Discrepancy between calories my stationary bike says and what MFP entry says

jellyimo
jellyimo Posts: 1
edited November 10 in Fitness and Exercise
Rode the stationary bike this morning for 40 minutes. At the end of the ride, the bike, which keeps track of calories burned, said ~240 calories. But when I enter 40 minutes of light stationary bike into MFP, it gives me credit for almost twice that.

Anyone have an idea of what gives? I want to make sure I'm not over-counting my exercise.

Replies

  • guilleguille
    guilleguille Posts: 11
    take the one that read the least.
  • wkwebby
    wkwebby Posts: 807 Member
    Don't trust the MFP number. Go with the more conservative number and don't eat back all of those. Some say 50% or 75% of exercise calories should be eaten back.
  • AgentOrangeJuice
    AgentOrangeJuice Posts: 1,069 Member
    How many calories would you have burned in the same amount of time doing whatever it is you're doing when you're not trying to burn calories?
  • TriNoob
    TriNoob Posts: 96 Member
    Hard to tell without your weight/speed/distance/power/etc. So, absent salient information, I'm going to go with....bunnies.
  • Exercisewoman
    Exercisewoman Posts: 52 Member
    I'd go by what the bike says. Under estimate is probably best.
  • Brittany91389
    Brittany91389 Posts: 32 Member
    Three words. Heart. Rate. Monitor. Mine is a Polar F-4 and it's $100 from Amazon and I've had it for more than 14 months. It's the best investment I've ever made. The stationary bike and MFP are making estimates on how hard you've worked and occasionally they'll make a more accurate estimation if you can input your age and weight. The heart rate monitor is the most accurate way to monitor your calories and to make sure you're getting a moderate to vigorous workout (granted, everything is an estimation).

    If you can't get one, I would err on the side of caution and input the lesser number.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Brittany91389 wrote: »
    Three words. Heart. Rate. Monitor. Mine is a Polar F-4 and it's $100 from Amazon and I've had it for more than 14 months. It's the best investment I've ever made. The stationary bike and MFP are making estimates on how hard you've worked and occasionally they'll make a more accurate estimation if you can input your age and weight. The heart rate monitor is the most accurate way to monitor your calories and to make sure you're getting a moderate to vigorous workout (granted, everything is an estimation).

    If you can't get one, I would err on the side of caution and input the lesser number.

    Depending on the bike, it may be more accurate than a HRM. The HRM only counts heart beats ... it doesn't know the corresponding work load. The low end HRMs don't have the capacity to test or accept VO2 max ... so they calculate on fixed formulas that may, or may not, match the individual.
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    For cycling, MFP wildly overestimates calories burned. 240 calories for 40 minutes seems in the ballpark. That's 6 calories a minute. I burn about 8-9 calories a minute cycling at 17 mph on a flat road, depending on wind, so 6 calories/minute at a light to moderate speed is a reasonable estimate.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories