Which calorie count is more correct?

Options
zekerella
zekerella Posts: 58 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi! I just did a bike session on the indoor trainer (training for triathlon)

72 minutes average heart rate 147. I am 5'5'' female 25 years old.

MFP says I burned about 699 calories.
a heart rate based calorie calculator says I burned 680 calories.
my HR monitor on my bike says I burned 450 calories.

what?! it wouldn't be a big deal but the last one through me off. 250 calories off is a BIG DEAL!!

thoughts?

Replies

  • mrsriisky
    mrsriisky Posts: 129 Member
    Options
    I'm curious to see what others that are more informed answer to this. In similar situations, I've taken the average reading so as not to over estimate, but that is in no way a scientific answer lol.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Hard to say without knowing the formula used to calculate. Accuracy of these things are almost entirely dependent on the formula used.

    If I were in your shoes, I'd probably take the average of the high and low numbers.
  • DreaMuffin
    DreaMuffin Posts: 63 Member
    Options
    I have the same issue! MFP says my 35 minutes on the eliptical burns 629 calories - but the machine tells me only about 400 or so (can't remember the exact amount). 200+ calorie difference is huuuuuge!!

    Maybe I'll go according to MFP? Since i'm eating calories based on MFP, I should count my calories exercised according to them as well?
  • cmcmommy
    cmcmommy Posts: 197 Member
    Options
    I've always been told my HRM was the most accurate because its actually counting your heart beats . Machines are kind of generic,
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    I have the same issue! MFP says my 35 minutes on the eliptical burns 629 calories - but the machine tells me only about 400 or so (can't remember the exact amount). 200+ calorie difference is huuuuuge!!

    Maybe I'll go according to MFP? Since i'm eating calories based on MFP, I should count my calories exercised according to them as well?

    Calorie burn is dependent upon many factors .... height. weight, age, gender, exertion level (and more) ..... what info do you plug into the machine? If you don't tell the machine you are female .... the machine defaults .... or uses an average.

    The machine and MFP cannot know your exertion level..... the same workout may be easy for you, but hard for someone else. As your fitness level increases .... calorie burn goes down.

    Advice ......just be conservative
  • Drudoo
    Drudoo Posts: 275 Member
    Options
    In my experience, MFP grossly over-estimates calorie burn.

    May weight loss has matched the calories burned as stated by my Garmin 910XT. Your HRM is much better suited to measure your level of stress than MFP will ever know.

    Go with your HRM. If anything, it's conservative and will lead you to work harder.
  • zekerella
    zekerella Posts: 58 Member
    Options
    Good point!
  • SarahSmilesCA
    SarahSmilesCA Posts: 261 Member
    Options
    In my experience, MFP grossly over-estimates calorie burn.

    May weight loss has matched the calories burned as stated by my Garmin 910XT. Your HRM is much better suited to measure your level of stress than MFP will ever know.

    Go with your HRM. If anything, it's conservative and will lead you to work harder.

    This...MFP is obscene in its estimations. At my stats when I bike for an hour it says I am burning 1000 cals. My HRM says about 700, which I still think is crazy high, but I know it is well over 500 so I only eat half of my exercise calories back at most and some days I sorta ignore them if I don't feel I need them.

    With that said I am spinning about 24 miles an hour. My goal is I keep the gears between 8 and 14 and the RPM's moving from 70 to 100 the entire time, so I am no whimp, but 1000 cals? Nah I don't think so....

Categories