exercise question

rAc_hEl

myfitnesspal says i burn more calories on bike then treadmill BUT i sweat waaaay more on treadmill then i do on the stationary bike. which one would you do MORE of if trying to lose weight? right now i do 60 mins of treadmill and im usually drenched in sweat i immediately have to shower. why would it say i burn more on bike but i sweat more on treadmill

Liftng4Lis

Usually the calories burned are way over estimated. Use half to be safe.

jodster1504

Either one could be a great burn depending on how intense a workout you do. If you don't sweat on the bike, crank it up a notch

brianpperkins

Since when is sweat the indicator of calories burned?

TimothyFish

If you aren't drenched in sweat when you get off the stationary bike, you aren't pedaling fast enough. Are you sure you aren't using the estimates for cycling outside instead of for a stationary bike? But as for your question, I would do more on the bike (though at an increased intensity), because you can do it longer without putting so much strain on the knees.

funchords

Calorielab at http://calorielab.com/burned/ which is based on laboratory MET data says that the treadmill should be somewhat more than the stationary bike.

sijomial

Sweating is not an indicator of effectiveness of exercise.
Any cardio activity can get you to your peak output if you put enough effort in.

MyFitnessPal doesn't know how much effort you are putting in to "Stationary bike, general (bicycling, cycling, biking)" so its calorie estimates are more of a wild stab in the dark than an estimate. Running estimates can be pretty accurate though if you know your speed and distance.

muah3iluvzu06

Getting a HRM is the best way to go. MFP's calorie burn is always 200-250 more then I actually burn. I don't work out without my HRM, best thing ever.

brianpperkins

muah3iluvzu06 wrote: »

Getting a HRM is the best way to go. MFP's calorie burn is always 200-250 more then I actually burn. I don't work out without my HRM, best thing ever.

HRMs can be useful tools. They are not the end all, be all of calorie estimation.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/new-hrm-how-to-make-the-calorie-estimate-more-accurate-183102

mallory_2014

Sweat is not an accurate way to tell how hard you are working. Some people sweat more than others. Sweating a lot does not mean more calories burned.

Get a proper heart rate monitor. One with a chest strap that takes a constant read of your HR.

brianpperkins

Every day on MFP confirms the effectiveness of HRM marketing.

muah3iluvzu06

brianpperkins wrote: »

muah3iluvzu06 wrote: »

Getting a HRM is the best way to go. MFP's calorie burn is always 200-250 more then I actually burn. I don't work out without my HRM, best thing ever.

HRMs can be useful tools. They are not the end all, be all of calorie estimation.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/new-hrm-how-to-make-the-calorie-estimate-more-accurate-183102

Mine has actually been pretty damn accurate in accordance with my weekly weight loss. No one said its the end all be all. I use mine to get a better estimate of calories burned vs using MFP.

brianpperkins

muah3iluvzu06 wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

muah3iluvzu06 wrote: »

Getting a HRM is the best way to go. MFP's calorie burn is always 200-250 more then I actually burn. I don't work out without my HRM, best thing ever.

HRMs can be useful tools. They are not the end all, be all of calorie estimation.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/new-hrm-how-to-make-the-calorie-estimate-more-accurate-183102

Mine has actually been pretty damn accurate in accordance with my weekly weight loss.

Congrats. That doesn't change the fact that they are much hyped around here for things that they are neither designed nor programmed to do. There are those that advocate HRMs for everything ... even when they are far from the right tool for the job. Most low end HRMs don't factor in VO2 max and report gross, rather than net, exercise calories ... little things that matter for accuracy.

How often have you been connected to a direct calorimeter to determine if your HRM is accurate?

lemurcat12

funchords wrote: »

Calorielab at http://calorielab.com/burned/ which is based on laboratory MET data says that the treadmill should be somewhat more than the stationary bike.

This. What are the specifics of the exercises? Time, speed, etc.?

One mistake people sometimes make is using an outside biking entry for stationary biking without adjusting the speed. If you log 15mph on a stationary bike with an outdoor entry you will be grossly overestimating the calories burnt. Better to just use the stationary entries and how hard you think you were going (I typically go down one from that since I think it's common to overestimate exertion).

muah3iluvzu06

brianpperkins wrote: »

muah3iluvzu06 wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

muah3iluvzu06 wrote: »

Getting a HRM is the best way to go. MFP's calorie burn is always 200-250 more then I actually burn. I don't work out without my HRM, best thing ever.

HRMs can be useful tools. They are not the end all, be all of calorie estimation.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/new-hrm-how-to-make-the-calorie-estimate-more-accurate-183102

Mine has actually been pretty damn accurate in accordance with my weekly weight loss.

