Calories burned on the bike?

angiep098
angiep098 Posts: 33
in Fitness and Exercise
I'm an 18 y/o female, 5'5", 122lbs, and my average heart rate on the recumbent bike was around 165bpm. I set the resistance level low (level 3), and was pedalling at around 90rpm. I did this for 10 minutes, and the machine said I only burned around 47kcal. I was sweating and out of breath...but in those same 10 minutes I burn that same amount of calories just walking on the treadmill for an easy warm up! Is this calorie estimate accurate at all? When I use equations on the internet that estimate calories burned by heart rate, I get around 114kcal burned. Which is correct? (I'm going to order a HRM soon but any info would be much appreciated!)

Replies

  • __Di__
    __Di__ Posts: 1,659 Member
    Although it is approximate and until you get your HRM you will not be sure, 47 calories per 10 minutes for the exercise bike equals to 282 per hour which is about right.
  • grahamsimmons
    grahamsimmons Posts: 16
    I've not ridden a stationary recumbent, but on my regular upright I tend to burn 1 calorie every 6 seconds. 40 minutes makes for roughly 400 calories burned. Hope that helps!
  • ghost15026
    ghost15026 Posts: 80
    I'm an 18 y/o female, 5'5", 122lbs, and my average heart rate on the recumbent bike was around 165bpm. I set the resistance level low (level 3), and was pedalling at around 90rpm. I did this for 10 minutes, and the machine said I only burned around 47kcal. I was sweating and out of breath...but in those same 10 minutes I burn that same amount of calories just walking on the treadmill for an easy warm up! Is this calorie estimate accurate at all? When I use equations on the internet that estimate calories burned by heart rate, I get around 114kcal burned. Which is correct? (I'm going to order a HRM soon but any info would be much appreciated!)

    First, short of an HRM the numbers on equipment or software is totally a guesstimate. I trust the numbers far less on exercise equipment that doesn't take user input. Even the HRMs aren't perfect (but one of the better methods)

    If you feel like hell in 10 minutes vs. the treadmill my guess is the number is way low. Your body is obviously heating up from the exertion and heat is extra energy expenditure aka calories burned. An HRM would reflect the way you're feeling and let you compute the calories burned correctly.

    Regarding actual effort - I road cycle, sometimes spin, and I think the same about the treadmill (too much work for the treadmill!) Totally common I think. The same groups are technically getting worked BUT at different rates/exertion levels. I know that recumbents put more emphasis on glutes than an upright bike. Similarly, an upright engages your core while a recumbent does not. So running is going to differ even more.

    http://www.livestrong.com/article/374003-muscles-used-in-running-vs-cycling/

    I would avoid comparing road cycling to a recumbent or even an upright spinning bike. Wind drag is a beast.

    Also, running is considered one of the most efficient ways to burn calories (*outdoor* cycling comes close due to drag). Skip the recumbent unless you have back/neck/shoulder/wrist issues or just need a change of pace to keep things interesting.
  • Graelwyn75
    Graelwyn75 Posts: 4,404 Member
    Although it is approximate and until you get your HRM you will not be sure, 47 calories per 10 minutes for the exercise bike equals to 282 per hour which is about right.

    That would depend on effort, weight and heart rate of the person on the bike.
    I burn around 560 calories an hour on the stationary bike.

Categories