Calories Burned - Stationary Bike
Replies
-
tbright1965 wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »As others have indicated, the bike is likely indicating the energy you are putting into the bike. But you are expending other energy besides turning the pedals.
My total burn for a 60 minute spin class can be 700-1000 calories, and I burn a bit more on my road bike each hour when I'm keeping a 15-20MPH pace. (often 1000+/hr) I can knock out 36 miles in about two hours and MapMyRide is pretty consistent with my Fitbit Surge (with HR and GPS tracking) and was pretty consistent with my previous MyZone device that measured my heart rate and calculated calorie burn based on my age, gender and weight. They are all within about 10% of each other and my weight loss seems to put them in the ball park.
I don't know how hard you work on the bike. I weigh a bit more than your stated weight, and I can maintain 300 watts power output for several minutes, and even exceed 500w for 30-60 seconds, but then I'm done.
Took a snapshot of my Fitbit estimate of my Les Mills Sprint Class (HIIT) class. The class is 30 minutes. I got there a few minutes early to warm up as I'm coming back from a knee injury, so I need 10 minutes or so to warm up before we start running.
So about 1/2 of that session was all out training and the other half was the warmup and cool down.
If you could maintain 300 watts for the entire hour you would be burning net 1080 calories.
And if you are pushing 300 W for an hour, look into racing
If I weighed 150#, I would. At 229#, not so much
Carrying around 265 or so for years helps build that advantage.
Power = torque * cadence
I weigh more than you. Averaging 300 watts for 20 minutes is a brutal effort that I feel for days afterwards. Based on actual, bilateral power measurement.
Bicycles are among the most energy efficient forms of transportation ever invented.
You're not burning 1,100 calories per hour on a bike.3 -
tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »As others have indicated, the bike is likely indicating the energy you are putting into the bike. But you are expending other energy besides turning the pedals.
My total burn for a 60 minute spin class can be 700-1000 calories, and I burn a bit more on my road bike each hour when I'm keeping a 15-20MPH pace. (often 1000+/hr) I can knock out 36 miles in about two hours and MapMyRide is pretty consistent with my Fitbit Surge (with HR and GPS tracking) and was pretty consistent with my previous MyZone device that measured my heart rate and calculated calorie burn based on my age, gender and weight. They are all within about 10% of each other and my weight loss seems to put them in the ball park.
I don't know how hard you work on the bike. I weigh a bit more than your stated weight, and I can maintain 300 watts power output for several minutes, and even exceed 500w for 30-60 seconds, but then I'm done.
Took a snapshot of my Fitbit estimate of my Les Mills Sprint Class (HIIT) class. The class is 30 minutes. I got there a few minutes early to warm up as I'm coming back from a knee injury, so I need 10 minutes or so to warm up before we start running.
So about 1/2 of that session was all out training and the other half was the warmup and cool down.
If you could maintain 300 watts for the entire hour you would be burning net 1080 calories.
HR is a poor way to estimate calories for interval training - it badly exaggerates your calorie burn while your HR is still elevated during the recovery periods.
And that assumes you have an average exercise HR anyway - there's a huge variation. I've seen three fit, experienced cyclists pushing out the same power at 120, 150 and 180 bpm.
What I'm about to post is an aside.
I did a few dozens of rounds of testing a modern, high end HRM against a power meter. In my experience, the HRM's calorie guesses were just as bad for intervals as they were for more steadily paced efforts. You can't tell what kind of ride it was by how far off the HRM was.
It's true that after you finish an interval, you stop (or at least drastically slow) the work, but your HR is still elevated. Because HR lags behind what you're doing. But for that same reason, when you started the interval, it took a while before your HR began to elevate. From the HRM's perspective, it's as if you did the full interval, but 30 seconds later than you actually did it.4 -
I kinda disagree with this assessment. Obviously road and weather conditions are not considerations when riding indoors. But as far as a well-taught spin class, the drastic changes in resistance and cadence and the in-and-out of the saddle make spinning quite a different workout than road riding IMHO. With a road ride, I am trying my best to maintain an even cadence throughout the ride. This is not an objective in a spin class.
Except assuming the bike's power meter is correctly calibrated power is power and the most accurate way to measure calories on the bike is by measuring power. If you were measuring it by miles per hour or heart rate or some other not terribly useful metric then the whole "it's easier to ride inside than outside" would have some merit (of course that doesn't take into account how much easier it is to cool down outside which in turn affects your HR).Because riding an indoor bicycle is easier than riding outside, I go with about 300-350 cal/hour.
If I put a power meter on my bike and average 180 watts over the course of an hour outside and then come inside, put my bike on a trainer, and do an hour workout averaging 180 watts, I will have burned the same amount of calories. I apparently will have also written a sentence that is way too long for my liking.
I don't really trust the power meters on almost all of the spin bike like things I've used based off of comparing RPE when I'm training with power (the Powertap bikes are the one exception). That said, your logic above just doesn't make sense in relation calculating how many calories someone has burned.
Riding inside is easier than riding outside because you don't have to deal with the environment, terrain, potholes, traffic, pedestrians, dogs, etc. etc. etc. which cause you to have to dodge and weave and so on. You're getting more of an upper body workout outside ... slightly. Unless you happen to live somewhere completely flat with good roads, no traffic ...
0 -
Except assuming the bike's power meter is correctly calibrated power is power and the most accurate way to measure calories on the bike is by measuring power. If you were measuring it by miles per hour or heart rate or some other not terribly useful metric then the whole "it's easier to ride inside than outside" would have some merit (of course that doesn't take into account how much easier it is to cool down outside which in turn affects your HR).Because riding an indoor bicycle is easier than riding outside, I go with about 300-350 cal/hour.
If I put a power meter on my bike and average 180 watts over the course of an hour outside and then come inside, put my bike on a trainer, and do an hour workout averaging 180 watts, I will have burned the same amount of calories. I apparently will have also written a sentence that is way too long for my liking.
I don't really trust the power meters on almost all of the spin bike like things I've used based off of comparing RPE when I'm training with power (the Powertap bikes are the one exception). That said, your logic above just doesn't make sense in relation calculating how many calories someone has burned.
Riding inside is easier than riding outside because you don't have to deal with the environment, terrain, potholes, traffic, pedestrians, dogs, etc. etc. etc. which cause you to have to dodge and weave and so on. You're getting more of an upper body workout outside ... slightly. Unless you happen to live somewhere completely flat with good roads, no traffic ...
I find indoor training much, much harder!
But of course it depends what you are doing indoors and outdoors.....
Indoors is boring, uncomfortable (even with identical geometry and saddle), over-heating is an issue and I do my high intensity technical training indoors such as long duration intervals either side of my FTP.
An hour long FTP test indoors is absolutely awful and sixty minutes of maximal effort wouldn't be most people's idea of easy.0 -
Minority report: I think some spin bikes are very inaccurate, and I don't know anything about yours. The ones I use in a class usually say I burn around 600 calories in 45 minutes. That's ridiculous. I burn nothing even remotely like that, even though I'm pushing myself, keeping my heart rate up (per HRM), sweating, and all that good stuff. 250-300 would be much more realistic for me, based on RPE and experience from better-metered exercise.
In theory, a spin bike could produce a power meter estimate that would be quite useful in estimating calories. Do we know whether your specific bike does that? I'll bet we don't. Mine sure as <bleep> doesn't.
The spin bikes at my gym record Watts (current and average) and kcals burned. I have a Powertap HRM strap (https://www.powertap.com/product/powertap-powercal) and the wattage recorded on that is pretty consistent with the bike. On average, I am ~325 kcal burned in a 50 min spin class, calculated using either the bike or the strap. To me, given my RPE, that seems a pretty fair estimate.
Sounds reasonable.
To clarify: When I said "I don't know anything about yours", I was intending to refer to OP. AFAIK, she hasn't given us information about the bike that's definitive about how accurate it will be (manufacturer/model, whether it uses a power meter vs. a rougher estimating mechanism, whether it knows anything about her HR range or other personal descriptors, etc.). Some spin bikes are pretty accurate. Some spin bikes are not at all accurate.
From the calorie estimate she's getting (not crazy unreasonable), and the values it reads out (it gives kj in addition to calories, which might be a good sign), we might infer that it's somewhat likely to be accurate, but that would be inference, not knowledge.
What your spin bike (or mine) does isn't directly relevant, except to illustrate that there's great variation in spin bikes' estimating reasonableness, as that nice Heybales has confirmed a few posts back by talking about the range of spin bikes at his place.0 -
Exactly. It is safer from a cars/road obstacles standpoint, but I don't think I've seen anyone say it is physically more comfortable. Heating aside, what may be a comfortable, or perhaps bearable, saddle outside will likely be significantly worse inside. Some people don't have that issue but it seems that they are in the minority. There's also the boredom aspect and what seems to be overlooked on this site (less so elsewhere) is that if you're doing a prescribed workout inside or riding rollers inside you will always be pedaling. The opposite is true outside unless you're on a fixed gear bike.
Except assuming the bike's power meter is correctly calibrated power is power and the most accurate way to measure calories on the bike is by measuring power. If you were measuring it by miles per hour or heart rate or some other not terribly useful metric then the whole "it's easier to ride inside than outside" would have some merit (of course that doesn't take into account how much easier it is to cool down outside which in turn affects your HR).Because riding an indoor bicycle is easier than riding outside, I go with about 300-350 cal/hour.
If I put a power meter on my bike and average 180 watts over the course of an hour outside and then come inside, put my bike on a trainer, and do an hour workout averaging 180 watts, I will have burned the same amount of calories. I apparently will have also written a sentence that is way too long for my liking.
I don't really trust the power meters on almost all of the spin bike like things I've used based off of comparing RPE when I'm training with power (the Powertap bikes are the one exception). That said, your logic above just doesn't make sense in relation calculating how many calories someone has burned.
Riding inside is easier than riding outside because you don't have to deal with the environment, terrain, potholes, traffic, pedestrians, dogs, etc. etc. etc. which cause you to have to dodge and weave and so on. You're getting more of an upper body workout outside ... slightly. Unless you happen to live somewhere completely flat with good roads, no traffic ...
I find indoor training much, much harder!
But of course it depends what you are doing indoors and outdoors.....
Indoors is boring, uncomfortable (even with identical geometry and saddle), over-heating is an issue and I do my high intensity technical training indoors such as long duration intervals either side of my FTP.
An hour long FTP test indoors is absolutely awful and sixty minutes of maximal effort wouldn't be most people's idea of easy.
Your point about FTP is also more or less spot on. TrainerRoad's podcast touches on this a lot actually. I'm pretty sure that came up in last week's podcast. Seemingly a lot of people are able to have a higher FTP outside than inside (when using the same type of test). I think Chad noted that yes, if your outdoor FTP is higher it is harder to do an indoor workout (where the intervals are based off of your FTP) using that FTP as a percentage but it is doable.
Clearly what I should actually do is just take the rollers and a small table/stool outside on a windy day. Evaporative cooling: check, no free wheeling: check, people wondering what in the world I'm doing: double check. Plus by the time my Powertap pedals get here it might not be raining! I love biking in the rain, but biking on wet rollers sounds like a bad idea 0 -
Sometimes I burn under 200 calories and sometimes I burn over 600 at spin class. I always figure that i'm something in between that. I might be wrong, however; and we got new Stages bikes which are have a lot of features.0
-
MostlyWater wrote: »Sometimes I burn under 200 calories and sometimes I burn over 600 at spin class. I always figure that i'm something in between that. I might be wrong, however; and we got new Stages bikes which are have a lot of features.
I would suspect too that the power meters on Stages' indoor bikes are probably accurate assuming they are set up correctly and remain well maintained. Wattbikes are another brand that I would trust.0 -
MostlyWater wrote: »Sometimes I burn under 200 calories and sometimes I burn over 600 at spin class. I always figure that i'm something in between that. I might be wrong, however; and we got new Stages bikes which are have a lot of features.
I would suspect too that the power meters on Stages' indoor bikes are probably accurate assuming they are set up correctly and remain well maintained. Wattbikes are another brand that I would trust.
I use a Wattbike and the watts displayed do seem to be accurate (sadly!) and consistent across four different bikes. But they use a totally bizarre calorie algorithm which appears to try to attempt to estimate gross calories rather than the usual watts to net calories calculation. Driven by their marketing department perhaps?
So I either link my Garmin which gives me net cals or calculate myself.
0 -
Oh that's weird and good to know! I doubt I'll ever use a Wattbike unless I happen to join a gym somewhere that has one, but yeah that's interesting because they otherwise seem like really great pieces of equipment.MostlyWater wrote: »Sometimes I burn under 200 calories and sometimes I burn over 600 at spin class. I always figure that i'm something in between that. I might be wrong, however; and we got new Stages bikes which are have a lot of features.
I would suspect too that the power meters on Stages' indoor bikes are probably accurate assuming they are set up correctly and remain well maintained. Wattbikes are another brand that I would trust.
I use a Wattbike and the watts displayed do seem to be accurate (sadly!) and consistent across four different bikes. But they use a totally bizarre calorie algorithm which appears to try to attempt to estimate gross calories rather than the usual watts to net calories calculation. Driven by their marketing department perhaps?
So I either link my Garmin which gives me net cals or calculate myself.
1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »It's true that after you finish an interval, you stop (or at least drastically slow) the work, but your HR is still elevated. Because HR lags behind what you're doing. But for that same reason, when you started the interval, it took a while before your HR began to elevate. From the HRM's perspective, it's as if you did the full interval, but 30 seconds later than you actually did it.
And level of fitness has an impact on that delay effect.
Coming out of winter with lifting focus always has me catching my aerobic up. I use jog/walk intervals to save the knees somewhat.
Takes 2-3 weeks for the drop from a hard effort of about 35-40 beats to take about a whole min, even on the final intervals of a session.
Prior to that each active rest period is never lowering as much. But it sure is increasing on the jog part.
Similar effect on bike.
So for those unfit - the HRM really gives an inflated avg HR and calorie burn.
More fit - it can start getting better. Mine is starting to unless I did lifting right before the ride.1 -
Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.1 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.
Your burn actually sounds too high. For a small female that would be an unusually high power output that a very good club rider might see.
An equivalent burn for you running would be in the order of 9 miles in an hour - is that your kind of fitness level?
Weight management confirms your calorie balance has been correct over time - it doesn't confirm all the various estimates involved are accurate. It does show that consistency in estimates and adjusting based on results works though.2 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.
Your burn actually sounds too high. For a small female that would be an unusually high power output that a very good club rider might see.
An equivalent burn for you running would be in the order of 9 miles in an hour - is that your kind of fitness level?
Weight management confirms your calorie balance has been correct over time - it doesn't confirm all the various estimates involved are accurate. It does show that consistency in estimates and adjusting based on results works though.
Well I would have thought that too but I'm maintaining my weight ( which is my aim) going on those numbers so it's actually accurate for me.
My average cycle speed is 33 km/ hr - I have great fitness and stamina with a lot of muscle too.0 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.
Your burn actually sounds too high. For a small female that would be an unusually high power output that a very good club rider might see.
An equivalent burn for you running would be in the order of 9 miles in an hour - is that your kind of fitness level?
Weight management confirms your calorie balance has been correct over time - it doesn't confirm all the various estimates involved are accurate. It does show that consistency in estimates and adjusting based on results works though.
Well I would have thought that too but I'm maintaining my weight ( which is my aim) going on those numbers so it's actually accurate for me.
My average cycle speed is 33 km/ hr - I have great fitness and stamina with a lot of muscle too.
When I started losing weight my results indicated I was eating 1000/cals a week too much to hit my goal of a pound a week. A combination of exaggerated estimates from a basic HRM and Runkeeper plus sloppy food logging.
So I dropped my calorie goal and lost weight at the desired rate.
That didn't make my exercise estimates accurate, I just compensated for the inaccuracy.
The speed indoors isn't accurate - no aero drag. My high end trainers have me doing a "speed" that a racer would be proud of! Can you cycle at 33kph/20.5mph speed outdoors?
A female friend of mine can and has done a five hour Century and she couldn't hit 700 cals in an hour.5 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.
Your burn actually sounds too high. For a small female that would be an unusually high power output that a very good club rider might see.
An equivalent burn for you running would be in the order of 9 miles in an hour - is that your kind of fitness level?
Weight management confirms your calorie balance has been correct over time - it doesn't confirm all the various estimates involved are accurate. It does show that consistency in estimates and adjusting based on results works though.
Well I would have thought that too but I'm maintaining my weight ( which is my aim) going on those numbers so it's actually accurate for me.
My average cycle speed is 33 km/ hr - I have great fitness and stamina with a lot of muscle too.
When I started losing weight my results indicated I was eating 1000/cals a week too much to hit my goal of a pound a week. A combination of exaggerated estimates from a basic HRM and Runkeeper plus sloppy food logging.
So I dropped my calorie goal and lost weight at the desired rate.
That didn't make my exercise estimates accurate, I just compensated for the inaccuracy.
The speed indoors isn't accurate - no aero drag. My high end trainers have me doing a "speed" that a racer would be proud of! Can you cycle at 33kph/20.5mph speed outdoors?
A female friend of mine can and has done a five hour Century and she couldn't hit 700 cals in an hour.
But what I'm saying is the numbers I'm getting are accurate for me to be maintaining my weight and eating 2000 cals a day. I said I can burn up to 700 cals an hour, I rarely do more than 30-45 mins a day. The numbers I'm seeing are accurate for me but obviously that might not be the case for everyone. And I'm not talking about the numbers my bike is giving me, those are far too inflated, but rather my Samsung app which knows my height/weight and the mileage done on each workout.
Thanks for your insight though.
p.s I don't cycle outside, I'm an indoors workout sort of gal (and yes I am embarrassed almost about sharing that but it works for me, I do it consistently, I enjoy it and that's the main thing imo)0 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.
Your burn actually sounds too high. For a small female that would be an unusually high power output that a very good club rider might see.
An equivalent burn for you running would be in the order of 9 miles in an hour - is that your kind of fitness level?
Weight management confirms your calorie balance has been correct over time - it doesn't confirm all the various estimates involved are accurate. It does show that consistency in estimates and adjusting based on results works though.
Well I would have thought that too but I'm maintaining my weight ( which is my aim) going on those numbers so it's actually accurate for me.
My average cycle speed is 33 km/ hr - I have great fitness and stamina with a lot of muscle too.
When I started losing weight my results indicated I was eating 1000/cals a week too much to hit my goal of a pound a week. A combination of exaggerated estimates from a basic HRM and Runkeeper plus sloppy food logging.
So I dropped my calorie goal and lost weight at the desired rate.
That didn't make my exercise estimates accurate, I just compensated for the inaccuracy.
The speed indoors isn't accurate - no aero drag. My high end trainers have me doing a "speed" that a racer would be proud of! Can you cycle at 33kph/20.5mph speed outdoors?
A female friend of mine can and has done a five hour Century and she couldn't hit 700 cals in an hour.
But what I'm saying is the numbers I'm getting are accurate for me to be maintaining my weight and eating 2000 cals a day. I said I can burn up to 700 cals an hour, I rarely do more than 30-45 mins a day. The numbers I'm seeing are accurate for me but obviously that might not be the case for everyone. And I'm not talking about the numbers my bike is giving me, those are far too inflated, but rather my Samsung app which knows my height/weight and the mileage done on each workout.
Thanks for your insight though.
p.s I don't cycle outside, I'm an indoors workout sort of gal (and yes I am embarrassed almost about sharing that but it works for me, I do it consistently, I enjoy it and that's the main thing imo)
For clarity:
I'm saying your Samsung app is probably giving you inflated numbers unless you have a level of fitness verging on extraordinary for your size. A competitor not a recreational exerciser.
Now you could be an elite athlete hence me asking if you can replicate that indicated speed outdoors or run at a high speed for an hour.
Yes it works for you.
But that isn't any kind of proof of accuracy which is what is required when you compare across two people like you and the OP. Using a simple app and not corroborating the numbers against a better method such as power means the OP can't draw any meaningful conclusion apart from different people use different methods and get very different numbers.
PS - there's no reason to be embarrassed how you do your exercise. Many people could say it's embarrassing for and elderly man to be dressing in Lycra and cycling in public!
4 -
@sijomial you make valid points and you are right to point them out so that others are informed.
I am not extraordinarily fit, I wish! however I would say I do have a great level of fitness for my age (soon to be 49).
I was a runner for a number of years then started having knee issues last year and changed to biking (thankfully that completely sorted my knee pain). Going by my data from when I ran compared to now I definately burn more cycling than running and my knees are happy so win win for me . But I hear others who say they burn more running than cycling. Anyway, I am digressing!!
Hope the OP takes on board your thoughts.
And thanks for telling me not to feel embarrassment about my indoor cycling I think a lot of people carry off that lycra look very well, but others do not - wearing it is age irrelevant .
Ruth
1 -
I more or less agree with you, though if my my smart trainer definitely thinks that I've hit over 700 calories in an hour before - on a somewhat regular basis actually. That said that's been with me doing threshold work and it totally kicks my butt. Earlier this week my workout was 871 cals in the span of 75 minutes (it was hellish but it was also hot which really didn't help) - again that's with my smart trainer in erg mode.LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.
Your burn actually sounds too high. For a small female that would be an unusually high power output that a very good club rider might see.
An equivalent burn for you running would be in the order of 9 miles in an hour - is that your kind of fitness level?
Weight management confirms your calorie balance has been correct over time - it doesn't confirm all the various estimates involved are accurate. It does show that consistency in estimates and adjusting based on results works though.
Well I would have thought that too but I'm maintaining my weight ( which is my aim) going on those numbers so it's actually accurate for me.
My average cycle speed is 33 km/ hr - I have great fitness and stamina with a lot of muscle too.
When I started losing weight my results indicated I was eating 1000/cals a week too much to hit my goal of a pound a week. A combination of exaggerated estimates from a basic HRM and Runkeeper plus sloppy food logging.
So I dropped my calorie goal and lost weight at the desired rate.
That didn't make my exercise estimates accurate, I just compensated for the inaccuracy.
The speed indoors isn't accurate - no aero drag. My high end trainers have me doing a "speed" that a racer would be proud of! Can you cycle at 33kph/20.5mph speed outdoors?
A female friend of mine can and has done a five hour Century and she couldn't hit 700 cals in an hour.
Today I did supposively burned 480-505 cals (strava vs garmin) in the span of nearly 6.5 miles which took 37 min. That said I also climbed 853 feet. I don't totally trust those numbers but I am intrigued as to what a similar workout will show in terms of power once my P1s get here.
TLDR: I agree to an extent about the ability to burn X large number of calories an hour on a bike and am impatient about getting a pedal based power meter so I can have a more accurate gauge on my own abilities. I know that burning 700 calories in an hour is doable, and I know that I know people who can and have done so but almost all of those people race at various levels in road, track, 'cross, and/or triathlon and all of them train specifically for those disiplines.0 -
I'll be interested to see how MapMyRide jives with my Fitbit Surge this weekend when I do either a 38 or 54 mile ride on Sunday with a group with whom I ride.
May even have to dig out the old MyZone belt to compare it against the other two to see what numbers it comes up with.
Just curious....0 -
... I know that burning 700 calories in an hour is doable, and I know that I know people who can and have done so but almost all of those people race at various levels in road, track, 'cross, and/or triathlon and all of them train specifically for those disiplines.LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.
Your burn actually sounds too high. For a small female that would be an unusually high power output that a very good club rider might see.
An equivalent burn for you running would be in the order of 9 miles in an hour - is that your kind of fitness level?
Weight management confirms your calorie balance has been correct over time - it doesn't confirm all the various estimates involved are accurate. It does show that consistency in estimates and adjusting based on results works though.
Well I would have thought that too but I'm maintaining my weight ( which is my aim) going on those numbers so it's actually accurate for me.
My average cycle speed is 33 km/ hr - I have great fitness and stamina with a lot of muscle too.
When I started losing weight my results indicated I was eating 1000/cals a week too much to hit my goal of a pound a week. A combination of exaggerated estimates from a basic HRM and Runkeeper plus sloppy food logging.
So I dropped my calorie goal and lost weight at the desired rate.
That didn't make my exercise estimates accurate, I just compensated for the inaccuracy.
The speed indoors isn't accurate - no aero drag. My high end trainers have me doing a "speed" that a racer would be proud of! Can you cycle at 33kph/20.5mph speed outdoors?
A female friend of mine can and has done a five hour Century and she couldn't hit 700 cals in an hour.
195 watts will get you 700 calories and about a 1 hour 15 minute flat 40 km on a road bike.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
... I know that burning 700 calories in an hour is doable, and I know that I know people who can and have done so but almost all of those people race at various levels in road, track, 'cross, and/or triathlon and all of them train specifically for those disiplines.LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.
Your burn actually sounds too high. For a small female that would be an unusually high power output that a very good club rider might see.
An equivalent burn for you running would be in the order of 9 miles in an hour - is that your kind of fitness level?
Weight management confirms your calorie balance has been correct over time - it doesn't confirm all the various estimates involved are accurate. It does show that consistency in estimates and adjusting based on results works though.
Well I would have thought that too but I'm maintaining my weight ( which is my aim) going on those numbers so it's actually accurate for me.
My average cycle speed is 33 km/ hr - I have great fitness and stamina with a lot of muscle too.
When I started losing weight my results indicated I was eating 1000/cals a week too much to hit my goal of a pound a week. A combination of exaggerated estimates from a basic HRM and Runkeeper plus sloppy food logging.
So I dropped my calorie goal and lost weight at the desired rate.
That didn't make my exercise estimates accurate, I just compensated for the inaccuracy.
The speed indoors isn't accurate - no aero drag. My high end trainers have me doing a "speed" that a racer would be proud of! Can you cycle at 33kph/20.5mph speed outdoors?
A female friend of mine can and has done a five hour Century and she couldn't hit 700 cals in an hour.
195 watts will get you 700 calories and about a 1 hour 15 minute flat 40 km on a road bike.
So about 19-20mph outside on a flat road for 700 calories. I definitely suspect that I currently know at least one person who could do that, probably more than one. Again though, one of these people used to race cat 2 in cross, road, and track. I do wonder what wattage I am actually putting out outside on the hills near my house. Strava estimated that today's average was 184 watts per hour over 38 min. While I know that's not accurate I want to know how inaccurate it actually is.0 -
@aokoye
I more or less agree with you, though if my my smart trainer definitely thinks that I've hit over 700 calories in an hour before - on a somewhat regular basis actually. That said that's been with me doing threshold work and it totally kicks my butt. Earlier this week my workout was 871 cals in the span of 75 minutes (it was hellish but it was also hot which really didn't help) - again that's with my smart trainer in erg mode.LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.
Your burn actually sounds too high. For a small female that would be an unusually high power output that a very good club rider might see.
An equivalent burn for you running would be in the order of 9 miles in an hour - is that your kind of fitness level?
Weight management confirms your calorie balance has been correct over time - it doesn't confirm all the various estimates involved are accurate. It does show that consistency in estimates and adjusting based on results works though.
Well I would have thought that too but I'm maintaining my weight ( which is my aim) going on those numbers so it's actually accurate for me.
My average cycle speed is 33 km/ hr - I have great fitness and stamina with a lot of muscle too.
When I started losing weight my results indicated I was eating 1000/cals a week too much to hit my goal of a pound a week. A combination of exaggerated estimates from a basic HRM and Runkeeper plus sloppy food logging.
So I dropped my calorie goal and lost weight at the desired rate.
That didn't make my exercise estimates accurate, I just compensated for the inaccuracy.
The speed indoors isn't accurate - no aero drag. My high end trainers have me doing a "speed" that a racer would be proud of! Can you cycle at 33kph/20.5mph speed outdoors?
A female friend of mine can and has done a five hour Century and she couldn't hit 700 cals in an hour.
Today I did supposively burned 480-505 cals (strava vs garmin) in the span of nearly 6.5 miles which took 37 min. That said I also climbed 853 feet. I don't totally trust those numbers but I am intrigued as to what a similar workout will show in terms of power once my P1s get here.
TLDR: I agree to an extent about the ability to burn X large number of calories an hour on a bike and am impatient about getting a pedal based power meter so I can have a more accurate gauge on my own abilities. I know that burning 700 calories in an hour is doable, and I know that I know people who can and have done so but almost all of those people race at various levels in road, track, 'cross, and/or triathlon and all of them train specifically for those disiplines.
I wasn't saying 700 cals/hr isn't possible for everyone, I was saying it's unlikely for a small, female recreational exerciser doing interval training.
Yes 700/hr is perfectly doable, especially for a male who trains seriously, not even exceptional.
Even me as a 58 year old has a recent one hour maximal effort best of 213w (766cals) - but it's taken 5 years of serious cycle training to get there and I do 5000 miles a year.
A 56 year old friend is targeting 270w as an hourly rate - but he's a podium finisher in a national 24hr race and trains 12hrs a week at a level very few people would tolerate.
But my high standard female, petite, friend although a far better rider than me can't get anywhere near my power output - and therefore calorie burns.
2 -
@sijomial - again, I essentially am in agreement with you. I especially agree that it is unlikely for frankly any recreational exerciser who isn't training moderately seriously. One of the people who I'm thinking of is in his late 50s but has been cycling for the vast majority of his life and still races. He isn't average. The woman that I'm thinking of trains almost as if she were a college athlete, works a very physical job on top of that (some of which involves working with professional athletes), and has a coach. So yea - none of these people are average.
I'm 31 and cycling is my main sport at this point in my life. I don't race (though next summer I want to try track if my knees allow), but I use TrainerRoad a lot inside and cycling is more or less part of my post-surgical rehab for my knee. Save for hill training days I tend to go far harder inside than I do outside. That will likely even out at some point because, as my PT reminded me this week, I have only been allowed to bike outside for less than a month this year.
Agreed. I am far, far from exceptional. I like riding my bike, I work hard at bike specific fitness, but I am not particularly amazing.Yes 700/hr is perfectly doable, especially for a male who trains seriously, not even exceptional.0 -
@aokoye
I more or less agree with you, though if my my smart trainer definitely thinks that I've hit over 700 calories in an hour before - on a somewhat regular basis actually. That said that's been with me doing threshold work and it totally kicks my butt. Earlier this week my workout was 871 cals in the span of 75 minutes (it was hellish but it was also hot which really didn't help) - again that's with my smart trainer in erg mode.LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.
Your burn actually sounds too high. For a small female that would be an unusually high power output that a very good club rider might see.
An equivalent burn for you running would be in the order of 9 miles in an hour - is that your kind of fitness level?
Weight management confirms your calorie balance has been correct over time - it doesn't confirm all the various estimates involved are accurate. It does show that consistency in estimates and adjusting based on results works though.
Well I would have thought that too but I'm maintaining my weight ( which is my aim) going on those numbers so it's actually accurate for me.
My average cycle speed is 33 km/ hr - I have great fitness and stamina with a lot of muscle too.
When I started losing weight my results indicated I was eating 1000/cals a week too much to hit my goal of a pound a week. A combination of exaggerated estimates from a basic HRM and Runkeeper plus sloppy food logging.
So I dropped my calorie goal and lost weight at the desired rate.
That didn't make my exercise estimates accurate, I just compensated for the inaccuracy.
The speed indoors isn't accurate - no aero drag. My high end trainers have me doing a "speed" that a racer would be proud of! Can you cycle at 33kph/20.5mph speed outdoors?
A female friend of mine can and has done a five hour Century and she couldn't hit 700 cals in an hour.
Today I did supposively burned 480-505 cals (strava vs garmin) in the span of nearly 6.5 miles which took 37 min. That said I also climbed 853 feet. I don't totally trust those numbers but I am intrigued as to what a similar workout will show in terms of power once my P1s get here.
TLDR: I agree to an extent about the ability to burn X large number of calories an hour on a bike and am impatient about getting a pedal based power meter so I can have a more accurate gauge on my own abilities. I know that burning 700 calories in an hour is doable, and I know that I know people who can and have done so but almost all of those people race at various levels in road, track, 'cross, and/or triathlon and all of them train specifically for those disiplines.
I wasn't saying 700 cals/hr isn't possible for everyone, I was saying it's unlikely for a small, female recreational exerciser doing interval training.
Yes 700/hr is perfectly doable, especially for a male who trains seriously, not even exceptional.
Even me as a 58 year old has a recent one hour maximal effort best of 213w (766cals) - but it's taken 5 years of serious cycle training to get there and I do 5000 miles a year.
A 56 year old friend is targeting 270w as an hourly rate - but he's a podium finisher in a national 24hr race and trains 12hrs a week at a level very few people would tolerate.
But my high standard female, petite, friend although a far better rider than me can't get anywhere near my power output - and therefore calorie burns.
This is really hard to appreciate without context. So to that end:
270 watts really isn't that hard. Anybody reading this forum can make a power meter say 270 watts. For a few seconds. Some for a lot longer, it gets harder the longer you go. Putting out 270 watts for 5 minutes hurts, and will get a Clydesdale a KOM. For an hour is brutal.
Think about bench pursuing a modest amount of weight, then imagine doing it continuously for an hour.
When we talk about how many calories were burned on a bike, this is one reason the numbers wind up being moderate. Big people (I'm in that group) tend to have explosive power, and that makes it easy to think we're just powerhouses working real hard all the time, but the power/duration curve is real, and it applies to everyone.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
... I know that burning 700 calories in an hour is doable, and I know that I know people who can and have done so but almost all of those people race at various levels in road, track, 'cross, and/or triathlon and all of them train specifically for those disiplines.LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.
