Calories burned are totally inaccurate

GinnyEbert
GinnyEbert Posts: 1 Member
edited November 21 in Health and Weight Loss
Fitness Pal recorded 467 calories burned on a stationary bike for 30 minutes, and the bike itself recorded 180 calories burned. This is unacceptable and totally inaccurate.

Replies

  • slaite1
    slaite1 Posts: 1,307 Member
    This seems to be the general concensus. Most will advise you only eat half the calories backed for better accuracy.
  • ASKyle
    ASKyle Posts: 1,475 Member
    Correct.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Yes. Yes it is. Don't accept it.
  • kk_inprogress
    kk_inprogress Posts: 3,077 Member
    MFP grossly overestimates and that's not likely to change. Fitness machines are rarely accurately either. If you want accurate numbers, look in a heart rate monitor.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Or just evaluate how your level of exercise and caloric intake work together to affect your weight.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Faithful_Chosen
    Faithful_Chosen Posts: 401 Member
    GinnyEbert wrote: »
    Fitness Pal recorded 467 calories burned on a stationary bike for 30 minutes, and the bike itself recorded 180 calories burned. This is unacceptable and totally inaccurate.

    Hehe, my bike overestimates more than MFP does. I log things on extra light where possible (extra light for stationary bike 30 minutes = 247 cal, for example), and take everything it tells me with a spoon full of salt. Heartrate monitors for the win, I guess.
  • ermand
    ermand Posts: 54 Member
    To me it seems like anything estimated on MFP is x2 of what you actually burned.
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    GinnyEbert wrote: »
    This is unacceptable and totally inaccurate.

    Just put in calories you think are more reasonable. On the scale of "unacceptable" this ranks pretty low.

  • whmscll
    whmscll Posts: 2,254 Member
    I usually Google whatever exercise I'm doing and look at several different calorie estimators and log the calories that seem to have to most consensus for that exercise...or the lowest estimated burn after looking at 3-4 calculators.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    MFP entry is very generic. Which entry did you choose? Light, moderate, etc.

    Everything is an estimate. Some of the entries are better estimates than others. Generally, the more detail you have, the better is it going to be. For example, "elliptical trainer" is very vague and does not account for speed or resistance. Even ones with descriptions like "light" "moderate" "vigorous" effort are problematic because it is open to interpretation.
    The ones with information like "walking, 3.0 mph" will be much better estimates.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories