Anyone Using MyFoodDiary.com ? Calorie Question

I have just started using MyFoodDiary.com (MFD).

They list a whole bunch of activities, including cycling at a variety of speeds, and attach calories/hour burned for those activities. I think the calories-burned estimates are too high. I would be curious to see if others use this, and if so, how do you choose/report cycling on the site to try for accuracy?

For instance, tonight I did 30 minutes on the trainer at a fairly easy pace. Eighteen minutes around 70% of max HR, and 12 minutes around 65%.

For the activity, I chose 30 minutes of "cycling at 10-12 mph". It told me I burned 200 calories for that!?! I doubt it. (I am 5'6", both overweight and somewhat muscular at 162 pounds.) Does anyone think this calorie count might be accurate? I think it sounds high.

Would be curious to hear from anyone who uses MFD, or anyone who has a good idea of calories burned for a variety of cycling activities.

I don't use MFD--I use Calorie King.

My experience is that they are very inaccurate with calories burned. CK put my calories burned for an hour of calisthenics at 650. When I put my heart rate monitor on, it's really around 500.

That said, I don't think 200 calories is out of bounds for 30 minutes on the trainer. I burned 200 calories (according to my HRM) in 20 minutes doing the cardio portion at boot camp yesterday. (mountain climber, very vigorous mini-tramp, high step, and arch trainer--5 minutes each).

On CK you can customize calories burned per minute for exercise. Maybe MFD does, too? There are calculators that let you plug in weight, etc., to determine a calorie burn rate that might be more accurate. Here's one, but I haven't explored it much. http://www.caloriesperhour.com/

Karen

I don't use that particular food journal, but most of them actually pull their data from the same data base and/or they use the same equivalents to calculate calories burned (ie. 7cal/min for vigorous activity for a 150 lb woman...yada yada yada).

I have found that, in general, they tend to be high. I usually just choose a 'speed' that is one category lower than what I actually did...and then they tend to match up to my HRM numbers pretty well (at least for cycling). That said, I've also read that HRM's also tend to over-estimate, particularly for women.

And I agree with Karen - 200 calories for 30 minutes at 65% MRH or better sounds about right (seeing as how we weigh almost the same!;)).

About the HRM being off...someone posted in another about Polar monitors being tested and being off about 33% for women. !!!!! Alarmed as I am by that, I am losing weight more quickly now than I was before I started using it....so I feel like it's at least a little more realistic than Calorie King.

Karen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GLC1968

And I agree with Karen - 200 calories for 30 minutes at 65% MRH or better sounds about right (seeing as how we weigh almost the same!;)).

---

Hey, GLC, in as much as we are about the same age, about the same height, and about the same weight...well...could you just do all my workouts for me and tell me exactly what I'm burning for all of them!?! :D ;) :p Maybe I could just make you into my own personal research guinea pig? LOL :p

(Thanks for the info...kinda good to know!)