How much weight can you lose cycling 7 miles a day on a Stationary Bike at 15-30mph?
Replies
-
tincanonastring wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »How long is a piece of string?
Twice as long as the length of 1/2 of it.
Whoa whoa, wait there. Are you telling me string has TWO halves? Where has this fact been all my life?!!0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »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".
@brianpperkins , I'm not sure how a bee managed to get in your bonnet, but you're arguing pretty hard against my post when the majority of the posts in this thread are giving answers with no logical explanation of where they came from.2.7543892664859573 pounds. Give or take a few ouncesThe answer is "D. Not enough information provided."SergeantSausage wrote: »How long is a piece of string?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.4Take 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 welcomeceoverturf 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.itsfuntobenormal wrote: »1000 pounds
While I didn't state why I assumed 40, I did state that it was an assumption and I based my answer on that assumption. Like it or not science is built on a lot of assumptions. So, again, I don't know why you are so upset. But there was one post that seems to fit this situation:SergeantSausage wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »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.
Is this based off how much you burn?
I'm trying to remember, it's been a while since I was on the stationary bike because of my knees bothering me. I used to track my heart rate and use shapesense to calculate my burns. (I made sure to do 2 steps to get the net burn.) I'd do about 10 or so miles in 50 minutes at a resistance of 6 and burn around 300. I was a bit heavier at the time. I'm 52, 5' 1" and weighed around 200 pounds at the time.
0 -
But seriously...
Depending on how much you eat and a bunch of other factors that temporarily affect your weight, the answer is somewhere between all of it and none of it...
...and "none of it" could even include gaining weight.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »@brianpperkins , I'm not sure how a bee managed to get in your bonnet, but you're arguing pretty hard against my post when the majority of the posts in this thread are giving answers with no logical explanation of where they came from.
Not sure what's scarier, the "advice" you give; or your belief that any of the above quoted responses were serious.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »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".
@brianpperkins , I'm not sure how a bee managed to get in your bonnet, but you're arguing pretty hard against my post when the majority of the posts in this thread are giving answers with no logical explanation of where they came from.2.7543892664859573 pounds. Give or take a few ouncesThe answer is "D. Not enough information provided."SergeantSausage wrote: »How long is a piece of string?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.4Take 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 welcomeceoverturf 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.itsfuntobenormal wrote: »1000 pounds
While I didn't state why I assumed 40, I did state that it was an assumption and I based my answer on that assumption. Like it or not science is built on a lot of assumptions. So, again, I don't know why you are so upset. But there was one post that seems to fit this situation:SergeantSausage wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »
They are obviously jokes. The wise people got and understood them.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »@brianpperkins , I'm not sure how a bee managed to get in your bonnet, but you're arguing pretty hard against my post when the majority of the posts in this thread are giving answers with no logical explanation of where they came from.
Not sure what's scarier, the "advice" you give; or your belief that any of the above quoted responses were serious.
On a related note, Olivia and crew are trying to get the ignore user feature working.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »@brianpperkins , I'm not sure how a bee managed to get in your bonnet, but you're arguing pretty hard against my post when the majority of the posts in this thread are giving answers with no logical explanation of where they came from.
Not sure what's scarier, the "advice" you give; or your belief that any of the above quoted responses were serious.
On a related note, Olivia and crew are trying to get the ignore user feature working.
That is a fantastic piece of news.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »How long is a piece of string?
Twice as long as the length of 1/2 of it.
Whoa whoa, wait there. Are you telling me string has TWO halves? Where has this fact been all my life?!!
That depends on your geometric frame of reference. It is quite possible for two halves of a string to only add up to one half.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »@brianpperkins , I'm not sure how a bee managed to get in your bonnet, but you're arguing pretty hard against my post when the majority of the posts in this thread are giving answers with no logical explanation of where they came from.
Not sure what's scarier, the "advice" you give; or your belief that any of the above quoted responses were serious.
On a related note, Olivia and crew are trying to get the ignore user feature working.
That is a fantastic piece of news.
It would be if there was a timeline for implementation.0 -
What if the string is tied into a Mobius strip?
0 -
Are we talking about a random stationary bike at a random gym, or are we talking about an indoor training bike running Sufferfest training videos?
0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »
What if the string is tied into a Mobius strip?
That question is infinitely harder to answer.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »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".
@brianpperkins , I'm not sure how a bee managed to get in your bonnet, but you're arguing pretty hard against my post when the majority of the posts in this thread are giving answers with no logical explanation of where they came from.2.7543892664859573 pounds. Give or take a few ouncesThe answer is "D. Not enough information provided."SergeantSausage wrote: »How long is a piece of string?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.4Take 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 welcomeceoverturf 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.itsfuntobenormal wrote: »1000 pounds
While I didn't state why I assumed 40, I did state that it was an assumption and I based my answer on that assumption. Like it or not science is built on a lot of assumptions. So, again, I don't know why you are so upset. But there was one post that seems to fit this situation:SergeantSausage wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »
They are obviously jokes. The wise people got and understood them.
No! Really?! I was about to run out and buy a stationary bike so I could lose four pounds.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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.
Is this based off how much you burn?
I'm trying to remember, it's been a while since I was on the stationary bike because of my knees bothering me. I used to track my heart rate and use shapesense to calculate my burns. (I made sure to do 2 steps to get the net burn.) I'd do about 10 or so miles in 50 minutes at a resistance of 6 and burn around 300. I was a bit heavier at the time. I'm 52, 5' 1" and weighed around 200 pounds at the time.
No, I did what anyone else would do, I Googled it.
But I would think it would be obvious that my numbers are of little value. As has been mentioned multiple times, there isn't enough information in the original post. We don't know how much effort is being expended to bring the wheel up to "15-30 mph." We don't know how much the OP weighs or how much other activity is happening. And most importantly, we don't know why some people don't have a sense of humor.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
0
-
itsfuntobenormal wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
This is easy, basic 30 mph bicycling. Not mini-tramping.
I see what I did wrong...
I misread her activity as "housework, vigorous".0 -
You will lose all of the pounds. All of them.0
-
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
Is there a metric conversion for this formula??
[/quote
Lucky for you. I'm Canadian, so yes. Just divide everything by however many toques you own to get your weekly weight loss in milligrams.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