Exercise bike calories burnt, accurate?
jadejo788
Posts: 12 Member
Just been on my exercise bike for 30 minutes, it says I burnt 242 calories, do you think that sounds about right? I was probably doing moderate speed! But I am sweating. Don't feel that out of breath though just sweating and achey. Do you think that's ok? I put Orange is the new black on to try and get in to lol. Do you think what I did was ok?
0
Replies
-
Sweating doesn't equal extra calories burned. Sweating just means your body is trying to cool it down.
Well that's a lie. You do burn extra calories. But it's not anywhere near what your thinking.
30 mins of spinning is pretty solid effort.
But honestly without a Power Meter the caloric burn could be anything. There is no real way of telling.0 -
Exercise calorie burns are estimates. Just use one figure for awhile - maybe google a couple sources - and use the lowest number. Look for calculators that ask for your lots of information: height, weight, gender, age. After a few weeks (losing slower, losing faster) you will get a feel for whether or not you've got a good number.0
-
Does your bike give you any indication of distance traveled or average speed?0
-
-
my average speed was about 25. But I'm not sure of it being 25 what! And also I travelled over 13 something but again not sure 13 of what!BrianSharpe wrote: »Does your bike give you any indication of distance traveled or average speed?
0 -
My bike typically says I burn about 70 calories per 10 minutes. It usually corresponds pretty closely to what my fitbit says.0
-
my average speed was about 25. But I'm not sure of it being 25 what! And also I travelled over 13 something but again not sure 13 of what!BrianSharpe wrote: »Does your bike give you any indication of distance traveled or average speed?
25 miles at 13mph would make since in 30 mins of time frame.0 -
my average speed was about 25. But I'm not sure of it being 25 what! And also I travelled over 13 something but again not sure 13 of what!BrianSharpe wrote: »Does your bike give you any indication of distance traveled or average speed?
25 miles at 13mph would make since in 30 mins of time frame.
13 miles @ 25 miles per hour. At 30 minutes he could do 1/2 of the 25 miles........(so 12.5 miles)0 -
The only way to get a close approximation (still an estimate) is to get a heart rate monitor that straps onto your chest. They usually run about $100 for a really good one. You would be surprised how inaccurate the bikes are, even putting in your weight and even if it has the hand heart rate monitor!0
-
It's a perfectly plausible calorie burn in that time. Impossible to say it's accurate though - not that it actually needs to be. Reasonable is fine.
Exercise bike calorie estimates can vary from hopeless to the most accurate you can get outside of a sports science lab.0 -
The only way to get a close approximation (still an estimate) is to get a heart rate monitor that straps onto your chest. They usually run about $100 for a really good one. You would be surprised how inaccurate the bikes are, even putting in your weight and even if it has the hand heart rate monitor!
@aliem
Not actually true it's the "only way", power meters are more accurate than HRMs.
HRMs have plenty of inaccuracies themselves - especially for unfit people.
0 -
Just been on my exercise bike for 30 minutes, it says I burnt 242 calories, do you think that sounds about right? I was probably doing moderate speed! But I am sweating. Don't feel that out of breath though just sweating and achey. Do you think that's ok? I put Orange is the new black on to try and get in to lol. Do you think what I did was ok?
I'm not sure Orange is the New Black is really going to do it for cycling.
You want Breaking Away, PeeWee's Great Adventure and Premium Rush.
Sufferfest isn't bad.
OTNB is really best reserved for rowing, digging and grass mowing.
2 -
Just been on my exercise bike for 30 minutes, it says I burnt 242 calories, do you think that sounds about right?
Sounds about right to me for moderate effort.
When I use my spin bike which has a HR monitor that adjusts for age & wt, I usually burn 250-300 cals at about 110-120 bpm when biking at 11 mph and around 90-100 rpm at a low tension setting.
My bike doesn't have tension markings, so can't give that a number, but it's at a point where there's just enough resistance so I have to push but not so much that I have to stand up to do so.
This is an easy setting that allows me to break a bit of a sweat but not feel like I'm dying unless I do an HIIT that gets the speed up to 25 mph+ and my HR up to 135+ bpm.
0 -
-
My bike typically says I burn about 70 calories per 10 minutes. It usually corresponds pretty closely to what my fitbit says.
That can be pretty subjective to the ride.
According to this ride I burned 46.40 cal/mile.
According to this ride I burned 51.75 cal/mile
According to this ride I burned 18.82 cal/mile.
According to this ride I burned 38.63 cal/mile.
Now I understand those are outdoors.... So The Last time I used Zwift, an Indoor Spinning Program ... I burned 72 cal/mile.....0 -
Not actually true it's the "only way", power meters are more accurate than HRMs.
HRMs have plenty of inaccuracies themselves - especially for unfit people.
I believe that power meters are really good for performance. I agree that power meters can be very good if you are trying to become a serious cyclist. However, the power meters only are output based. It does not calculate the body's metabolic response to the workout. It assumes that the response is constant throughout the workout, which is almost never the case. It will be most accurate if you are serious cyclist and know what you are doing, but for the average person, I would make the case that a good heart rate monitor can be more accurate. Now, if you wanted the most accurate, you would need both. I guess I should not have used the "only way". There are studies that say each is better in their own way. Each study has its merits and pitfalls. So it is really up to the educated consumer to decide for themselves. For me, I like heart rate monitors because they are more accurate than relying on the machines (which tend to be way off, depending on the brand) and are more multi-purpose. However, to each his own.0 -
Not actually true it's the "only way", power meters are more accurate than HRMs.
HRMs have plenty of inaccuracies themselves - especially for unfit people.
I believe that power meters are really good for performance. I agree that power meters can be very good if you are trying to become a serious cyclist. However, the power meters only are output based. It does not calculate the body's metabolic response to the workout. It assumes that the response is constant throughout the workout, which is almost never the case. It will be most accurate if you are serious cyclist and know what you are doing, but for the average person, I would make the case that a good heart rate monitor can be more accurate. Now, if you wanted the most accurate, you would need both. I guess I should not have used the "only way". There are studies that say each is better in their own way. Each study has its merits and pitfalls. So it is really up to the educated consumer to decide for themselves. For me, I like heart rate monitors because they are more accurate than relying on the machines (which tend to be way off, depending on the brand) and are more multi-purpose. However, to each his own.
Heart rate doesn't know if you're stressed out. Heart Rate doesn't know if you're jacked up on Mt Dew, and about to go at someone like a spider moneky. Heart Rate doesn't know if that cute woman in a mini skirt just winked at you. Heart rate cannot tell you how much power you're outputting. Heart Rate doesn't know if you're cycling, or if you're running, or if you're swimming, or hiking.
Within the arena of spinning, Hear Rate doesn't know if you're low resistance and just spinning at 100-115rpm or if you're grinding down in the 80-90rpm range on a steep gear combination. Power knows if you're laying down 100 watts of power or if you're laying down 500 watts of power.
Heart Rate and Power is a good medium of the two, but personally. If i had to pick between one of the two. I'd want power.0 -
I believe that power meters are really good for performance. I agree that power meters can be very good if you are trying to become a serious cyclist. However, the power meters only are output based. It does not calculate the body's metabolic response to the workout. It assumes that the response is constant throughout the workout, which is almost never the case.
Take two humans, put them on a bicycle, and their metabolic efficiency will be almost the same. It's not like running or swimming. On a bike, you're spending most or all of your time seated, turning circles (with a radius of about 170 mm give or take 5) with your legs. Cycling isn't a free-form activity. Metabolic efficiency varies by about 5 % across the population.0 -
Not actually true it's the "only way", power meters are more accurate than HRMs.
HRMs have plenty of inaccuracies themselves - especially for unfit people.
I believe that power meters are really good for performance. I agree that power meters can be very good if you are trying to become a serious cyclist. However, the power meters only are output based. It does not calculate the body's metabolic response to the workout. It assumes that the response is constant throughout the workout, which is almost never the case. It will be most accurate if you are serious cyclist and know what you are doing, but for the average person, I would make the case that a good heart rate monitor can be more accurate. Now, if you wanted the most accurate, you would need both. I guess I should not have used the "only way". There are studies that say each is better in their own way. Each study has its merits and pitfalls. So it is really up to the educated consumer to decide for themselves. For me, I like heart rate monitors because they are more accurate than relying on the machines (which tend to be way off, depending on the brand) and are more multi-purpose. However, to each his own.
