Exercise bike calories vs MFP calories. Help?

Yeah, it's a HUGE difference. Ridiculous, really. Apparently exercise bikes are some of the most accurate gym machines, so I'd say go by the gym numbers. That's what I do. Apparently the MFP numbers do actually match up with reality for larger people with a lot to lose, particularly men, but for me (at 5 foot 2 and overweight but not obese) it would be a massive overestimate. I did a bunch of online research before I decided just to go with the gym numbers ... there's not much good that can come of overestimating, LOL!

ViolaLeeBlueberry wrote: »

Apparently exercise bikes are some of the most accurate gym machines, so I'd say go by the gym numbers.

Did you note that the gym machine is the higher figure of the two?

Gym machines do need to be properly calibrated, and it's worth noting that it's extrapolating from the power generated on the bike, rather than the input energy.

I've noticed a huge discrepancy between the calorie burns, which is why I invested in a HRM heart rate monitor, using a "watch" and chest strap a number of years ago. They are fairly expensive but well worth the cost, as it gives you the most accurate calorie burn. I lost over 50kg's and have maintained the weight loss for a further 2 years.

dianesheart88 wrote: »

The only way to know for sure is to get a HRM and use it. FT4 is inexpensive and accurate. Then you will truly know your calorie burns.

That then depends on the type of session one does

I did a lactate threshold session a week or so ago and ran my HR trace through several different simulators, getting a difference in opinion of up to 50% of the original; somewhere between 600 and 900 cals, with even 600 probably being a bit high.

A sprint intervals session got an even wider range of discrepancy.

If the exercise bike measures power (typically watts) then they can potentially be accurate - more accurate than a HRM.
If it doesn't then it's going to be a bit of a lottery.

However, 748 calories in 45 minutes would be an exceptional amount. Very good club rider perhaps?
For comparison my highest calorie burn from a calibrated power meter equipped bike is 862 cals in an hour but that was maximal effort to complete exhaustion.

MFP doesn't have a clue about your fitness, cycling ability or exertion level but of the two estimates it sounds the more likely for the interval program you describe.

A heart-rate monitor is likely to be the most accurate of the three, but even they can only give you estimates, which is really a fancy word for an educated guess. I find it much easier to just not even try tracking calories burned from exercise and go by an estimated cycle instead and make adjustments on a weekly or monthly basis if things aren't progressing they way I want them to.

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

ViolaLeeBlueberry wrote: »

Apparently exercise bikes are some of the most accurate gym machines, so I'd say go by the gym numbers.

Did you note that the gym machine is the higher figure of the two?

No, for me, the gym number is quite a bit under the MFP number. (By several hundred "calories burned.") So if I personally went by the MFP number, I'd get to report really cool big "calorie burns" for my news feed, but I'd also possibly be totally wrong.

I think the best bet in figuring it out (assuming no heart monitor etc) is to do a range of internet research and see what the numbers generally come to (for weight etc) before trusting any numbers. Some people have done that and found that MFP's stationary bike numbers work well for them personally; they don't for me. But everyone has a different body, different gym machines, different goals, different situations and preferences as to what's available and what they'd use, etc etc.

FWIW, recording the gym machine numbers has worked for me. I've lost steadily and precisely according to the plan, and made goal weight today (WOO HOO!), so whether I've been recording numbers that are "real" or not, it's been working

Ya 748 seems high.I run 6.5 mph for 30 mins and walk 3.5 for 10 min cool down usually and burn right around 700 and I tip the scales at 265 lbs so I burn a lot faster with more weight, so I'd say 350 sounds more reasonable IMO.

misstmarie__x wrote: »

Hi all, just wondering whether anyone can tell me what amount of burned calories I should be going with - what my exercise bike says, or what MFP says when I put in how long I've used the bike for? I usually use the bike for 45 minutes, on an uphill/downhill programme, which tells me I've burned 748 calories, however when putting this into MFP it says I've only burned around 350 calories. Just a bit of a difference there! Anyone have a clue?

When using the MFP method, you want to be conservative. Also, who knows when the last time that bike was calibrated and how many thousands of people have used it.

Also keep in mind that by and large, it is difficult to burn more than about 10 calories per minute above and beyond your basal calories...and 10 calories per minute is really cranking out some *kitten*....like you can't talk or do anything besides focus on your workout. Most people cannot sustain that level of effort for all that long.

Using a scale of 5-10 calories per minute, with 5 being a moderately paced walk, most people's steady state activities fall into a moderate level of an 8 or so...at least that is my experience. Of course, this doesn't fully take into account one's weight and other stats, but it is a conservative approach to estimating calorie burn...and it's all an estimate.