Stationary bike question???

Sunshine6909

Hi. I have a very cheap srationary bike which I just spent 10 mins on at 25km & it says I burned 60 cals. (Based on time & speed) I would consider that a moderate pace. MFP says 10 mins at mod pace is 100 cals. Which would be more accurate? What would you do?

Ps. Im 194 lbs & 5'1

sijomial

In truth and assuming you aren't very fit I would say the MFP estimate is very exaggerated for you.

I'm a 100+ mile cyclist and very fit, producing more power than average, and 600 cals / hour isn't too hard for me. What I would call moderate pace (multi hour speed) is closer to 500 cals/hr though.

I think your bike's estimate of 360/hr is far more reasonable.

Sunshine6909

For some reason my thinking was if a lighter person & a heavier person exerted the same amount of effort that the heavier person would burn more calories because they have added weight. Don't know where that line of thinking came from & it has now started a physics conversation in my house. Oh dear! :-)

sijomial

Remember seated cycling isn't a weight bearing exercise.

So for walking or running yes weight is a significant factor.

Indoor cycling with no stop/starts or hills (which makes a difference outdoors with weight) or wind resistance (size related) your weight is a virtual irrelevance. It's all about fitness and power.

Sunshine6909

sijomial wrote: »

Remember seated cycling isn't a weight bearing exercise.

So for walking or running yes weight is a significant factor.

Ah, thank you for taking the time to answer my question, that does make sense! :-)

TimothyFish

Two people exerting the same effort will burn exactly the same calories, but more fit cyclist can travel a greater distance with less effort. The difference is less noticeable on a stationary bike. I would go with the lower calorie figure. Also consider that the bike is measuring actual effort while the MFP estimate is based on your perception.

katieloconnor96

Sunshine6909 wrote: »

For some reason my thinking was if a lighter person & a heavier person exerted the same amount of effort that the heavier person would burn more calories because they have added weight. Don't know where that line of thinking came from & it has now started a physics conversation in my house. Oh dear! :-)

Yes! This is completely true, for example if a ten stone person walked a mile they would burn around 100 calories whereas if I, at 16 stone, walk a mile I can burn around 160!

spiriteagle99

IIRC, MFP doesn't include resistance or distance in its numbers, just time. The bike does, so I would consider its numbers to be somewhat more accurate.