The bike/spinning machine verses stairclimber / treadmill

estygirl22

hey yall I have question for my hour of cardio workout routine. I usually do 30mins on the stair climber and 30 on the treadmill (12 incline) and my total of calories burned are about 600 and after this I'm drenched in sweat. How ever when I do the spinning bike I sweat hardly at all and just within 20 mins I burn about 230 calories... How is this possible? Is the bike lying? How can I get off the bike without sweating at all and burn so much in less time verses the treadmill or stair climber? The reason I ask is because I like to switch up my routine a little because I tend to get bored after a week straight of doing the same thing. Any advice at all would be helpful! Thanks !!

Bennysammysofie39

That doesn't make sense
You burn more calories doing something against gravity and resistance like running or stairs than you would doing a stationary bike or swimming
Know what I mean? Maybe if it looks like u burn more calories on the bike they'll sell more bikes

sijomial

Unless your machines are giving you your actual energy/power output (measured in watts typically) then you have no way of knowing their accuracy. Sweating isn't a great indicator of effort either.

By the way the limiting factor for cardio is nothing to do with gravity or in most cases the choice of cardio - the person is the limiting factor. More specifically your VO2 max and ability to maintain effort over time, fitness in other words.

If you feel the Spinning bike isn't hard enough you need to turn up the resistance, do some standing intervals or increase your cadence.

999tigger

All sorts of reasons. Sijomial has made the pertinent point though , which is the person is the limiting factor on how much you cna burn. Intensity and duration are what you are looking at.

It sounds unlikely you are comparing like with like. There is also the factor in that none , all or some of them maybe measuring the calorie burn accurately. Keep switching though. It can use different muscles as well as keeping variety going. You might simple be more adjusted to the bike at the moment.

Hopefully you are doing some resistance training as well. I'd also suggest you try the rower.

SueInAz

Obvously, one or both calorie burn amounts are incorrect. My heart rate monitor tells me (at 135 pounds) that I burn about 275 calories running for 3.1 miles/33 minutes, double that for about 550 calories/hour. There's no way I'd come close to burning 600 calories walking, even on a steep incline or stairs. Calorie burns on machines are notoriously overinflated. I'm having a hard time believing that you're really burning either 600 calories an hour walking the treadmill or stairs or 230 calories for 20 minutes of biking.

999tigger

Op doesnt state weight and gives no clear indication of intensiy.

RoxieDawn

sijomial wrote: »

Unless your machines are giving you your actual energy/power output (measured in watts typically) then you have no way of knowing their accuracy. Sweating isn't a great indicator of effort either.

By the way the limiting factor for cardio is nothing to do with gravity or in most cases the choice of cardio - the person is the limiting factor. More specifically your VO2 max and ability to maintain effort over time, fitness in other words.

If you feel the Spinning bike isn't hard enough you need to turn up the resistance, do some standing intervals or increase your cadence.

+1

I used to do all of my cardio on a stationary bike and I do not burn more calories than I do on an Elliptical machine or a tread climber..

I ditched the bike and only use that for a warm up before lifting..

I would be curious to run his numbers as well..

estygirl22

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'll have to admit this is pretty discouraging.. Especially when I've been at this for over a month working really hard.
I'm still at a loss especially now not knowing any if any of the machine are accurate.

jessicatombari

The machines are not accurate. A treadmill will tell you youve burned 600 cal walking an hour which is completely false. Calories burned depends on distance & effort, not time spent. Average person burns about 100 cal per MILE. ex. if you walk 3 miles in an hour its safe to say you burned around 200ish cal at least, probably more around 250-300 if you run the distance. Its not that the machines are wrong, they are right because they are based on a heavily muscled man walking on them. They just arent right for people like us... who arent bodybuilders or extremely built. You are probably burning no more than a third of what the treadmill or whichever machine, is listing. Hope this helps

kristinegift

I don't use an HRM or anything, but generally I figure 100 calories per mile running/walking and 100 calories per three miles on a bike. It's an estimate that's worked well for me in the past, being a lady between 130-150 lbs and 5'3". So your stairclimber/treadmill calories may be closer to accurate (depends on if you're walking or running for that 30 minutes), but the bike may be quite a bit off depending on how far you've biked in 20 minutes.

SueInAz

estygirl22 wrote: »

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'll have to admit this is pretty discouraging.. Especially when I've been at this for over a month working really hard.
I'm still at a loss especially now not knowing any if any of the machine are accurate.

As long as you are losing weight, there's nothing to be discouraged about. You just need to be realistic about how many calories you're burning when you're exercising. It's better to know so you aren't eating too many and ruining your calorie deficit.

Honestly, if you want to be completely realistic, if you burn 300 calories walking in an hour, you really can't count all of them. You would have burned 50-100 calories just sitting on the sofa so you shouldn't count them again.

kristinegift

SueInAz wrote: »

estygirl22 wrote: »

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'll have to admit this is pretty discouraging.. Especially when I've been at this for over a month working really hard.
I'm still at a loss especially now not knowing any if any of the machine are accurate.

Honestly, if you want to be completely realistic, if you burn 300 calories walking in an hour, you really can't count all of them. You would have burned 50-100 calories just sitting on the sofa so you shouldn't count them again.

I'm fairly certain that's not how it works. Those 50-100 are "keeping you alive" calories. The 300 exercise cals are extra on top of those. You aren't counting the 50-100 again, because you're still using them to keep your systems running while burning additional calories through exercise. That's what I've been led to believe on the threads here about exercise calories.