Stationary bike calories per hour?

Curtism1234

Hi all,

I just purchased an upright stationary bike (schwinn 170) and I am noticing a big discrepancy in the calories burned on the machine and what myfitnesspal says. When I ride my regular bike at a light to moderate pace, mfp says around 550 calories an hour. I plug in stationary bike at a comprobably pace on mfp and it says about 550 as well.

The new machine says about 225 per hour at what I feel is comprobable to my normal workout on my regular bike.

So it's a rather large difference: 550 vs 225

How much would you budget for? I suppose I could split the difference but is that may not be correct.

Thoughts?

Thanks

yirara

Curtism1234 wrote: »

Hi all,

I just purchased an upright stationary bike (schwinn 170) and I am noticing a big discrepancy in the calories burned on the machine and what myfitnesspal says. When I ride my regular bike at a light to moderate pace, mfp says around 550 calories an hour. I plug in stationary bike at a comprobably pace on mfp and it says about 550 as well.

The new machine says about 225 per hour at what I feel is comprobable to my normal workout on my regular bike.

So it's a rather large difference: 550 vs 225

How much would you budget for? I suppose I could split the difference but is that may not be correct.

Thoughts?

Thanks

When I ride my bike at a moderate pace I budget about 250kcal per hour. Note my bike is fairly light and rolls easily, and it's flat here. I don't budget anything if it's less than one hour though. This is based on powermeter readings from a forum where people posted their energy expenditure, weight and bike weight.

callsitlikeiseeit

yeah for me the bike is around 200ish cals/hour

sijomial

I measure my power on a stationary bike and average watts is easy to convert to net calories.
(Average power in watts for an hour X 3.6)

MyFitnessPal knows nothing about your fitness level, power output or intensity you put in. All it really knows is your weight which isn't even relevant for a non-weight bearing exercise.

Without knowing anything about you impossible to know whether 255 or 550 (or neither) is in the ball park - both are entirely possible.

lin_be

Are there any estimates that can be made using METs or RPMs?

sijomial

lin_be wrote: »

Are there any estimates that can be made using METs or RPMs?

METS is in relation to weight but power on a bike is more about fitness and that's incredibly varied.
For a non elite cyclist it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a bigger person to be more powerful than a smaller person all things being equal.
(As an example I've got a cycling mate who is 20% lighter but produces 30% more power.)

RPM is only half the story, revs without resistance is just twirling your legs. Your can burn the same calories high revs/low resistance or low revs/high resistance.

NorthCascades

You said it felt moderate. Unless you're incredibly fit, the bike's estimate if 250 is pretty close.

lin_be

sijomial wrote: »

lin_be wrote: »

Are there any estimates that can be made using METs or RPMs?

METS is in relation to weight but power on a bike is more about fitness and that's incredibly varied.
For a non elite cyclist it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a bigger person to be more powerful than a smaller person all things being equal.
(As an example I've got a cycling mate who is 20% lighter but produces 30% more power.)

RPM is only half the story, revs without resistance is just twirling your legs. Your can burn the same calories high revs/low resistance or low revs/high resistance.

Womp womp womp. I’ve been trying to find a good calculation for my stationary cardio using RPMs and METs with no luck. I haven’t seen any weight gain so my estimating is fine...for now. Can’t wait for sunshine and warmer weather!

NorthCascades

lin_be wrote: »

Are there any estimates that can be made using METs or RPMs?

Think of RPMs like how many reps you did. Also need to know how much weight.

sijomial

lin_be wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

lin_be wrote: »

Are there any estimates that can be made using METs or RPMs?

METS is in relation to weight but power on a bike is more about fitness and that's incredibly varied.
For a non elite cyclist it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a bigger person to be more powerful than a smaller person all things being equal.
(As an example I've got a cycling mate who is 20% lighter but produces 30% more power.)

RPM is only half the story, revs without resistance is just twirling your legs. Your can burn the same calories high revs/low resistance or low revs/high resistance.

Womp womp womp. I’ve been trying to find a good calculation for my stationary cardio using RPMs and METs with no luck. I haven’t seen any weight gain so my estimating is fine...for now. Can’t wait for sunshine and warmer weather!

@lin_be
For outdoor cycling Strava app will probably give you reasonable/usable estimates.
It tries to estimate your power from the terrain and your speed primarily.

RPM matters for efficiency (80 - 100 cadence is a widely recommended range) but not for calorie burns.