Difference in "calories burned" between MFP and bike

jessicaduperon
jessicaduperon Posts: 17 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So I do cardio on a stationary bike at home and there is always a huge difference in the number of calories burned between what the bike says and what MFP says when I log it. The number on the bike is always almost double what MFP says. Anybody else have this issue? I've just been going with the lower number. I don't have a Fitbit or any of those gadgets and can't, at this time, purchase one. What do you do?

Replies

  • baykay1010
    baykay1010 Posts: 15 Member
    I actually have a problem where MFP tells me I've burned more calories than the machines I use. I'd be interested to know what other people are doing as well. Which should I use? I've just been leaving it with what MFP says. I have a fitbit, but I honestly have no idea how to tell how many calories burned on one activity. it seems to group them all into a daily total.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    As a rule, I go with the lower number unless there is some good reason to suspect it is incorrect (like if one is using a HRM and the number is extremely low, it is likely an issue with the strap or the watch itself).
    I find the MFP numbers extremely generous for biking so I would be really doubtful about using a number twice that. But without actually seeing the numbers and knowing the time/distance, it is hard to say.

    Did the machine ask for your sex and age?

    A good blog on the matter
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

    You could also try searching other sources and see what they estimate closer to, MFP or the machine.
  • rsandem
    rsandem Posts: 16 Member
    I have the same issue with ellipticals at the gym (they estimate a few hundred calories higher that MFP). I always go with the lower estimate.
  • jessicaduperon
    jessicaduperon Posts: 17 Member
    Also, if the calorie burned counter on the bike are so off can the speed and distance counters be way off too?
  • jessicaduperon
    jessicaduperon Posts: 17 Member
    Also, if the calorie burned counter on the bike are so off can the speed and distance counters be way off too?
  • DeliriumCanBeFun
    DeliriumCanBeFun Posts: 313 Member
    This is kind of a tricky issue if you don't have a HRM. I find that what my Garmin tells me is different that what the MFP data base says is different from what my calorie burn is based on my average HR. I know Garmins and FIt Bits and things like that are expensive, but all you really need is a chest strap and HR monitor that can tell you you average. Before I started riding, I took up running and was actually worried about my HR getting too high. I bought a watch with a chest strap for really pretty cheap, and it worked great. There's a great HR based calorie butn calculator here http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx. That calculator give you your gross burn and you can figure out your net burn from there. It is what I use every time, and it has been very accurate and working very well for me. It factors in your age and weight which MFP can't do.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    This is kind of a tricky issue if you don't have a HRM. I find that what my Garmin tells me is different that what the MFP data base says is different from what my calorie burn is based on my average HR. I know Garmins and FIt Bits and things like that are expensive, but all you really need is a chest strap and HR monitor that can tell you you average. Before I started riding, I took up running and was actually worried about my HR getting too high. I bought a watch with a chest strap for really pretty cheap, and it worked great. There's a great HR based calorie butn calculator here http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx. That calculator give you your gross burn and you can figure out your net burn from there. It is what I use every time, and it has been very accurate and working very well for me. It factors in your age and weight which MFP can't do.

    MFP does factor in age and weight.

    Which Garmin model do you use?
  • kelseypalmer1614
    kelseypalmer1614 Posts: 36 Member
    Could be that your effort level on the machine is higher than what MFP uses for their estimate. You'll burn more calories the higher the resistance is set to. Just a thought.
  • ValeriePlz
    ValeriePlz Posts: 517 Member
    There are a few different intensity levels for stationery bike workouts on MFP. Even though I used to feel like my workout must be medium intensity, the calories burned is always spot-on with the low intensity option.
  • DeliriumCanBeFun
    DeliriumCanBeFun Posts: 313 Member
    This is kind of a tricky issue if you don't have a HRM. I find that what my Garmin tells me is different that what the MFP data base says is different from what my calorie burn is based on my average HR. I know Garmins and FIt Bits and things like that are expensive, but all you really need is a chest strap and HR monitor that can tell you you average. Before I started riding, I took up running and was actually worried about my HR getting too high. I bought a watch with a chest strap for really pretty cheap, and it worked great. There's a great HR based calorie butn calculator here http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx. That calculator give you your gross burn and you can figure out your net burn from there. It is what I use every time, and it has been very accurate and working very well for me. It factors in your age and weight which MFP can't do.

    MFP does factor in age and weight.

    Which Garmin model do you use?
    I have a 500. And I think it's just a database that doesn't factor those in when it gives you a calorie burn.
  • asciiqwerty
    asciiqwerty Posts: 565 Member
    if you have cadence, distance and time data from the bike, you could also add these into other estimators

    you'll get a range of results - and pick as you like
    either the lowest, or and average
    it's up to you

    they are all estimates - even an hrm based value is the result o entering hrm values into an empirical eqution to get a calory estimation - which one is right for you? who knows
  • crissi725
    crissi725 Posts: 82
    I think EVERYONE has this issue in some way. You are unlikely, without spending some money, to get a spot on number for any of the things we track. BMR, TDEE, calories, ect. I've decided that as long as I'm doing my best, I'm not going to focus on it too much. I want to honest and get as accurate as I can but I try to understand the limitations. I invested in a FitBit One ($99 on Amazon) and it has been such a help. The numbers different that MFP, but again, I'm just trying my best to reach the goals "on paper" both have set for me. And the weight is coming off! So I guess in the end, it doesn't matter for my purposes. My advice would be to just do your best with the numbers.
  • rak173
    rak173 Posts: 105 Member
    I generally go with the lower number and understand all numbers are estimates. I figure as long as I'm losing weight and feel good, I'll stick with this method. I will not be surprised if I come to a time where I will want to invest in a FitBit or something similar so I can get more accurate estimates.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    This is kind of a tricky issue if you don't have a HRM. I find that what my Garmin tells me is different that what the MFP data base says is different from what my calorie burn is based on my average HR. I know Garmins and FIt Bits and things like that are expensive, but all you really need is a chest strap and HR monitor that can tell you you average. Before I started riding, I took up running and was actually worried about my HR getting too high. I bought a watch with a chest strap for really pretty cheap, and it worked great. There's a great HR based calorie butn calculator here http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx. That calculator give you your gross burn and you can figure out your net burn from there. It is what I use every time, and it has been very accurate and working very well for me. It factors in your age and weight which MFP can't do.

    MFP does factor in age and weight.

    Which Garmin model do you use?
    I have a 500. And I think it's just a database that doesn't factor those in when it gives you a calorie burn.

    No really, MFP does account for weight - I just added in my pregnancy pounds and get higher burns than before for the same activity. Age isn't really a factor, but HRMs need it to do estimates (all explained in the link above). I haven't actually checked to see if age does affect the calorie burn but I know when setting calorie goals MFP does account for age.
  • catchtheislands
    catchtheislands Posts: 25 Member
    I use a heart rate monitor and my phone app will tell me 286 calories burned and when it posts to MFP with the MFP app, the calories it logs are different,
    No reason for it. Same HR monitor. same app and site.
    complete BS
  • catchtheislands
    catchtheislands Posts: 25 Member
    weight and everything are the same on app and site.
    No reason for the difference.
  • TAsunder
    TAsunder Posts: 423 Member
    Also, if the calorie burned counter on the bike are so off can the speed and distance counters be way off too?

    The speed and distance aren't necessarily off if the calories are, but they certainly can be off by a fair amount.

Categories