Congrats. That doesn't change the fact that they are much hyped around here for things that they are neither designed nor programmed to do. There are those that advocate HRMs for everything ... even when they are far from the right tool for the job. Most low end HRMs don't factor in VO2 max and report gross, rather than net, exercise calories ... little things that matter for accuracy.

How often have you been connected to a direct calorimeter to determine if your HRM is accurate?

I'm not hyping anything. I'm letting the OP know that a HRM's estimate has been more accurate then MFP's estimate for me. No one cares how you feel about what people on MFP hype up too much. I was answering the OP's question with what has worked for me. So get the hell off of your high horse and leave me the hell alone. I don't need or want any information from you.

brianpperkins

muah3iluvzu06 wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

muah3iluvzu06 wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

muah3iluvzu06 wrote: »

Getting a HRM is the best way to go. MFP's calorie burn is always 200-250 more then I actually burn. I don't work out without my HRM, best thing ever.

HRMs can be useful tools. They are not the end all, be all of calorie estimation.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/new-hrm-how-to-make-the-calorie-estimate-more-accurate-183102

Mine has actually been pretty damn accurate in accordance with my weekly weight loss.

Congrats. That doesn't change the fact that they are much hyped around here for things that they are neither designed nor programmed to do. There are those that advocate HRMs for everything ... even when they are far from the right tool for the job. Most low end HRMs don't factor in VO2 max and report gross, rather than net, exercise calories ... little things that matter for accuracy.

How often have you been connected to a direct calorimeter to determine if your HRM is accurate?

I'm not hyping anything. I'm letting the OP know that a HRM's estimate has been more accurate then MFP's estimate for me. No one cares how you feel about what people on MFP hype up too much. I was answering the OP's question with what has worked for me. So get the hell off of your high horse and leave me the hell alone. I don't need or want any information from you.

I answered you and the OP with details of how HRMs work and how accurate they truly are (and aren't). You make definitive statements of accuracy ("MFP's calorie burn is always 200-250 more then I actually burn") ... yet without direct calorimeter testing there is no way to ascertain the validity of your statement.

brianpperkins

For those so in love with HRM data ... my 4.9 mile run yesterday produced caloric estimates ranging from 645 to 780 from the exact same data file sent to various apps. Which one is "right"?

There lies the problem. Each app and device calculates the same HR data a little differently. A 135 calorie range from a short little run. On a 38 mile cycling day ... the difference from the same HR data came out to over 600 calories between apps. Now, which is the "right" caloric burn? Is any of them "right"?

Knowing which devices and apps I use incorporate calculated VO2 max and max HR from metabolic testing, I know which result I trust most.

TimothyFish

I don't completely agree with the people who say sweat isn't an accurate measure of exertion. While it would be hard to compare running outside with cycling outside because of the difference in airflow, a stationary bike and a treadmill are in dead air with a similar temperature.

Mr_Knight

brianpperkins wrote: »

For those so in love with HRM data ... my 4.9 mile run yesterday produced caloric estimates ranging from 645 to 780 from the exact same data file sent to various apps. Which one is "right"?

4.9 * .65 * weight in pounds.

brianpperkins

Mr_Knight wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

For those so in love with HRM data ... my 4.9 mile run yesterday produced caloric estimates ranging from 645 to 780 from the exact same data file sent to various apps. Which one is "right"?

4.9 * .65 * weight in pounds.

The formula from Runners World is .63 * weight in pounds * distance in miles for net caloric burn, not .65 ... and that is just an estimate as well.

TimothyFish wrote: »

I don't completely agree with the people who say sweat isn't an accurate measure of exertion. While it would be hard to compare running outside with cycling outside because of the difference in airflow, a stationary bike and a treadmill are in dead air with a similar temperature.

Sweat does not equal caloric burn. Airflow isn't the only difference ... biomechanics between running and cycling differ greatly as well. That's before factoring in resistance levels between the devices.

I sweat more sitting still on a hot, humid day than running in the cold ... doesn't mean I'm burning more calories sitting still.

shadow2soul

As others have said, the amount you sweat has nothing to do with the calories you burned.

However, MFP does tend to overestimate a bit. Which is why a lot of people recommend eating 50-75% back.

I, personally, use a Plye Sports HRM (has a VO2 max setting, as well as age & weight...best part was the $26 price tag). I know its not going to be the most accurate outside of steady state cardio. However, I still use it for my exercise DVD's to help get a rough idea. I also only log at most 80% of the reported calorie burn from the watch to be on the safe side.
I've compared the calorie burn on my watch to online calculators that use my avg HR, VO2 max, age & height. It's always about 100 calories lower. So maybe it's reporting net instead of gross, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, my aim is 1lb per week. Which is about what I should be losing if you look at my logged intake and logged exercise. However, I lose roughly 1.3-2lbs per week. This is most likely a sign that I could eat 100% of my HRM calories, but eh I'll stick with what I'm doing for now.