How much weight can you lose cycling 7 miles a day on a Stationary Bike at 15-30mph?
blondielou1992
Posts: 37 Member
How much weight can you lose cycling 7 miles a day on a Stationary Bike at 15-30mph if you did this every day for a week and ate a balanced diet which consisted of around 1200 - 1500 calories?
0
Replies
-
2.7543892664859573 pounds. Give or take a few ounces0
-
It's all about how much you eat.0
-
The answer is "D. Not enough information provided."0
-
If you set your goal on MFP to lose 1 lb/week and follow that properly you should lose on average one pound/week, with or without exercise.0
-
That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.0 -
0 -
How long is a piece of string?0
-
I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Take your weight in lbs, divide by pie (oops, sorry, meant Pi), add your age in months, multiply by shoe size. The answer will be your weight loss in ounces per week.
You're welcome0 -
Take your weight in lbs, divide by pie (oops, sorry, meant Pi), add your age in months, multiply by shoe size. The answer will be your weight loss in ounces per week.
You're welcome
No that only works in August. The March formula also takes the standard deviation of your Social Security Number into account, though I can't remember if you add it or subtract it. I suggest trying both.0 -
Ah, of course. I forgot to factor that in.ceoverturf wrote: »Take your weight in lbs, divide by pie (oops, sorry, meant Pi), add your age in months, multiply by shoe size. The answer will be your weight loss in ounces per week.
You're welcome
No that only works in August. The March formula also takes the standard deviation of your Social Security Number into account, though I can't remember if you add it or subtract it. I suggest trying both.
0 -
Speed means squat without knowing what resistance setting you're using.0
-
dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.
For it to be a ballpark, it would require a basis in reality which it lacks.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ok here's some concrete info for you.
I have a stationary bike, I often do about 10 miles in 42 minutes (14-15 mph) with no extra resistance. I'm 36, 5'5", 133 pounds, and it burns between 180 and 200 calories (confirmed with my HRM, which gave the same number as the bike). I've tried with extra resistance and it only burned about 30 more calories in the same time (on resistance 2). I have to really sprint to get to even 22 mph, and 15 mph is the best I can manage for a long period of time.
I'd probably burn 50 of those calories in the same time if I was just sitting in the house, so yeah... it doesn't burn much at all. I keep seeing people logging 400+ calorie burns on the bike in one hour and I'm just a little bit suspicious, lol.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I feel like I'm back in Algebra I class answering story problems.0
-
1000 pounds0
-
0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.
For it to be a ballpark, it would require a basis in reality which it lacks.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.
For it to be a ballpark, it would require a basis in reality which it lacks.
Yup
It does, but you guys are way to serious. A stationary bike, though it doesn't go anywhere, operates in a similar way to a bicycle, so you can expect that the effort required will be similar. 40 calories per mile is a good estimate for some small people while riding a bicycle at a vigorous rate.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.
For it to be a ballpark, it would require a basis in reality which it lacks.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.
For it to be a ballpark, it would require a basis in reality which it lacks.
Yup
It does, but you guys are way to serious. A stationary bike, though it doesn't go anywhere, operates in a similar way to a bicycle, so you can expect that the effort required will be similar. 40 calories per mile is a good estimate for some small people while riding a bicycle at a vigorous rate.
Once again, you're wrong. But why let little things like science and fact get in the way of your frequently bad advice.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.
For it to be a ballpark, it would require a basis in reality which it lacks.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.
For it to be a ballpark, it would require a basis in reality which it lacks.
Yup
It does, but you guys are way to serious. A stationary bike, though it doesn't go anywhere, operates in a similar way to a bicycle, so you can expect that the effort required will be similar. 40 calories per mile is a good estimate for some small people while riding a bicycle at a vigorous rate.
The effort/calories are typically quite a bit less than riding an actual bike. One way some people overestimate calories is by logging stationary bike as "cycling." (Another way is using "vigorous" when it's not, but of course any exercise entry is questionable.)
Obviously there's a huge variation with outdoor biking too--are there hills, is it windy, which way is the wind blowing, what kind of bike are you riding, how heavy are you, how fast are you going, etc. But for the most part an hour riding at 15 mph (let alone 20 or more) outside is far more of a calorie burn than the same on the stationary bike, IME.
Anyway, the only answer to OP's question that I can see is "a bit more than if you didn't exercise assuming your eating is constant and is at a level that will lead to a loss."0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »How long is a piece of string?
Twice as long as the length of 1/2 of it.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.
For it to be a ballpark, it would require a basis in reality which it lacks.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.
For it to be a ballpark, it would require a basis in reality which it lacks.
Yup
It does, but you guys are way to serious. A stationary bike, though it doesn't go anywhere, operates in a similar way to a bicycle, so you can expect that the effort required will be similar. 40 calories per mile is a good estimate for some small people while riding a bicycle at a vigorous rate.
Once again, you're wrong. But why let little things like science and fact get in the way of your frequently bad advice.
If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. There is no science involved in saying, "You're wrong."0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »How long is a piece of string?
Twice as long as the length of 1/2 of it.
I must have asked that burning question 50 times in my short visit here at MFP. You are the first person to answer that correctly.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.
For it to be a ballpark, it would require a basis in reality which it lacks.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.
For it to be a ballpark, it would require a basis in reality which it lacks.
Yup
It does, but you guys are way to serious. A stationary bike, though it doesn't go anywhere, operates in a similar way to a bicycle, so you can expect that the effort required will be similar. 40 calories per mile is a good estimate for some small people while riding a bicycle at a vigorous rate.
The effort/calories are typically quite a bit less than riding an actual bike. One way some people overestimate calories is by logging stationary bike as "cycling." (Another way is using "vigorous" when it's not, but of course any exercise entry is questionable.)
Obviously there's a huge variation with outdoor biking too--are there hills, is it windy, which way is the wind blowing, what kind of bike are you riding, how heavy are you, how fast are you going, etc. But for the most part an hour riding at 15 mph (let alone 20 or more) outside is far more of a calorie burn than the same on the stationary bike, IME.
Anyway, the only answer to OP's question that I can see is "a bit more than if you didn't exercise assuming your eating is constant and is at a level that will lead to a loss."
Which is why I assumed 40 calories per mile instead of 60.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.
For it to be a ballpark, it would require a basis in reality which it lacks.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »dieselgoat wrote: »I doubt very seriously you can ride 30 mph on a stationary bike. If you can, you need to be in the Tour de France-or your speedometer is way off.
As I said previously, that would be impossible, since a stationary bike doesn't go anywhere. But it is easy enough to get the flywheel spinning at a rate where a spider resting on the outside of the wheel would be going 30 mph. A person doing that would be burning calories, but the minimum effort would be that of lifting their legs once per revolution of the pedals.brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »That would be impossible. The whole concept of a stationary bike is that it doesn't go anywhere.
But let's assume you would be burning 40 calories per "mile." So, if you ate at maintenance, you would lose about half a pound from the stationary bike.
Assuming a random number in the absence of any significant information such as the person's weight, rolling resistance or gearing ... there quite simply is not enough information here for even your pick a number out of thin air system.
It's just a ballpark figure. Don't have a coronary.
For it to be a ballpark, it would require a basis in reality which it lacks.
Yup
It does, but you guys are way to serious. A stationary bike, though it doesn't go anywhere, operates in a similar way to a bicycle, so you can expect that the effort required will be similar. 40 calories per mile is a good estimate for some small people while riding a bicycle at a vigorous rate.
Once again, you're wrong. But why let little things like science and fact get in the way of your frequently bad advice.
If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. There is no science involved in saying, "You're wrong."
You randomly picked a number without any logic to it ... wrong on every scientific principle. Even a hypothesis is "A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation." Note .. further investigation.
I've lost count of how many threads include informed people telling OPs to ignore you due to the fallacy based diatribes you post. I cannot in good conscious call your posts "contributions".0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions