Burn 1000 calories or MORE in 60 minutes?

darkmatter661
darkmatter661 Posts: 6 Member
edited December 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.

I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.

In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html

But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.

The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.

Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?
«13

Replies

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    I would suspect they are not, but the only way to know for sure is to accurately track your calories in, your weight and your exercise calories and see if your weight loss/gain proves it.

    That just confirms you are getting the right calorie balance - it doesn't confirm all the estimates involved are correct (BMR, activity multiplier, food logging, exercise logging).
    It achieves the purpose people calorie count for though which is far more important.

    When I adjusted my daily goal to achieve the desired rate of loss my food logging was still a bit sloppy, my exercise was still exaggerated but I lost at dead on my chosen rate of 1lb/week.
  • darkmatter661
    darkmatter661 Posts: 6 Member
    Thanks! I'm sure these are gross cals and not net. How are spinning and indoor cycling different? Is spinning simply considered much more of an interval-intensive exercise? What would you consider steady-state vs interval in terms of percentage of heart-rate variance?
  • darkmatter661
    darkmatter661 Posts: 6 Member
    Just found this on the FitDigits (iCardio) website related to how they calculate calories burned:

    (BEST) Calorie Calculations Using Heart Rate – Fitdigits with Heart Rate
    With heart rate information, we can actually get very close to real, honest caloric burn numbers.The accurate calculation of calories burned by heart rate is optimized for the heart rate to be between 90 bpm and 150 bpm. The drivers are: Gender, Weight (kg), Height and VO2max (Fitness Level). The VO2max number is an estimate of fitness level based on a persons age and self-reported fitness level, or a calculated, much more accurate number if an Assessment has been completed.

    The formulas are:

    Men: C/min = (-59.3954 + (-36.3781 + 0.271 x age + 0.394 x weight + 0.404 x VO2max + 0.634 x HR))/4.184

    Women: C/min = (-59.3954 + (0.274 x age + 0.103 x weight + 0.380 x VO2max + 0.450 x HR)) / 4.184
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited January 2019
    darkmatter661 wrote: »
    Thanks! I'm sure these are gross cals and not net. How are spinning and indoor cycling different? Is spinning simply considered much more of an interval-intensive exercise? What would you consider steady-state vs interval in terms of percentage of heart-rate variance?
    The difference is in the standing element which is more typical in Spinning. Standing cycling is a weight bearing exercise, seated is not. "Jumps" and other Spinning moves don't really have an equivalence for regular cycling.

    The convoluted formula for converting watts to calories includes an estimate for your actual efficiency in turning energy into power, that is in a pretty narrow range for seated cycling but very different for standing.

    You can also do intervals on a bike but I've never done a Spinning class that was steady state - wouldn't really need an instructor for that! :smile:

    Remember that although interval training typically feels harder it isn't necessarily a bigger calorie burner than steady state as recovery intervals drastically reduce your average (often intervals in average power terms and therefore calories are only around equal to a moderate intensity SS ride). The biggest calorie burner is as hard as you can sustain for the entire duration of your time available, it's why you don't get people doing intervals to win distance sports.

    Can't put a percentage on something so variable - some of my intervals are flat out sprints for 30 seconds some are ten minutes...



  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    darkmatter661 wrote: »
    Just found this on the FitDigits (iCardio) website related to how they calculate calories burned:

    (BEST) Calorie Calculations Using Heart Rate – Fitdigits with Heart Rate
    With heart rate information, we can actually get very close to real, honest caloric burn numbers.The accurate calculation of calories burned by heart rate is optimized for the heart rate to be between 90 bpm and 150 bpm. The drivers are: Gender, Weight (kg), Height and VO2max (Fitness Level). The VO2max number is an estimate of fitness level based on a persons age and self-reported fitness level, or a calculated, much more accurate number if an Assessment has been completed.

    The formulas are:

    Men: C/min = (-59.3954 + (-36.3781 + 0.271 x age + 0.394 x weight + 0.404 x VO2max + 0.634 x HR))/4.184

    Women: C/min = (-59.3954 + (0.274 x age + 0.103 x weight + 0.380 x VO2max + 0.450 x HR)) / 4.184

    I've seen three fit and very experienced cyclists burning almost precisely the same power / burning the same calories with HR of 120, 150 and 180.
    Variations in exercise HR are probably even wider with a broader demographic.

    You might strike lucky or you might be an outlier but it can't be "real close" for everyone.


  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    edited January 2019
    sijomial wrote: »
    The difference is in the standing element which is more typical in Spinning. Standing cycling is a weight bearing exercise, seated is not. "Jumps" and other Spinning moves don't really have an equivalence for regular cycling.

    ...snip for brevity...

    My observations lead me to believe I've experienced this. My indicated watt output on the bike will DROP when I go from seated to standing.

    I can put more of the energy into the bike when I am just pushing and pulling the pedals. When I'm doing jumps or running, while I may be using energy, it's not necessarily going into the bike.

    I tend to sit more in spin classes, but will stand, sit, run, etc in HIIT training classes on the bike. I take the approach that it's my ride, not to mention that an hour of running on the bike in a standing position will likely leave me sore and unable to workout the next day. A 30 minute HIIT class offers enough variation and not too much.

    In some ways, it can mirror a ride. A slow grind with heavy resistance imitating a steep climb (60 cadence), followed immediately by a fast sprint down the other side at 120+ cadence.

    How the HIIT class doesn't follow is that I don't take a 10 minute break during every 30 minutes on the bike. Les Mills Sprint follows that rough format. You might do 40 seconds of work, all out, followed by a 20 second recovery, lather, rinse, repeat.

    Unless you are doing hill repeats on your bike, probably not so much while on the bike.

  • darkmatter661
    darkmatter661 Posts: 6 Member
    In the end, whether you're doing HIIT on the bike or steady-state, is there that much of a variant when it comes calories being burned and how they translate to net calories burned? Surely, you're still working either way and they may have a moderate difference, but in the end, you're still burning calories at a particular rate either way, no matter what the Watts are at any given time.

    As far as reading the data off of bikes, that's all over the place. At least for the Keiser bikes, I've seen them VERY differently calibrated. And I use the word very loosely because who knows how they are calibrating and whether they're even doing it right.

    That Spinning bike is pretty neat, but the same rules about calibrating apply right? Wouldn't a HRM value be more indicative of how hard your body (not your bike) is working? Watts don't factor in calorie count in formulas. Watts seem more of a performance or efficiency metric.

    And wouldn't a very fit athlete potentially burn less calories per watt than an average person for the very reason that they are more efficient at that task?
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    edited January 2019
    The only way to really be accurate is to track via wattage.

    Theoretically though 1000 calories per hour isn't a terribly ridiculous number. I'm a runner and the equivalent for me would be to run an hour at a 6 minute mile pace. Definitely above the level of your average amateur but well within range of a more serious athlete.

    ETA - re: calorie counts, work is work. There may be a small efficiency gain from experience but it's not enough to make a difference and most efficiency gain will be picked up early in the learning process (meaning that even relative newcomers will get most of the efficiency benefit after a little bit of trial and error).

    At the end of the day it will always take X units of power to turn a crank Y times given Z resistance. This holds especially true on a stationary bike because bodyweight does not impact the amount of work to be performed. Work is defined by the equipment and not by the individual.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    edited January 2019
    darkmatter661 wrote: »
    That Spinning bike is pretty neat, but the same rules about calibrating apply right? Wouldn't a HRM value be more indicative of how hard your body (not your bike) is working? Watts don't factor in calorie count in formulas. Watts seem more of a performance or efficiency metric.

    1 watt = 1 Joule per second; 1 Joule = 1 calorie on a bike.

    This is primarily used for performance, training, and pacing, as you say. But a handy side effect is this is also the most accurate way to measure exercise calories basically if any kind outside a metabolic chamber. By comparison an HRM is a random number generator. (Seriously, how many heartbeats are there in a calorie?) It's useful for training because cycling is an aerobic sport.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 35,264 Member
    What follows is just my understanding, with a hope that others more knowledgeable will correct my errors.
    darkmatter661 wrote: »
    In the end, whether you're doing HIIT on the bike or steady-state, is there that much of a variant when it comes calories being burned and how they translate to net calories burned? Surely, you're still working either way and they may have a moderate difference, but in the end, you're still burning calories at a particular rate either way, no matter what the Watts are at any given time.

    There's potentially a significant difference in calories being burned in intervals (any type, HIIT or otherwise) vs. steady state.

    What matters, for calorie burn, is the work being done, in pretty much the physics sense of "work". Intervals alternate harder work with easier work. You burn more calories per minute in the harder work vs. the easier work. So, the total calories depend on the nature of the intervals (intensity, timing).

    Most people can sustain a higher intensity during steady state than the average intensity they can sustain during intervals, because the high intensity segments are more fatiguing (they challenge the physical system more). The longer duration the total workout, the more significant this becomes.

    Watts, essentially, measure work, and equate to calories, with some adjustment for the efficiency of a given exercise, as I understand it. So higher watts over a time period = more work = more calories, simplistically.
    As far as reading the data off of bikes, that's all over the place. At least for the Keiser bikes, I've seen them VERY differently calibrated. And I use the word very loosely because who knows how they are calibrating and whether they're even doing it right.

    That Spinning bike is pretty neat, but the same rules about calibrating apply right? Wouldn't a HRM value be more indicative of how hard your body (not your bike) is working? Watts don't factor in calorie count in formulas. Watts seem more of a performance or efficiency metric.

    HR is individual. Work is what matters for calorie burn. It doesn't much matter how hard you feel like you're working, or how taxed your heart may be.

    Someone completely new to exercise and very unfit will possibly find it almost impossibly difficult to walk a quarter mile at 2.5mph. Their heart rate will be high. A marathon runner (even one of the same body weight) will find the same walk trivially easy. Their heart rate will be very low. If body weight is the same, and the course identical, it's the same amount of work, so roughly the same number of calories.

    A HRM may say something very different, and be wrong. The HRM measures HR, and estimates calories. (The two people will certainly feel very different.)

    For intervals, accuracy of calorie estimates (based on HR) is even more challenging. The unfit person's HR will stay very high even during the easy intervals, lagging the change in effort in a major way, making the HRM believe they're still working harder, longer. The fit person's HR will lag intensity changes a bit (so still misleading), but adjust much more quickly to the workload change. Depending on the assumptions built into the HRM's calorie estimation algorithms, their calorie estimate may be a little more accurate . . . or not.

    Of course calibration can be relevant. Inaccurate measurements are inaccurate.
    And wouldn't a very fit athlete potentially burn less calories per watt than an average person for the very reason that they are more efficient at that task?

    Typically, no, not materially so, all other factors being equal. The unfit person may waste more motion (say, waggle their arms and head while walking their 2.5mph quarter mile), and burn more calories. The fit person may have no wasted motion, and burn fewer. But that's a small difference, compared to the work of the walk.

    If we're talking about well-power-metered exercise (as from a good, well calibrated stationary bike), the wasted energy doesn't go into pedaling, and the unfit (unskilled) person gets no credit for those "waste" calories.

    I'm not a cyclist, I'm a rower (water/machine). Rowing is fairly technical. Skills and efficiency are a big factor. I regularly see people at the gym, machine rowing, who are burning more calories than I would doing the same distance at the same pace, but - from the standpoint of what the machine measures (watts at the flywheel) - they're not getting credit from the machine , because much effort is being wasted.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    The underlying issue is that calorie burn estimations are based upon steady state algorithms. The closer you are to these conditions (as stated by @sijomial ) the more accurate the results, so long steady state cardio exercises such as running, swimming, biking hold a high degree of confidence. Once you stray from these conditions the accuracy diminishes rapidly - well outside any degree of confidence.

    Men: C/min = (-59.3954 + (-36.3781 + 0.271 x age + 0.394 x weight + 0.404 x VO2max + 0.634 x HR))/4.184

    Women: C/min = (-59.3954 + (0.274 x age + 0.103 x weight + 0.380 x VO2max + 0.450 x HR)) / 4.184

    Essentially what this is doing is gaming the algorithm instead of displaying calorie output.

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    darkmatter661 wrote: »
    In the end, whether you're doing HIIT on the bike or steady-state, is there that much of a variant when it comes calories being burned and how they translate to net calories burned? Surely, you're still working either way and they may have a moderate difference, but in the end, you're still burning calories at a particular rate either way, no matter what the Watts are at any given time.

    As far as reading the data off of bikes, that's all over the place. At least for the Keiser bikes, I've seen them VERY differently calibrated. And I use the word very loosely because who knows how they are calibrating and whether they're even doing it right.

    That Spinning bike is pretty neat, but the same rules about calibrating apply right? Wouldn't a HRM value be more indicative of how hard your body (not your bike) is working? Watts don't factor in calorie count in formulas. Watts seem more of a performance or efficiency metric.

    And wouldn't a very fit athlete potentially burn less calories per watt than an average person for the very reason that they are more efficient at that task?

    Yes there can be a huge difference between HIIT (which isn't Spinning at all, the duration is far too long and the intensity is far too low) and steady state and that difference could be either way. HIIT feels hard but isn't a big calorie burner no matter what marketing departments try to sell you.

    Still working means what? 200 cals an hour is working, 800 cals an hour is working.

    Watts is the measure of how much power you are producing, not how hard it is for you to produce that power. Neither watts or calories care how hard an exercise feels.

    HRM is indicative (to a degree) of how hard you are working but that absolutely not the same as calories. It's also not comparative between different people. My brother's max HR and exercise HR has normally been about 30bpm higher than mine but I'm much fitter.

    An elite cyclist will probably have a marginally better efficiency ratio than a recreational cyclist - maybe 4% in calorie terms?
    Lance Armstrong's efficiency improved at the rate of about 1% a year as a result of 3 to 6hrs training a day so it's not a significant factor for someone doing Spinning classes.
  • darkmatter661
    darkmatter661 Posts: 6 Member
    Thank you everyone for your valuable input. So the bottom line is that calories as in counted via an app and HRM is fairly inaccurate information at best as it relates to real calories based purely on work. My MFP app is linked to my iCardio app and it imports the calories recorded based on my HRM data and their calculations.

    I've been doing indoor cycling for 6 or 7 years now and it's a toss-up as far as a split between more HIIT style and steady state style classes. I'd like to get a more accurate number of actual calories burned so my daily records can be useful towards my goals. The bikes are no help either. They have Keisers at the gyms I attend and calibration is radically different between locations. I'll start "working" at 150W on one bike and 200W at another.

    I'm more a fan of steady state workouts where I can hold a high HR for relatively long periods. Perhaps taking a sample of this type of activity on various bikes and producing a mean watt output for a specific period would allow for a 'rate' I can use based on the bike's numbers and not my HRM numbers?
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    darkmatter661 wrote: »
    Thank you everyone for your valuable input. So the bottom line is that calories as in counted via an app and HRM is fairly inaccurate information at best as it relates to real calories based purely on work. My MFP app is linked to my iCardio app and it imports the calories recorded based on my HRM data and their calculations.

    I've been doing indoor cycling for 6 or 7 years now and it's a toss-up as far as a split between more HIIT style and steady state style classes. I'd like to get a more accurate number of actual calories burned so my daily records can be useful towards my goals. The bikes are no help either. They have Keisers at the gyms I attend and calibration is radically different between locations. I'll start "working" at 150W on one bike and 200W at another.

    I'm more a fan of steady state workouts where I can hold a high HR for relatively long periods. Perhaps taking a sample of this type of activity on various bikes and producing a mean watt output for a specific period would allow for a 'rate' I can use based on the bike's numbers and not my HRM numbers?

    The only thing you can really do is to find equipment that you know has been properly calibrated and use that to set a baseline. If you're like most of us, you probably end up repeating similar workout types from week to week (short intense, long slow, etc.) and once you get an idea of the calorie burn for each type of workout you do, extrapolating for different times/distances, etc. should get you pretty close.

    Unfortunately, an average of inaccurate data won't get you closer to the truth.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    The calibration issues in my gym seem to come from the users. If people leave them alone on factory calibration settings I can't tell the difference between the bikes.

    When my Garmin picks up the power sensors it asks you to calibrate the power meters, but the sensors only connect when the pedals are moving and that's exactly how to get a false zero on the bikes I use. Frustrating when you think you are having a really bad day but then realise the machine is under-reading by whatever watts the previous user was warming up at.

    Different bikes have different calibration needs and methods so maybe worth investigating how to set up the Keiser?
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    darkmatter661 wrote: »
    Thank you everyone for your valuable input. So the bottom line is that calories as in counted via an app and HRM is fairly inaccurate information at best as it relates to real calories based purely on work. My MFP app is linked to my iCardio app and it imports the calories recorded based on my HRM data and their calculations.

    I've been doing indoor cycling for 6 or 7 years now and it's a toss-up as far as a split between more HIIT style and steady state style classes. I'd like to get a more accurate number of actual calories burned so my daily records can be useful towards my goals. The bikes are no help either. They have Keisers at the gyms I attend and calibration is radically different between locations. I'll start "working" at 150W on one bike and 200W at another.

    I'm more a fan of steady state workouts where I can hold a high HR for relatively long periods. Perhaps taking a sample of this type of activity on various bikes and producing a mean watt output for a specific period would allow for a 'rate' I can use based on the bike's numbers and not my HRM numbers?

    Do you have an outdoor bike? Can you borrow or rent one if not?

    Some shops rent power meters. Last time I looked into it was a few years ago and the rate I found was $75/week. Being in Seattle, I have options locally, but you can do this over the internet with shipping too.

    If you want a power meter for a week and do several rides with it, you'll gain a much better idea about your energy expenditure on a bike in different contexts. The $ isn't trivial, but it's fair for the knowledge you can gain.
  • fishgutzy
    fishgutzy Posts: 2,807 Member
    My Y uses Keiser spin bikes. They measure power in Watts. Total energy is a function id one's average power over time.
    It is probably more accurate than other methods as it directly measures power regardless arrested or standing.
    My peak power during a sprint holl climb was about 600W.
    Total kCal highest was around 900 for 1 hour class.
    So I'm pretty sure those in better condition than I, are capable of 1K or higher.
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
    I
    Honestly, I always found cardio too boring and a lot of work for little reward.

    I think this is a personal preference. I'd rather run outside for an hour than lift for an hour, but I recognize I need to do both.


    Well, biking for me.

    I can bike 50 miles and make a round trip to a nice coffee shop with friends.

    I've yet to figure out how to get anywhere lifting weights.

    However, I too recognize the importance of a good mix of resistance and cardio training.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    darkmatter661 wrote: »
    I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.

    I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.

    In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html

    But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.

    The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.

    Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?

    I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,213 Member
    FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
    Honestly, I always found cardio too boring and a lot of work for little reward. After all of that work if you eat too much food because your hungry, you just lost the calorie burning benefits of the workout.
    Shots fired!
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    darkmatter661 wrote: »
    I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.

    I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.

    In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html

    But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.

    The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.

    Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?

    I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.

    I can't edit my post for some reason, but based on the MET value for "bicycling, stationary, 201-270 watts, very vigorous effort" (14 METs) it seems totally doable. The MET value is based off of the compendium of physical activities which was/is a study conducted by a number of Universities. I made a calculator a little while back which has about 90 activities from the compendium to choose from. Here's a link if you'd like to check out other MET values for other intensities of bicycling:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit?usp=drivesdk
  • FitFamilyGuy
    FitFamilyGuy Posts: 73 Member
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
    Honestly, I always found cardio too boring and a lot of work for little reward. After all of that work if you eat too much food because your hungry, you just lost the calorie burning benefits of the workout.
    Shots fired!

    Haha!.... so funny. I didn't think of it that way. Good post.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    darkmatter661 wrote: »
    I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.

    I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.

    In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html

    But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.

    The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.

    Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?

    I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.

    I can't edit my post for some reason, but based on the MET value for "bicycling, stationary, 201-270 watts, very vigorous effort" (14 METs) it seems totally doable. The MET value is based off of the compendium of physical activities which was/is a study conducted by a number of Universities. I made a calculator a little while back which has about 90 activities from the compendium to choose from. Here's a link if you'd like to check out other MET values for other intensities of bicycling:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit?usp=drivesdk
    @moe0303
    The problem with using METS is that it is in relation to a person's weight.
    That's fine for many exercises but not for a non-weight bearing exercise like stationary cycling.

    A 168lb person like me at 200w would be burning virtually the same net calories as a much heavier (or lighter) person also producing 200w but our MET values are different.
    There a difference in gross calories but that's not what you really want to be calculating for exercise calorie burns.

    BTW - the Compendium is one of the sources of information that the exercise database here sources. For outdoor cycling they are also pretty useless and a really poor way to estimate.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    darkmatter661 wrote: »
    I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.

    I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.

    In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html

    But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.

    The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.

    Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?

    I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.

    I can't edit my post for some reason, but based on the MET value for "bicycling, stationary, 201-270 watts, very vigorous effort" (14 METs) it seems totally doable. The MET value is based off of the compendium of physical activities which was/is a study conducted by a number of Universities. I made a calculator a little while back which has about 90 activities from the compendium to choose from. Here's a link if you'd like to check out other MET values for other intensities of bicycling:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit?usp=drivesdk
    @moe0303
    The problem with using METS is that it is in relation to a person's weight.
    That's fine for many exercises but not for a non-weight bearing exercise like stationary cycling.

    A 168lb person like me at 200w would be burning virtually the same net calories as a much heavier (or lighter) person also producing 200w but our MET values are different.
    There a difference in gross calories but that's not what you really want to be calculating for exercise calorie burns.

    BTW - the Compendium is one of the sources of information that the exercise database here sources. For outdoor cycling they are also pretty useless and a really poor way to estimate.

    Ok, but what is the margin of error? Do you know of any alternative methods are there to estimate this activity? As far as I am concerned, I take most estimates that we use for the CICO equation as ball park numbers.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited February 2019
    moe0303 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    darkmatter661 wrote: »
    I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.

    I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.

    In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html

    But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.

    The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.

    Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?

    I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.

    I can't edit my post for some reason, but based on the MET value for "bicycling, stationary, 201-270 watts, very vigorous effort" (14 METs) it seems totally doable. The MET value is based off of the compendium of physical activities which was/is a study conducted by a number of Universities. I made a calculator a little while back which has about 90 activities from the compendium to choose from. Here's a link if you'd like to check out other MET values for other intensities of bicycling:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit?usp=drivesdk
    @moe0303
    The problem with using METS is that it is in relation to a person's weight.
    That's fine for many exercises but not for a non-weight bearing exercise like stationary cycling.

    A 168lb person like me at 200w would be burning virtually the same net calories as a much heavier (or lighter) person also producing 200w but our MET values are different.
    There a difference in gross calories but that's not what you really want to be calculating for exercise calorie burns.

    BTW - the Compendium is one of the sources of information that the exercise database here sources. For outdoor cycling they are also pretty useless and a really poor way to estimate.

    Ok, but what is the margin of error? Do you know of any alternative methods are there to estimate this activity? As far as I am concerned, I take most estimates that we use for the CICO equation as ball park numbers.

    Read my posts on page one.....
    Measuring power is by far the most accurate method.

    Agree with your comment about ballpark for most activities.
    Outdoor rides I use Garmin (sometimes just Strava) and their estimates are reasonable and usable, Garmin tends to underestimate easy paced rides, Strava on its own is about right despite estimating gross calories (it doesn't know how awful my aero is). If I used the METS speed ranges for outdoor riding the estimates tend to be about 50% too high for me as a road cyclist.
    For a person with a heavy bike riding off road they might be in that ballpark of reasonable.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories