Spin v indoor cycling

Options
Jayj180894
Jayj180894 Posts: 286 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I go to spin class and do 45 mins. This by no means is easy. All the way through its either moderate resistance at 150 RPM or very heavy resistance at 80RPM. And you get 30-60 rests between each track( but not stopping, just slow down or turn your resistance down) This class is an absolute killer. Sweating and out of breathe from start to finish. But with MFP when adding exercises their is an option for spinning at if I add it as spinning it says you burn 433 calories for 45 minutes but if I add it as indoor cycling (vigorous effort) it's says I have burnt around 650 calories for 45 minutes. That's about 200 calorie difference?!? What is the actual difference and what exercise would you put??
«1

Replies

  • busyPK
    busyPK Posts: 3,788 Member
    Options
    It's hard to give a good estimate without know your stats (weight, height, age, avg heart rate), but I do cycle classes and depending on the drills/instructor my heart rate monitor says I burn around 8-12 calories per minute.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    Weight doesn't really matter in a bike because cycling is not a weight bearing activity. (They exception is riding up a hill.)

    Do the bikes have power meters?

    If not, take the lower number. People have a natural tendency to overestimate their exercise and underestimate their food. Taking the lower of two estimates is a good way to hedge against that, especially since most execute equipment has a vanity calories function.

    Usually sweating a lot indoor cycling means you needed more cooling. Riding 20 mph outdoors produces a nice breeze, indoors it just hearts up the air you're stuck in.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    Options
    Jayj180894 wrote: »
    I go to spin class and do 45 mins. This by no means is easy. All the way through its either moderate resistance at 150 RPM or very heavy resistance at 80RPM. And you get 30-60 rests between each track( but not stopping, just slow down or turn your resistance down) This class is an absolute killer. Sweating and out of breathe from start to finish. But with MFP when adding exercises their is an option for spinning at if I add it as spinning it says you burn 433 calories for 45 minutes but if I add it as indoor cycling (vigorous effort) it's says I have burnt around 650 calories for 45 minutes. That's about 200 calorie difference?!? What is the actual difference and what exercise would you put??

    Do the spin bikes have a power meter? (some do) - that will give you the best estimate.
  • BusyRaeNOTBusty
    BusyRaeNOTBusty Posts: 7,166 Member
    Options
    Yeah, I'd probably go with the lower number just to be safe.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    both of those numbers seem really high (for reference, my half-ironman in june - 56 miles outside on the bike - a shade over 1000cal @ 16-18mph)
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    You'd be hard pressed to get 650 calories for 45 minutes of exercise. Also, people tend to overestimate their level of effort...perceived effort isn't alway commensurate with what would actually be "vigorous", etc...especially if you're just getting into shape. What may be perceived as "vigorous" may actually be moderate, etc. Vigorous is typically a race pace in excess of 20 MPH sustained.

    Also, you always want to be conservative with your estimates...so go with the lower...it seems more realistic to me anyway.

    The spin bikes at the classes I used to attend had power meters...power meters will give you a very accurate number if they have them...
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Weight is only relevant for the standing cycling elements, indoor cycling is a non-weight bearing exercise remember.

    Age is irrelevant.

    Height is irrelevant.

    Heart rate is going to be very misleading (exaggerated calorie estimates) when doing intervals.

    Sweating is irrelevant - getting hot would also throw HR based estimates out even more.

    433 sounds far more believable than 650. Few people would have the fitness level to burn 650 in 45 minutes even flat out for the whole time let alone including rest intervals.
  • Jayj180894
    Jayj180894 Posts: 286 Member
    Options
    Thanks guys! I have been putting in the lower estimate as 200kcal is such a big difference to burn. I don't have a HRM (need to invest). I suppose for me personally it is a very vigorous exercise, but I understand it won't be for others. Just for the record I'm 23, 5'6 and 185lbs :smile:
  • Bluerunbiker
    Bluerunbiker Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    For some reason if you put the same speed x time into strava it says you burned a lot less calories than MFP
    I think strava is more accurate say indoors 54 mins at 16-20 mph about 400-450 calories
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Jayj180894 wrote: »
    Thanks guys! I have been putting in the lower estimate as 200kcal is such a big difference to burn. I don't have a HRM (need to invest). I suppose for me personally it is a very vigorous exercise, but I understand it won't be for others. Just for the record I'm 23, 5'6 and 185lbs :smile:

    Only invest in a HRM if you are interested in heart rate training - it will be useless as a calorie estimator for the workout you are describing.
    Put the money into good cycling shorts and shoes instead! :)
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    MFP's numbers tend to be high. My Garmin estimates about 11 cal/min for me when biking outdoors at approx 30 km/h (just under 20mph) and about 7.5 cal /min for my tri club's Tour de France program 1 hr session (lots of hills, attacks, sprints etc) so I would definitely go with the lower number.

    I also agree with sijomials comment about the HRM, the only reason I trust my Garmin is that I have a reliable baseline. I wouldn't rely on a HRM alone as all it measures is time and heart rate, were my Garmin to base my caloric expenditure on HR alone it would probably give me more for the indoor riding as my average HR tends to be higher than my outdoor rides (unless I'm dong hills)
  • acorsaut89
    acorsaut89 Posts: 1,147 Member
    Options
    In a 45-50 minute spin class I typically burn about 450 - 500 calories (as per my Polar) and in the longer rides, 60+ minutes (before cool down) I can get up to 600 calories, if I'm working really hard. I think the Polar is fairly accurate . . . it has a chest strap/HRM
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    The way to measure calories on a bike is with a power meter. Heart rate isn't even part of the math. Your heart is a pump, not an energy regulator. Caffeine and heat (and cold) increase your heart rate but not your energy use.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    Using a power meter, I usually burn about 500 calories in 45 minutes when riding inside, but that's only with high resistance. If I'm just spinning I don't get near that.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 24,878 Member
    Options
    Jayj180894 wrote: »
    I go to spin class and do 45 mins. This by no means is easy. All the way through its either moderate resistance at 150 RPM or very heavy resistance at 80RPM. And you get 30-60 rests between each track( but not stopping, just slow down or turn your resistance down) This class is an absolute killer. Sweating and out of breathe from start to finish. But with MFP when adding exercises their is an option for spinning at if I add it as spinning it says you burn 433 calories for 45 minutes but if I add it as indoor cycling (vigorous effort) it's says I have burnt around 650 calories for 45 minutes. That's about 200 calorie difference?!? What is the actual difference and what exercise would you put??

    From my experience, the indoor cycles aren't very good at estimating calories burned. They tend to overestimate by a lot.

    A good quality spin bicycle, however, will produce a more accurate number.

    Even so, 433 cal for 45 minutes seems high. Personally, I go with "Spin Bike - Moderate Effort" or something like that in MFP which gives me about 300 calories for my 45 minute spin classes. And I go with that even when I put in a huge effort.

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    That Spin workout entry was created exactly for the reason it's different then the other indoor cycling entry.

    The former is expected to be interval type classes, and while it feels harder, it actually burns less than the latter at a high intensity level (unless really fit enough to do the Spin class high intensity the whole time) - which is actually very hard to do for a long length of time.

    For the weight aspect - it matters in Spin class because of the up and down - and the study the calories is based on was exactly what most Spin classes are for - so weight matters then.

    Per power I avg over 12 cal/min for couple hrs (no drafting riding alone).

    My purposely tweaked Garmin HRM would give the same for Spin class at the starting 10 min before I got too hot and the interval nature of the workout really started up hard.

    But most can't tweak a HRM or get their formula for that, and the interval nature of it ruins HRM estimate anyway - talk about HR going up and down a lot.




  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,170 Member
    Options
    FWIW, for as 45 minute class, the spin bike (which doesn't ask any of my personal stats) always gives me well over twice the calories of my HRM (which knows my weight, actual resting HR, tested max HR) - and sometimes almost 3x as many. As background, I'm small-ish (120s) and moderately fit. MFP's "Spinning" entry would give me closer to the HRM - maybe 15% higher? Pick one, go with it, then adjust based on actual weight loss results.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    The way to measure calories on a bike is with a power meter. Heart rate isn't even part of the math. Your heart is a pump, not an energy regulator. Caffeine and heat (and cold) increase your heart rate but not your energy use.

    So true....I took my first ride with my power meter today. It was an eye opener.
  • MostlyWater
    MostlyWater Posts: 4,294 Member
    Options
    Spin is the same thing as indoor cycling.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    BrianSharpe wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    The way to measure calories on a bike is with a power meter. Heart rate isn't even part of the math. Your heart is a pump, not an energy regulator. Caffeine and heat (and cold) increase your heart rate but not your energy use.

    So true....I took my first ride with my power meter today. It was an eye opener.

    If it makes you feel any better, everyone says that.

    Seriously.

    I was about 280 lbs when I got mine. I was sure I was an incredibly strong rider to be able to do Seattle hills at that weight. I mean, my numbers were gonna be off the charts! Using it was a real eye-opener.

    But the data is of phenomenal value. I hope you enjoy yours!

Categories