HRMs only measure the heart rate response during exercise, which may or may not be due to just the exercise.
They don't calculate a total metabolic response - though neither do power meters of course to be fair.
I do use a properly custom calibrated HRM for some of my exercise, it's only "accurate" in a small window of appropriate exercise without external factors such as heat. An off the shelf HRM for an average user is actually pretty unlikely to be accurate.
Some machines are better than HRMs, some are worse, there isn't a blanket one size fits all solution.
I do hope there are educated consumers out there but they are outnumbered IMHO by people who put blind faith in gadgets designed for one purpose (counting heartbeats) and given a marketing spin for another.1 -
MeganMoroz89 wrote: »It's hard to tell because I have no idea how tall you are or how much you weigh.
Your weight isn't very important (for calorie burn) on a stationary bike. You're seated, and you're not moving your body, you're only moving the pedals, and your legs.0 -
@MeganMoroz89
If you go for a jog, your weight is an important part of how many calories you burned, because you used your muscles to move your body weight.
If you ride your (outdoor) bike up a hill, your weight is also an important part of how many calories you burned, because you used your leg muscles to move your body weight against gravity.
For both of those, if you wear a backpack with 10 lbs of water, you'll burn even more calories. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
But if you sit on a bike that's bolted to the floor and not moving, your weight is almost not important at all for calories. Because you're not moving your body weight. You're sitting down, resting your weight on a saddle. You're using your muscles to turn the pedals and to move your legs, but not the rest of you. Imagine being on a spin bike with or without a backpack - almost no difference for calories because it's turning the pedals that burns the calories, and your backpack doesn't play into that.
Exercise bikes have something called "resistance" that you can turn up or down. Outdoor bikes don't have that, the amount of resistance is set for you by what gear you're in, and how hard you push; how hard you push is dictated by your weight and the conditions (hills, wind, etc).0 -
Power meter measure the work being done. It does not care what the cost is keeping you alive and seating on the bike but what it is required to "spin the wheels". To relate to the true metabolic cost, you need to know your metabolic efficiency. Lucky most people falls between 22% - 27% and 25% is a good middle ground and provides an easy conversion of roughly 1:1 between a kilojoules and a kilocalories. And, your metabolic efficiency don't jump around that much between the three pathways. One is very limited and available fuel is only good to about 30-90 seconds at best. The second is limited to around 20 kj give and take depending on your fitness. The third is virtually limitless and duration of use is also fitness depended. It's the most accurate means of estimating metabolic cost short of analyzing your oxygen intake and carbon dioxide output.I believe that power meters are really good for performance. I agree that power meters can be very good if you are trying to become a serious cyclist. However, the power meters only are output based. It does not calculate the body's metabolic response to the workout. It assumes that the response is constant throughout the workout, which is almost never the case.
Heart rate monitor measures your heart rate, period. HRM estimates are derived from small sample size that may or may not be doing what you are doing or build like you. It's fit is also limited. For example, your work output is not limited by your maximum heart rate and yet the fit end there. To use it for serious training, yes, PM requires some basic knowledge and it's a bit of an art to interpret. It's more so with HRM and limited to a narrow steady-state bandwidth.It will be most accurate if you are serious cyclist and know what you are doing, but for the average person, I would make the case that a good heart rate monitor can be more accurate.
No need for HRM, period. For training, maybe, as a secondary correlation to track fatigue. But, that touches the "art" of interpolating the data and having a sufficient data set.Now, if you wanted the most accurate, you would need both. I guess I should not have used the "only way".
Machine estimate of work done? If it based on measurement of work done using strain gauges to measure torque and angular velocity, it's a power meter. Otherwise it could be as accurate or inaccurate as a HRM. It just depends on the sample size and composition of the fit.There are studies that say each is better in their own way. Each study has its merits and pitfalls. So it is really up to the educated consumer to decide for themselves. For me, I like heart rate monitors because they are more accurate than relying on the machines (which tend to be way off, depending on the brand) and are more multi-purpose. However, to each his own.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions