MFP calories burned vs. machine calories burned?

klburgess24 wrote: »

MFP says to always use machine calories burned when calculating workout calories. I struggle with this because I have been riding an exercise bike close to 12 miles in 45 min. The machine says I burn approximately 491 calories where MFP says that I should burn approximately 800. That is a huge difference! What is everyone using for calculating calories burned per workout?

It's all an estimate, but the machine is closer to reality. Nobody is burning 800 calories in 45 minutes. It's really, really, really, really....really hard to burn more than about 10 calories per minute (beyond your basal burn).

One way you can check figures you get from machines and other data bases and calculators is to use a factor of 5-10 with 5 being a moderately paced walk and 10 being an all out effort (which most people can't sustain for long durations of time). Be honest with yourself and your level of effort...most steady state cardiovascular events are going to be somewhere around an 8 or so give or take.

When you're using the MFP method, you want to be as conservative as possible with your calorie burns.

I cycle regularly and my app always tells me I burn around 950 calories of 60 minutes of riding at a moderate pace of 15 MPH...that's a bunch of bull *kitten*...it's really closer to 500 or so.

MFP's estimates for many activities, including cycling, are grossly exaggerated. @brianpperkins‌ has the best advice:

brianpperkins wrote: »

Depending on the resistance that particular machine provides ... even that number might be a bit high (many machines report gross calories, not net from exercise). Use the lower number, track progress, adjust as necessary ... if you're loss is on track, trust the number ... if you're losing slower than expected, there's a good chance the machine is overestimating. It is a lot easier to accurately track intake than it is to track burn.