Biking HELP! fitbit or mfp cals?

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

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • polargurl13
    polargurl13 Posts: 15 Member
    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
    27mph but only 13.47km in half an hour?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • roanokejoe49
    roanokejoe49 Posts: 820 Member
    get a hr monitor. Only way to know for sure.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • strassenkoenigin
    strassenkoenigin Posts: 259
    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
    get a hr monitor. Only way to know for sure.
    THIS ^^^^^^^
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    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
    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
    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,
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    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.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    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.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    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
    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.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • debubbie
    debubbie Posts: 767 Member
    I would use the calories burned that your Fitbit gave you instead of MFP calories burned which are way exaggerated. I use my hrm to get my calories burned and input those in for the activities I did that day instead of letting MFP calculate the calorie burn. I have found that since I manually put in my calorie burn for the activities that my weight loss has progressed better than when I was using MFP's inflated calorie burns. I hope this helps.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    27mph but only 13.47km in half an hour?

    its the first time ive used it.. i dont know how accurate it is.

    Do you mean 27 kph and not mph? That would make sense.
    Because 27 mph can't be 13.5 km in half an hour. That's not accuracy just a physical impossibility.

    And either use Strava, Mapmyride or a Garmin. Neither a fitbit nor this site is very accurate with biking.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Galatea_Stone
    Galatea_Stone Posts: 2,037 Member
    Honestly, both seem high. MFP is not very accurate for calorie burns. For a bike ride for me at 12-14 mph for 75-90 minutes, I burn 500-600 calories. That's outdoors in headwinds and with small hills. I use a cycling tracker that logs my distance, route, etc.

    On a stationary bike, I get about 300 an hour.

    What did your HRM say?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    my hrm was 130 went up to 150 for the majority of the 30 mins. took at least another 30 mins to drop back down too. I know it is as accurate as it gets.

    Would i not burn more due to being overweight and low fitness levels?

    Yes, and gears and hills and bike type ... etc could result in 100% delta. Don't sweat it - it's an estimate - choose one and work off of that. It only matters if you are doing it regularly and if you are doing it regularly (you should) you'll figure it out over time.

    Did you have fun?
    That helps drive consistency.

    (edit: and it's likelier the lower number unless this was a half hour of intense hill repeats on a mountain bike and you are very overweight - 800 cals per hour is intense but not impossible depending on a lot of factors like weight and elevation change)
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.

Categories