We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Does MFP overstate Exercise? & Bike Questions

jmsspr93
jmsspr93 Posts: 117 Member
edited February 16 in Health and Weight Loss
On my exercise bike there is a pedometer and it shows calories and time, when I input the time on MFP it shows more calories so I alter that to what it says on the bike. My question is also that what is the pedometer based on? Normal weight? so I am actually losing more than it says? And also is it a good idea to ramp up the difficulty slightly each week?

Replies

  • Iknowsaur
    Iknowsaur Posts: 777 Member
    Yes. It very much overestimates calorie burns. MFP is notorious for this.
  • jmsspr93
    jmsspr93 Posts: 117 Member
    So is it better to only take what the bike says? (as i have been doing)
  • Iknowsaur
    Iknowsaur Posts: 777 Member
    So is it better to only take what the bike says? (as i have been doing)

    That would most likely be more accurate.
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    Yes, the MFP database tends to overstate calories. I have a fairly accurate GPS/HRM for cycling (a Garmin Edge 800, which I've been using for over 3 years), and its calorie estimates are 25-50% lower than MFP's.
  • IrishGabriella
    IrishGabriella Posts: 48 Member
    I go by the MFP estimate as it knows my weight & height whereas the bike doesn't. But I try not to eat back all the calories earned as ppl say MFP overestimates. I do an hour at vigorous (+35 kph) about 3 or 4 times a week depending on the week. I haven't thought about upping the intensity though.
    I have ordered a heart rate monitor to try and calculate the calories burned more accurately.
  • scubasuenc
    scubasuenc Posts: 626 Member
    I have an exercise bike and also use my HRM. I find the exercise bike also overstates calories compared to the HRM, but the exercise is closer than MFP.

    The only thing I have found MFP to be pretty close on is walking on a treadmill at the stated mph. Even my walks outside don't match because my pace changes and there are hills.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    If the bike measures power (e.g. watts or kilojoules) then it may be fairly accurate. If it doesn't it's just an estimate - like MFP is an estimate - like a heart rate monitor is an estimate....

    Unless you are using your exercise bike standing up your weight doesn't have a huge amount to do with how many calories are burned unlike weight bearing exercises: walking or running for example.

    Just pick one or the other or take a mid-point.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    To give perspective on this...

    I do a fitnessblender workout 2x a week...it's 23mins long and it gives a range for that workout...

    anywhere between 164-258...that range is dependent on age, height, weight, effort etc...hence the range...MFP when I type in 23mins of circut training gives me 274....

    This is why when asked this question most responders say eat back 50-75% of the calories you have burned...just to be safe.
  • Velum_cado
    Velum_cado Posts: 1,608 Member
    Yeah, when I started using a HRM I discovered that MFP was generally giving me double the calories burned. I've found MFP is more accurate for walking, but still a bit high. Don't rely on what the site is telling you.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories