest one. Especially If you plan on eating those back.
  • motown13
    motown13 Posts: 688 Member
    Options
    LOL, well now I need to find out what TDEE is.... hello google.

    Here;s a good summary/starting point comparing the TDEE way to the MFP way (note: both are perfectly valid)

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

    My head damn near exploded reading that.....
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    This is one of the reasons I'm pro the TDEE-based approach to calorie counting. Itemizing exericise burns and adding them back in introduces too much error IMO

    This is what I do right now but I am curious as to how accurate a HRM is. On my walking days it comes out just about right when I set my TDEE to lightly active...but on run days, if my HRM is accurate, I'm netting 250 - 300 calories below my BMR so I've been logging just enough of those calories to get my to my BMR net...that should work right?
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    Options
    LOL, well now I need to find out what TDEE is.... hello google.

    Here;s a good summary/starting point comparing the TDEE way to the MFP way (note: both are perfectly valid)

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

    My head damn near exploded reading that.....

    Try again. It's really not rocket science. And once you've understood it, which you will, you're done. You will lose or gain weight at will. Knowledge is the only magic pill that works.
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    Options
    This is one of the reasons I'm pro the TDEE-based approach to calorie counting. Itemizing exericise burns and adding them back in introduces too much error IMO

    This is what I do right now but I am curious as to how accurate a HRM is. On my walking days it comes out just about right when I set my TDEE to lightly active...but on run days, if my HRM is accurate, I'm netting 250 - 300 calories below my BMR so I've been logging just enough of those calories to get my to my BMR net...that should work right?

    They're pretty accurate for aerobic activity, if they're configured correctly. I did the MFP + exercise calories way for a long time. It worked fine for me. But the TDEE way is just so much easier and simpler with the same end result so I haven't gone back. I'm trying to do less and less tracking and eventually become a normal person again. :laugh: Ideally I don't even want to be counting calories any mroe.

Categories