Exercise Bike w/ Resistance how to calculate calories?
MalkinMagic71
Posts: 1,433 Member
A little background I'm 32, and right around 352 pounds(as of last monday) Started at 388 back in late Sept.
I bought an exercise bike mid october, so I've been using it for a while.
It's this bike(nothing fancy but wanted to make sure I would stick with it first..)
http://www.target.com/p/stamina-magnetic-upright-5325-exercise-bike/-/A-11107623#prodSlot=medium_1_21
Lately I've worked my way up to doing 15 minutes in the morning before work and usually 12-15 minutes a night after work. I am on the 2nd to highest resistance setting. The bike has a calorie counter on it, but the bike is only supposed to support 300 pounds and there is no way to set your weight on it. For example today after I did 15 minutes and about 3.45 miles it said I had burned 190ish calories. I plug 15 minutes into my fitness pal on a stationery bike and it says I should have burned about 290 calories(assuming it bases this off my weight?). I keep at a moderate pace, first minute or so I'm between 12/13mph then I ramp up to between 14 and 15mph the rest of the way. I've been plugging in about 175 calories on a 15 minute ride when I put in my diary cause I don't want to over reward myself. At this point I'm thinking getting a fitbit and wearing that while im riding might give me a more accurate portrayal of what I'm burning. Thoughts? Suggestions?
Thanks!
I bought an exercise bike mid october, so I've been using it for a while.
It's this bike(nothing fancy but wanted to make sure I would stick with it first..)
http://www.target.com/p/stamina-magnetic-upright-5325-exercise-bike/-/A-11107623#prodSlot=medium_1_21
Lately I've worked my way up to doing 15 minutes in the morning before work and usually 12-15 minutes a night after work. I am on the 2nd to highest resistance setting. The bike has a calorie counter on it, but the bike is only supposed to support 300 pounds and there is no way to set your weight on it. For example today after I did 15 minutes and about 3.45 miles it said I had burned 190ish calories. I plug 15 minutes into my fitness pal on a stationery bike and it says I should have burned about 290 calories(assuming it bases this off my weight?). I keep at a moderate pace, first minute or so I'm between 12/13mph then I ramp up to between 14 and 15mph the rest of the way. I've been plugging in about 175 calories on a 15 minute ride when I put in my diary cause I don't want to over reward myself. At this point I'm thinking getting a fitbit and wearing that while im riding might give me a more accurate portrayal of what I'm burning. Thoughts? Suggestions?
Thanks!
0
Replies
-
Search calorie burn on bike as your topic on Google
Lots of results will come back
A conservative estimate is 40 calories per mile of you go at it
Or just use a heart rate monitor and go at a steady pace. They do better on steady state exercises for calorie burn calculations
When I first started weight loss I didn't do any punching in of exercise calories. I just ate my 1800 and called it good.
Good luck and stick with it!0 -
Stationary bikes don't move - ignore the miles counter.
Ditto speed.
Your weight has very little to do with your burn when it's not a weight bearing exercise. (Assuming you are cycling seated not standing!). Your calories when cycling are related to your power output not your weight.
190 for 15 minutes (760/hour) would require a high degree of effort for someone fit.
290 for 15 minutes (1160/hr) would require you to be an elite athlete.
Doubt that at your current weight you have the fitness level to hit those numbers.
HRM would most likely give very inflated numbers too as you are far from an average person.
Maybe either take a percentage off your 190 or get an idea of what you can burn walking or running for fifteen minutes (use online calculators)?
Either way it's a rough estimate.0 -
TL/DR:
If the manufacturer did their homework by applying proven stationary bike estimates to their particular machine, including resistance level, then your stationary bike has the potential to be really accurate. It doesn't need to know anything about you to estimate the calorie burn.
Explanation:
Stationary bikes (recumbent stationary bikes in particular) have the potential to have reasonably accurate calorie calculators--better than just about any other equipment. Quite simply, this is because you neither have to support your weight or put and keep it in motion.
As long as the calorie counter adjusts based on the (1) resistance setting, (2) distance (based on number of revolutions) and (3) time, then your personal characteristics are irrelevant.
A stationary bike doesn't need to know your weight, age, gender, or even fitness level to estimate how much energy it took to move the pedals. The amount of energy necessary to turn the pedals is the same regardless of who is doing the pedaling. Yes, a fit person might have barely broken a sweat while an out of shape person might be ready to pass out, but the amount of energy needed to move the pedals is the same.
On the other hand, if resistance isn't considered, or an online calorie estimator uses "light effort," "moderate effort," "vigorous effort", then all bets are off. Everything else being equal, the calories burned will depend on the fitness level of the person. A fit person doing 10 minutes of vigorous effort will burn more calories than an unfit person's vigorous effort for the same amount of time.
0 -
http://www.shape.com/fitness/cardio/how-inaccurate-are-calorie-counters-gym/slide/4
Stationary bikes are in their own class of cardio machines because they support your body weight, Olson says. "If the bike is calculating calories based on technical data such as METs (metabolic equivalents) and watts (which measures power output), the calorie readout can be very accurate." In fact, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco's Human Performance Center found stationary bikes to be the most accurate of all cardio machines, with an overestimation of only seven percent.
Again, that is if the bike's computer is designed to take resistance into account (and make those adjustments throughout your routine if you change resistance level). You could do some experiments where you ride at the same speed for the same amount of time at two very different levels of resistance. The calorie burned should be higher at the higher level of resistance.
But, if you are logging calories accurately, you'll eventually learn if you should eat back more or less of the bike's estimated calorie burn.0 -
Thanks for the info. I'll have to do some testing. I've been trying to def put down less than what both MFP and the Bike tells me. I think today I put 170 for the 15 minutes I did, could probably put down 150 and be more accurate. I'm still not eating back my exercise calories at this point. My goal is 1225 and I still stay between that and 1250 on a daily basis even if you don't count the exercise I'm doing.
I don't loaf while I'm on there, after a minute or two of warmup I'm consistently at 14mph or above with some periods where I'll really go hard for a minute or so. I know I'm not at an athlete level, but I do put forth and effort and def break a sweat by the end of it.0 -
I picked up a heart rate monitor just today to try to help really get a grip on how many calories I am burning...
I got this one...
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/polar-ft7-mens-heart-rate-monitor-black-silver/9505154.p?id=1218116137045&skuId=9505154
I used it twice today, once for a 15 minutes workout, and once for a 20 minute work out. It said I burned 184 calories in the 15 minute workout and 230 calories in the 20 minute one(I was a little slower pace as it was the 3rd time i had worked out today). The bike I was on wasn't that much off either time about 15 calories or so each time. Just going to keep keeping track and see how things go, but I like having a more accurate weigh of tracking things.0 -
A HRM cannot accurately determine caloric burn from a stationary bike without the resistance factored in. HR in a vacuum is a nearly meaningless data point.0
-
I'm in the 2nd to highest resistance level. I know it's not 100% accurate, but I guess I don't know of a way to keep more accurate count at this point. I still shave up 10% of or so even from what my HRM tells me, but if anyone has better suggestions I'm all ears.
0 -
Sounds like the bike itself is accurate enough. Again , simply choose a percent to eat back and stick with it for a few weeks. Then, adjust more or less based on weight loss goal. I have a schwinn recumbant stationary bike and when I started out I only ate back 50%. I was losing faster than expected (and hungry). I upped it to 75% and thats been about right to stay on track for 2-3 pounds a week loss.0
-
ModernRock wrote: »http://www.shape.com/fitness/cardio/how-inaccurate-are-calorie-counters-gym/slide/4
Stationary bikes are in their own class of cardio machines because they support your body weight, Olson says. "If the bike is calculating calories based on technical data such as METs (metabolic equivalents) and watts (which measures power output), the calorie readout can be very accurate." In fact, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco's Human Performance Center found stationary bikes to be the most accurate of all cardio machines, with an overestimation of only seven percent.
Again, that is if the bike's computer is designed to take resistance into account (and make those adjustments throughout your routine if you change resistance level). You could do some experiments where you ride at the same speed for the same amount of time at two very different levels of resistance. The calorie burned should be higher at the higher level of resistance.
But, if you are logging calories accurately, you'll eventually learn if you should eat back more or less of the bike's estimated calorie burn.
This is fascinating. I use an exercise bike very regularly from about now (when Standard Time makes it so it's dark when I get home) until sometime in March or April. It does take resistance into account-- I can see that happening because when I'm at a higher resistance level, the calorie count goes up much faster-- and I have always wondered how accurate its calorie calculations are. My stationary bike also has no way to input your personal stats, and I've always deducted from the calorie burn number it gives me when I log the exercise, because I'm very small and I figured it's just counting for someone of average size-- so I am very happy to learn that the calories it's giving me are probably more accurate than I thought!0 -
ModernRock wrote: »http://www.shape.com/fitness/cardio/how-inaccurate-are-calorie-counters-gym/slide/4
Stationary bikes are in their own class of cardio machines because they support your body weight, Olson says. "If the bike is calculating calories based on technical data such as METs (metabolic equivalents) and watts (which measures power output), the calorie readout can be very accurate." In fact, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco's Human Performance Center found stationary bikes to be the most accurate of all cardio machines, with an overestimation of only seven percent.
Again, that is if the bike's computer is designed to take resistance into account (and make those adjustments throughout your routine if you change resistance level). You could do some experiments where you ride at the same speed for the same amount of time at two very different levels of resistance. The calorie burned should be higher at the higher level of resistance.
But, if you are logging calories accurately, you'll eventually learn if you should eat back more or less of the bike's estimated calorie burn.
This is fascinating. I use an exercise bike very regularly from about now (when Standard Time makes it so it's dark when I get home) until sometime in March or April. It does take resistance into account-- I can see that happening because when I'm at a higher resistance level, the calorie count goes up much faster-- and I have always wondered how accurate its calorie calculations are. My stationary bike also has no way to input your personal stats, and I've always deducted from the calorie burn number it gives me when I log the exercise, because I'm very small and I figured it's just counting for someone of average size-- so I am very happy to learn that the calories it's giving me are probably more accurate than I thought!
Excellent input by @ModernRock and I agree with it completely. I've looked into this matter myself, and come to the same conclusions.
Most modern stationary bikes and elliptical machines are more advanced than people would think. Depending on who makes it and options, some are very advanced. As an example, though I can't confirm it the bike the OP linked states "magnetic" resistance. This is usually in the form of an eddy current brake, something so controlled and reliable it is used to stop freight trains and such things. The speed sensors are often essentially the same thing that drives a speedometer on your car. Since design dictates distances, they are known. Combined with the measure of torque (how hard you pedal) you have the two variables needed to calculate power, being torque and speed.
Some models that use a heart rate monitor on the grips or transmitted from a chest strap HRM will also factor that in as well. With all the proper inputs in place, it's really just a matter of what formula the particular machine uses for the calculations.
As compared to say actual riding or bike or running, the machines should be more accurate than any fitness tracker type app. Since the machines account for all variables better, there are known things to calculate. Where on a bike the riding position and factors like wind can skew the amount of resistance a person is experiencing. The same applies to running, and things like elevation changes that the GPS can't do with great accuracy can easily change the energy required.0 -
I switched my resistance up to the highest level today and did notice the calories went up on the bike a bit faster, so the bike does take that into account. I also worked harder so the HRM adjusted as well. I guess the one main difference is that my HRM had me put in my stats, like height, weight, age, gender etc, so I'm guessing it uses that to try and be more accurate?
Either way I'm pretty happy with the the accuracy I think I'm getting. My calorie goal is 1225 before exercise, with exercise I've been eating a bit around 1350 or some days, but I don't eat back all my exercise calories. It's what works for me, can't speak for anyone else. Weighed in today(mondays are when I weigh in), and am down 5.6 lbs from last week.. so still chugging along.0 -
Just because the numbers change does not mean that they are accurate.0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »Just because the numbers change does not mean that they are accurate.
If you have a suggestion on what would be more accurate please let me know.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Just because the numbers change does not mean that they are accurate.
If you have a suggestion on what would be more accurate please let me know.
First, accept that accuracy is a near impossibility with the equipment you're using. The closest you can come to accurate requires as close to accurate as possible with your intake logging ... no matter what that number will have errors. From that flawed number, you then compare your projected rate of gain/loss to actual and estimate the caloric difference between the two. At best you'll have a working range of calories at that point ... still nothing that is truly accurate.
IF you truly want accurate, be prepared to spend thousands of dollars on lab quality equipment that can account for weight variations due to water, measure actual energy expenditure from exercise, etc. You could throw a set of power meter pedals on that exercise bike ... considering they cost roughly 10x what the bike does, I would see it as a foolish expenditure but it would help measure the force actually applied at the pedals which would make the calculations more accurate.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Just because the numbers change does not mean that they are accurate.
If you have a suggestion on what would be more accurate please let me know.
First, accept that accuracy is a near impossibility with the equipment you're using. The closest you can come to accurate requires as close to accurate as possible with your intake logging ... no matter what that number will have errors. From that flawed number, you then compare your projected rate of gain/loss to actual and estimate the caloric difference between the two. At best you'll have a working range of calories at that point ... still nothing that is truly accurate.
IF you truly want accurate, be prepared to spend thousands of dollars on lab quality equipment that can account for weight variations due to water, measure actual energy expenditure from exercise, etc. You could throw a set of power meter pedals on that exercise bike ... considering they cost roughly 10x what the bike does, I would see it as a foolish expenditure but it would help measure the force actually applied at the pedals which would make the calculations more accurate.
I'm not looking for 100% accuracy with what I'm using, nor do I expect that. I use it as a general guideline I guess. It at least helps me keep a focus point. Nothing is ever going to be 100%, I'm sure there are day that I log that I overestimate, and days I underestimate... so far what I have been doing has been working for me and it keeps me sane.0 -
Interesting thread as I've always wondered about the accuracy of the burns calculated by my recumbent bike. However, I really don't think you should be concerned about it, OP. You're a 352 lb man and on an allowance of 1225 a day? Yikes! Eat back all those exercise calories! (and then some)0
-
Interesting thread as I've always wondered about the accuracy of the burns calculated by my recumbent bike. However, I really don't think you should be concerned about it, OP. You're a 352 lb man and on an allowance of 1225 a day? Yikes! Eat back all those exercise calories! (and then some)
347lb man as of weigh in this morning.
I do eat some of the exercise calories back but not all of them. I don't get really hungry like I used to. My body is adjusting, and lots of times when I feel hungry I just drink some more water and that curbs the hunger. 0 -
Interesting thread as I've always wondered about the accuracy of the burns calculated by my recumbent bike. However, I really don't think you should be concerned about it, OP. You're a 352 lb man and on an allowance of 1225 a day? Yikes! Eat back all those exercise calories! (and then some)
This exactly. The OP is eating far too little for a sedentary, small framed woman to meet nutritional needs. The rate of loss described in this thread is rather rapid.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Interesting thread as I've always wondered about the accuracy of the burns calculated by my recumbent bike. However, I really don't think you should be concerned about it, OP. You're a 352 lb man and on an allowance of 1225 a day? Yikes! Eat back all those exercise calories! (and then some)
This exactly. The OP is eating far too little for a sedentary, small framed woman to meet nutritional needs. The rate of loss described in this thread is rather rapid.
This is all under doctor supervision. I wouldn't have started as low as I did without my doctors consent. I probably could eat a bit more, I'm honestly just not as hungry as I used to be. I keep myself busy, and don't use food as a stress reliever like I used to. I don't expect the weight to keep falling off like it does. I started at 388 pounds.. so I wasn't a twig by any means when I started, I assumed the weight falls off faster at the start, then slower as I go along. I expect to plateau at some point.
It's not like I don't indulge.. I had some pasta this weekend and pizza, I just do it in moderation and I workout alot. I'm addicted to working out now, which I guess can be good and bad?0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Interesting thread as I've always wondered about the accuracy of the burns calculated by my recumbent bike. However, I really don't think you should be concerned about it, OP. You're a 352 lb man and on an allowance of 1225 a day? Yikes! Eat back all those exercise calories! (and then some)
This exactly. The OP is eating far too little for a sedentary, small framed woman to meet nutritional needs. The rate of loss described in this thread is rather rapid.
This is all under doctor supervision. I wouldn't have started as low as I did without my doctors consent. I probably could eat a bit more, I'm honestly just not as hungry as I used to be. I keep myself busy, and don't use food as a stress reliever like I used to. I don't expect the weight to keep falling off like it does. I started at 388 pounds.. so I wasn't a twig by any means when I started, I assumed the weight falls off faster at the start, then slower as I go along. I expect to plateau at some point.
It's not like I don't indulge.. I had some pasta this weekend and pizza, I just do it in moderation and I workout alot. I'm addicted to working out now, which I guess can be good and bad?
Well if it's working and doctor supervised, I would suggest that it's a good thing that the addiction to working out exists. And I think your attitude on the numbers is healthy as well. Just take them for what they are, use the data and keep exercising. While it's possible your bike doesn't give accurate numbers, it's highly probable you could make yourself crazy trying to find an exacting number.0 -
Am I the only one concerned about the OP's knees if he is setting his resistance on the highest setting? That just seems like a ticking time bomb. OP, try working on keeping your cadence higher on a lower resistance setting. Your knees will thank you, and you will be waaay better off if you decide you love the whole bike thing, and want to do it outside. Keep up the good work!0
-
starseedxo wrote: »Am I the only one concerned about the OP's knees if he is setting his resistance on the highest setting? That just seems like a ticking time bomb. OP, try working on keeping your cadence higher on a lower resistance setting. Your knees will thank you, and you will be waaay better off if you decide you love the whole bike thing, and want to do it outside. Keep up the good work!
I guess it would depend on the actual resistance to some extent. But between the bike and elliptical I often mix it up between cadence and resistance. It works different muscles and surely changes load on various joints as well. But then... would twice the rotations at half the resistance really be better? I really don't know, just food for thought.0 -
starseedxo wrote: »Am I the only one concerned about the OP's knees if he is setting his resistance on the highest setting? That just seems like a ticking time bomb. OP, try working on keeping your cadence higher on a lower resistance setting. Your knees will thank you, and you will be waaay better off if you decide you love the whole bike thing, and want to do it outside. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the concern. The resistance even where it is at is not that resistant. It's hard to explain. It would be hard for someone who was more up there in age probably, but for me it gives me enough pushback, but nothing that I think would damage my knees. I tried to put it down lower and it just seemed too easy I guess? I've been average between 14-15 mph on the resistance I'm on now, which while I know isn't super fast, is pretty good from where I started. I've found a happy medium for me at least. The bike is much easier on my knees than running would be right now at least. I would like to start doing some running once I get some more weight off of me.0 -
When I started on MFP, I was having foot/ankle problems & couldn't do much for weight-bearing exercise. The stationary bike was a real blessing until I could get out & about. I know what you mean about the resistance. I kicked mine up (I think second to last also) a while back and thought, "Oh wow- that's too tough! I'll do a couple of minutes and then switch it back." Went to change back and the lower resistance just seemed ridiculous. All depends on what you're used to.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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