Your burn actually sounds too high. For a small female that would be an unusually high power output that a very good club rider might see.
An equivalent burn for you running would be in the order of 9 miles in an hour - is that your kind of fitness level?
Weight management confirms your calorie balance has been correct over time - it doesn't confirm all the various estimates involved are accurate. It does show that consistency in estimates and adjusting based on results works though.
Well I would have thought that too but I'm maintaining my weight ( which is my aim) going on those numbers so it's actually accurate for me.
My average cycle speed is 33 km/ hr - I have great fitness and stamina with a lot of muscle too.
When I started losing weight my results indicated I was eating 1000/cals a week too much to hit my goal of a pound a week. A combination of exaggerated estimates from a basic HRM and Runkeeper plus sloppy food logging.
So I dropped my calorie goal and lost weight at the desired rate.
That didn't make my exercise estimates accurate, I just compensated for the inaccuracy.
The speed indoors isn't accurate - no aero drag. My high end trainers have me doing a "speed" that a racer would be proud of! Can you cycle at 33kph/20.5mph speed outdoors?
A female friend of mine can and has done a five hour Century and she couldn't hit 700 cals in an hour.
195 watts will get you 700 calories and about a 1 hour 15 minute flat 40 km on a road bike.
So about 19-20mph outside on a flat road for 700 calories. I definitely suspect that I currently know at least one person who could do that, probably more than one. Again though, one of these people used to race cat 2 in cross, road, and track. I do wonder what wattage I am actually putting out outside on the hills near my house. Strava estimated that today's average was 184 watts per hour over 38 min. While I know that's not accurate I want to know how inaccurate it actually is.
When I started using a power meter, there was a big learning curve. Because getting the most out of one involves software, and special math. Like the difference between average and normalized power (NP), which is appropriate for a functional threshold power (FTP) test, and a lot more.
Power is the rate that work is getting done. If a bookshelf needs to get moved across the room and it takes me an hour but it only takes you 20 minutes, that's the same amount of work but 3x the power. With bikes you're doing the work of moving, which involves overcoming air resistance (which rises with speed), flexing your tires, fighting gravity sometimes, and a bit of friction in your drivetrain. In fact, speed = power / all opposing forces.
Back to power being a rate. 184 watts means 184 joules per second. That's why @sijomial's formula (calories = avgP * 3.6 * hours) works, there are 3,600 seconds in an hour. That, and because a lot of testing shows that all humans have about the same energy efficiency on a bike, there's a very narrow range.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
@aokoye
I more or less agree with you, though if my my smart trainer definitely thinks that I've hit over 700 calories in an hour before - on a somewhat regular basis actually. That said that's been with me doing threshold work and it totally kicks my butt. Earlier this week my workout was 871 cals in the span of 75 minutes (it was hellish but it was also hot which really didn't help) - again that's with my smart trainer in erg mode.LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.
Your burn actually sounds too high. For a small female that would be an unusually high power output that a very good club rider might see.
An equivalent burn for you running would be in the order of 9 miles in an hour - is that your kind of fitness level?
Weight management confirms your calorie balance has been correct over time - it doesn't confirm all the various estimates involved are accurate. It does show that consistency in estimates and adjusting based on results works though.
Well I would have thought that too but I'm maintaining my weight ( which is my aim) going on those numbers so it's actually accurate for me.
My average cycle speed is 33 km/ hr - I have great fitness and stamina with a lot of muscle too.
When I started losing weight my results indicated I was eating 1000/cals a week too much to hit my goal of a pound a week. A combination of exaggerated estimates from a basic HRM and Runkeeper plus sloppy food logging.
So I dropped my calorie goal and lost weight at the desired rate.
That didn't make my exercise estimates accurate, I just compensated for the inaccuracy.
The speed indoors isn't accurate - no aero drag. My high end trainers have me doing a "speed" that a racer would be proud of! Can you cycle at 33kph/20.5mph speed outdoors?
A female friend of mine can and has done a five hour Century and she couldn't hit 700 cals in an hour.
Today I did supposively burned 480-505 cals (strava vs garmin) in the span of nearly 6.5 miles which took 37 min. That said I also climbed 853 feet. I don't totally trust those numbers but I am intrigued as to what a similar workout will show in terms of power once my P1s get here.
TLDR: I agree to an extent about the ability to burn X large number of calories an hour on a bike and am impatient about getting a pedal based power meter so I can have a more accurate gauge on my own abilities. I know that burning 700 calories in an hour is doable, and I know that I know people who can and have done so but almost all of those people race at various levels in road, track, 'cross, and/or triathlon and all of them train specifically for those disiplines.
I wasn't saying 700 cals/hr isn't possible for everyone, I was saying it's unlikely for a small, female recreational exerciser doing interval training.
Yes 700/hr is perfectly doable, especially for a male who trains seriously, not even exceptional.
Even me as a 58 year old has a recent one hour maximal effort best of 213w (766cals) - but it's taken 5 years of serious cycle training to get there and I do 5000 miles a year.
A 56 year old friend is targeting 270w as an hourly rate - but he's a podium finisher in a national 24hr race and trains 12hrs a week at a level very few people would tolerate.
But my high standard female, petite, friend although a far better rider than me can't get anywhere near my power output - and therefore calorie burns.
This is really hard to appreciate without context. So to that end:
270 watts really isn't that hard. Anybody reading this forum can make a power meter say 270 watts. For a few seconds. Some for a lot longer, it gets harder the longer you go. Putting out 270 watts for 5 minutes hurts, and will get a Clydesdale a KOM. For an hour is brutal.
Think about bench pursuing a modest amount of weight, then imagine doing it continuously for an hour.
When we talk about how many calories were burned on a bike, this is one reason the numbers wind up being moderate. Big people (I'm in that group) tend to have explosive power, and that makes it easy to think we're just powerhouses working real hard all the time, but the power/duration curve is real, and it applies to everyone.
You are very kind, but I’m at 59 kilos...can do 270+ for an hour. It does not get me competitive KOMs. 6 watts/kilo or 360 for 5 minutes might but not 4.5...I just did 5.5 watts/kilo or ~330 for a 2.4 mile climb 8:41 total time)...got me 68th out of 700+. Yes my power meter was calibrated....
But you are very correct. Of all the people I ride with 270 is very rare for long periods of time. Of course my training partner can hold 330 for an hour plus..0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
... I know that burning 700 calories in an hour is doable, and I know that I know people who can and have done so but almost all of those people race at various levels in road, track, 'cross, and/or triathlon and all of them train specifically for those disiplines.LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »Machines burns are way off but what you were given sounds low. I find my Samsung Health app is closer to giving me a more accurate burn which I know to be realistic (because it correlates with my weight mamagement and calories consumed over a long period of time ).
For me at 125lb and 5ft 2 I burn upwards on 700 cals an hour, that's with HIIT bursts.
Your burn actually sounds too high. For a small female that would be an unusually high power output that a very good club rider might see.
An equivalent burn for you running would be in the order of 9 miles in an hour - is that your kind of fitness level?
Weight management confirms your calorie balance has been correct over time - it doesn't confirm all the various estimates involved are accurate. It does show that consistency in estimates and adjusting based on results works though.
Well I would have thought that too but I'm maintaining my weight ( which is my aim) going on those numbers so it's actually accurate for me.
My average cycle speed is 33 km/ hr - I have great fitness and stamina with a lot of muscle too.
When I started losing weight my results indicated I was eating 1000/cals a week too much to hit my goal of a pound a week. A combination of exaggerated estimates from a basic HRM and Runkeeper plus sloppy food logging.
So I dropped my calorie goal and lost weight at the desired rate.
That didn't make my exercise estimates accurate, I just compensated for the inaccuracy.
The speed indoors isn't accurate - no aero drag. My high end trainers have me doing a "speed" that a racer would be proud of! Can you cycle at 33kph/20.5mph speed outdoors?
A female friend of mine can and has done a five hour Century and she couldn't hit 700 cals in an hour.
195 watts will get you 700 calories and about a 1 hour 15 minute flat 40 km on a road bike.
So about 19-20mph outside on a flat road for 700 calories. I definitely suspect that I currently know at least one person who could do that, probably more than one. Again though, one of these people used to race cat 2 in cross, road, and track. I do wonder what wattage I am actually putting out outside on the hills near my house. Strava estimated that today's average was 184 watts per hour over 38 min. While I know that's not accurate I want to know how inaccurate it actually is.
When I started using a power meter, there was a big learning curve. Because getting the most out of one involves software, and special math. Like the difference between average and normalized power (NP), which is appropriate for a functional threshold power (FTP) test, and a lot more.
Power is the rate that work is getting done. If a bookshelf needs to get moved across the room and it takes me an hour but it only takes you 20 minutes, that's the same amount of work but 3x the power. With bikes you're doing the work of moving, which involves overcoming air resistance (which rises with speed), flexing your tires, fighting gravity sometimes, and a bit of friction in your drivetrain. In fact, speed = power / all opposing forces.
Back to power being a rate. 184 watts means 184 joules per second. That's why @sijomial's formula (calories = avgP * 3.6 * hours) works, there are 3,600 seconds in an hour. That, and because a lot of testing shows that all humans have about the same energy efficiency on a bike, there's a very narrow range.
For what it's worth, I do train with power inside on a Wahoo Kickr Snap. I'm used to various FTP tests indoors, doing power based interval training, have quoted the formula you mentioned a number of times, and so on. It's training with power outside that I don't have experience with. I will likely do an 8 min FTP test outside when they arrive because of the limitations of where I currently ride. I also need to do another FTP test indoors because new equipment and such but I suspect they'll come by next Friday (Clever Training is waiting on a shipment from Powertap...and I am being impatient) and I'll be due for one.
I guess for me this is really a bit of a boost to what I currently do inside. I want to be able to have more logically structured workouts outside, especially as my schedule starts to get a bit less frenetic. I also like that I'll be able to better assess the power balance between my two legs as I'm post knee surgery. I guess for me this isn't really jumping off the deep end into some sort of murky unknown abyss, rather getting better tools to be able to explore the rather exciting abyss I'm already in.0 -
I left the MyZone at home, so I don't have the HR information from it.
However, what I found interesting from my GPS equipped FitBit Surge is that for about the first 2/3rds of the ride, the calculation was a fixed 22 calories/minute.
It was only about the last 1/3rd that it then claimed I was burning 11 calories/minute.
Certainly not setting any records as I was stopping and waiting for some slower riders in the group several times.
Finally averaged about 18.1 MPH the last 10-11 miles according to my MapMyRide data from my iPhone.
But they both estimated over 3000 calories on a 38 mile ride. I didn't start the Fitbit tracking until after we rode from the parking area to the registration table, so it has a lower total ride distance.
0 -
I sync a telementary strap to the bike's computer. I think it is pretty accurate, usually about 650 cal for a 1 hour spin class where my heart rate is in the red zone (max is about 165 BPM) for over 50% of the class. I also happen to wear a Garmin Fenix and the calories burned on that are within 50-100 cals of the bike computer. Gotta enter your stats!0
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