Biking HELP! fitbit or mfp cals?

Options
OhQueSeraSera
OhQueSeraSera Posts: 487 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
hi i just went on my bike for 31 mins , speed 27mph, hr 130-150, distance 13.47k

i logged it with mfp - burned 821cals

i logged it with fitbit - burned 449cals

So which is it??? im confused ???? :tongue:
«1

Replies

  • polargurl13
    polargurl13 Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    Hi, not a 100% here but I researched the fitbit (I have one) and it wont recognize certain activities properly. The way I understood it is that the fitbit registers steps..... an elliptical doesn't make you take steps per say and I would think the same would be for a bike. A heart rate monitor is best for those types of movements... That's how I understand so far. Hope that helps you.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    27mph but only 13.47km in half an hour?
  • roanokejoe49
    roanokejoe49 Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    get a hr monitor. Only way to know for sure.
  • strassenkoenigin
    strassenkoenigin Posts: 259
    Options
    Personally I do not trust any of these calories they give me for biking. I do not have a fitbit, but I had bike computer who gave me calories. They were always very low. MFP seems way too high. I am thinking about buying a Garmin or something similar. If MFP would be correct I would have lost tons of weight in August because I biked over 1000 miles. I think, I am so conditioned to biking that I do not use so many calories anymore. I mostly bike at a moderate speed and my heart rate at fat burning rate.
  • brentbarrie
    brentbarrie Posts: 532 Member
    Options
    get a hr monitor. Only way to know for sure.
    THIS ^^^^^^^
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    Pick a method, stick with that for 3-4 weeks. If it seems like the burns might be exaggerated because your progress doesn't match, then either switch methods or adjust manually (making the burns less). I'd be careful that you don't double log activities though.
  • ka97
    ka97 Posts: 1,984 Member
    Options
    Either my math is off, or something is off in your numbers. Is it possible that your speed was 27 kilometers per hour, not 27mph?
    27mph is seriously fast!
  • MyaPapaya75
    MyaPapaya75 Posts: 3,143 Member
    Options
    Do you have HRM that shows calories burned? That would solve the problem...generally MFP overestimates by 50-100 calories for me...I use a Polar ft7...as for fitbit Im not familiar with it,
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    the bike has a hrm and calories burn on it, but i knew the hrm was inaccurate so just took the distance and speed off it.

    Nothing is a 100% accurate. I'd say Fitbit and your HRM would be more accurate than MFP's #s, but there is always going to be some margin (10-30%) of error so just pick one and work with it. I'd just stick with Fitbit only because it'd just be easier and less chance accidentally double logging for an activity.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    get a hr monitor. Only way to know for sure.
    THIS ^^^^^^^


    for the 4th time.. I HAD A SEPERATE HR MONITOR ON! lol

    Just a heads up - People tend to read the OP and maybe the first few posts before responding. So there are going to be a lot of "Use an HRM" or ^This to the HRM post before they realize you already stated you have one.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    27 MPH sustained is hauling *kitten*....

    There has to be something wrong here....I'm no Lance Armstrong or anything, but there's no way I could sustain that kind of speed over 30 plus minutes without a solid tail wind and a downgrade in a heavy gear. Nothing is going to be remotely accurate if your data input isn't accurate...garbage in, garbage out.

    Really, it's all an estimate and it's one thing I really didn't like about the MFP method. I much prefer the TDEE method and just estimating the amount of hours per week I spend exercising in addition to my daily life and then just working out, riding, etc because it's fun and I don't have to worry about whether or not I burned 300 calories or 500 calories.

    Personally, I think both estimates are inflated. No way you burned 800+ calories in a half hour...it's damned hard to burn more than about 10 calories per minute above and beyond your basal calories...it's just very difficult to sustain that kind of intensity for any duration of time. You might burn a bit more if you're heavier, but not that much more.

    Judging from my normal exercise routine and calorie intake over the last couple of years, I'd say I burn around 500ish calories in about 15 - 17 miles or so of riding depending on terrain. My cycling app tells me I burn around 900 calories for 15 miles and I call BS every day.
  • GrindGravel
    GrindGravel Posts: 49 Member
    Options
    I would recommend you download and use Strava http://www.strava.com/ in coordination with your HRM. Strava will map your ride and measure Speed/HR (from monitor)/Elevation/Calories and most importantly give you a virtual power measurement. The combination of these will be much more accurate than a Fitbit (by their own admission,does not measure cycling activities well.) or using MFP (way too generous with calories). The Calorie measurement on Strava is going to be waaaaay more accurate as it uses a combo of virtual power and heart rate.

    For example, I did a ride where I rode 17 miles (twice your distance) at a speed of 17.7 which was 1 mph faster than your ride (I am guessing you meant kph not mph) and burned 603 calories according to Strava and using a HRM. Based on the numbers you gave, I would have burned 296 more calories using the Fitbit and 1,039 using MFP for that ride!

    While it is difficult to be totally accurate, I think the Strava numbers are much more accurate and will help you track better.

Categories