Recumbent Bike - bike or MFP calories burned?

Options
BlingJeep
BlingJeep Posts: 2 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I've been doing recumbent biking at the gym and the calories burned vary GREATLY from the bike to MFP and wondering which is more realistic? I guess I should probably go with the smaller number to be safe but we're talking less than half...

I'm doing 50% resistance at 12-14 mph, bike says I burned 265 after 36 minutes and MFP says 622....MFP is closer to but still higher than some of the other online calculators I found. Maybe I'll just split the difference. :)

Replies

  • professormudd1
    professormudd1 Posts: 59
    Options
    I would go with the bike. It knows the effort you are putting in. Does the bike ask for your age and weight?

    ETA: When I use the recumbent bike, pushing myself at 23mph, I tend to burn about 10 calories per minute. On the elliptical, when I push hard I get about 15 calories per minute. So I am guessing your bike is giving you the more accurate reading.
  • FP4HSharon
    FP4HSharon Posts: 664 Member
    Options
    Even MFP says if a machine gives you a calorie count to use that. I use a recumbent & the calories it gives me are a lot lower than MFP estimates. Of course if you can use a recumbent where you have to enter in your weight, that's going to be more accurate that one that doesn't. But even if you don't enter your weight, then I think the machine is still more accurate. My calories burned on a recumbent vary mostly w/how hard I'm pushing it.
  • fishermanmatt
    fishermanmatt Posts: 308 Member
    Options
    I would go with the lower of the two. Have you considered a heart rate monitor?
  • BlingJeep
    BlingJeep Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    No, the bike doesn't take any input from me on age/weight. I'm a total newbie and didn't know MFP said to use the calorie count from the equipment itself. Thanks for the input, I'll stick with the lower number!

Categories