Estimating calories burned by exercise

mbmasuda
mbmasuda Posts: 1 Member
edited November 21 in Fitness and Exercise
Hello,

I used the stationary bike at the gym for an hour. The bike had me put in my weight (200#) and when I finished, it said I had gone 12.5 miles and burned around 350 calories. When I entered "Bicycling, 10-12 mph, light" for 60 minutes into the MyFitnessPal iPhone app, it said I used 541 calories. This seemed kind of high to me.

I just purchased a FitBit from Amazon, and it will arrive later today. I suppose the FitBit will also estimate the calories I burn and will provide another data point.

I was wondering how to accurately estimate the calories burned by exercise. I mostly ride the stationary bike or walk. I am working up to do a couch-to-5k plan.

Thanks!

Replies

  • amtyrell
    amtyrell Posts: 1,447 Member
    Mfp number run high I personally only eat half my exercise calories back.
    Fyi if you could bike 1 hr you can start the c25k app. You might need to redo days if any are super hard but the app is great and helps a ton.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Everything is an estimate but the MyFitnessPal cycling estimates are dreadfully exaggerated - wouldn't recommend using them at all.

    Other things to keep in mind:
    • Stationary cycling isn't the same as outdoor cycling.
    • Your weight in a non-weight bearing exercise using a stationary bike is pretty much an irrelevance.
    • Miles on a stationary bike need to be taken with a pinch of salt - you aren't actually moving anywhere.
    • Best to base calorie estimates when cycling on power if you can, if your bike displays your work done in watts it could well be a decent estimate.

    350 for an hour of moderate indoor cycling doesn't sound excessive to me at all by the way.
    541 calories for me in an hour I would expect to see the virtual mileage in the high teens, it does seem high for what you are describing.

    For running on level'ish ground I would use the calorie estimator here https://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator

    For regular walking for exercise I would base it on this simple formula Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
    Distance rather than speed in other words.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Your fitbit will be great for walking, but will not be useful on the bike.

    Riding a bike isn't a weight bearing exercise, as @sijomial points out; your weight is borne by your wheels. It's really only a factor going up hill quickly.

    Power is the best way to know how many calories you've burned on a bike, but it's expensive to measure. So let's assume your bike doesn't have that. I'd probably use one of the bike calculators if I were you, going by time and distance - you're on an indoor bike so you won't be affected by traffic or wind conditions. 350 cals for 60 minutes of moderate riding sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

    Walking is a lot easier to calculate, but your fitbit will probably do a good job of that for you. (Ideally you'll want to take it off before you get on the bike, so you don't double count for that period.)
  • artanis50
    artanis50 Posts: 96 Member
    I was just coming here to ask the same question. Rode my bike around the neighborhood for 52 minutes today. Average pace 11.7 mph. Miles = 10.1. MFP wanted to give me 500 ish calories burned but Strava told me 253. I only logged the 253 because it sounds more realistic. I don't understand why MFP always inflates the calories burned!!!
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    @artanis50 What kind of bike was it? (Road, mountain, etc.) The way Strava estimates your calorie burn is very different from the way MFP does, and probably more accurate in most cases, but less accurate when the wind is strong.
  • artanis50
    artanis50 Posts: 96 Member
    @NorthCascades I think it's a hybrid. Definitely had wind in my face for a good part of my ride.
  • SCoil123
    SCoil123 Posts: 2,111 Member
    I found MFP gives almost double what my Fitbit does for the same activities. As a result I don't log any activity here anymore and synced my accounts to use the Fitbit adjustment instead. Not only would I not lose with MFP number, I would gain. The Fitbit has been very accurate for me once I got used to it and customized my stride length
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    artanis50 wrote: »
    I was just coming here to ask the same question. Rode my bike around the neighborhood for 52 minutes today. Average pace 11.7 mph. Miles = 10.1. MFP wanted to give me 500 ish calories burned but Strava told me 253. I only logged the 253 because it sounds more realistic. I don't understand why MFP always inflates the calories burned!!!

    If your neighborhood is relatively flat, 250 calories for 10 miles at 11.7 mph seems like a reasonable estimate.

    MFP's estimates are inflated, I think, because the database seems to rely on the Compendium of Physical Activities as a source, and many activities in the Compendium are exaggerated. Moreover, the Compendium wasn't intended to measure individual calorie expenditure; its purpose is to allow researchers in biomedical and exercise science to compare activity levels in different studies. The estimates for walking and running are pretty decent because those activities have been tested extensively. I'm not sure why the cycling results are so far off, because a lot of exercise science studies have used stationary cycles as part of their testing protocols, but they are. Other activities are largely guesstimates, because there just haven't been enough studies of people canoeing, etc., and many of the references go back to measurements/estimates done in the 1970s or earlier.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    artanis50 wrote: »
    I was just coming here to ask the same question. Rode my bike around the neighborhood for 52 minutes today. Average pace 11.7 mph. Miles = 10.1. MFP wanted to give me 500 ish calories burned but Strava told me 253. I only logged the 253 because it sounds more realistic. I don't understand why MFP always inflates the calories burned!!!

    @artanis50

    I've used Strava for years and found their estimates perfectly reasonable across a range of bikes.
    There's variables like wind, aerodynamics (mine is awful...), tyres etc which it can't know about.
    But reasonable, convenient and free makes it good enough to be usable.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories