Recumbent bike

chulipa
chulipa Posts: 650 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Im looking for advice on calories burned using a recumbent bike. I ride for 1 hour at 15-17 mph and bike gives me 577 calories burned, but MFP gives over 1000 and other online sites give as much as 1200. I know these take my weight, age, sex. How can it be that much? Im 5'7",254lbs,female,55yrs old.
If anyone has an answer to this its hard to know how many calories I should eat back
«1

Replies

  • HollyPFlax
    HollyPFlax Posts: 79 Member
    If your goal is weight loss, I would start by using the lowest calorie estimate given to you. It's very difficult to figure out how many calories you burn through exercise. Myfitnesspal also has some entries that are ridiculously high. If you find that you are losing weight too quickly, then you can assume a higher calorie burn. I personally have found my fitbit to be pretty accurate because it has my height and weight information and also tracks my heart rate.
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    edited May 2019
    A calorie burn calculation that uses your heart rate in addition to your other relevant demographics will be more accurate, I would definitely consider buying a fitness tracker with a heart rate monitor.

    For what it is worth, I looked up my last workout on a recumbent bike from February and I burned about 9 calories per minute (male, 6', 49, 170lbs), so your burn of 577 over 60 minutes seems reasonable :smile:
  • Katmary71
    Katmary71 Posts: 7,078 Member
    I use a recumbent bike too I agree that MFP greatly over-estimates the calories burned. I've been eating back about 1/4 of what it says.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    chulipa wrote: »
    Im looking for advice on calories burned using a recumbent bike. I ride for 1 hour at 15-17 mph and bike gives me 577 calories burned,

    Probably closer to 400. Bikes are a special case when it comes to calories. Runners don't have a complex machine with gearing choices, a free wheel, and the ability to sit and rest. The things people normally use to guess calories aren't relevant on a bike.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    The calorie burn for the Biking with speed in the database is for outside - when you accomplish that against wind and road resistance.

    No such increase of power when inside and given a speed estimate. And that speed estimate is based on who knows what usually.

    Those types of bikes usually use a motor for resistance, so it knows exactly how many watts used to resist you - which means you have the most accurate measurement of energy spent with power to the pedals.
    But it doesn't include any other energy spent - which sitting on recumbent isn't that much.

    So use it's calorie burn - log it as bike riding whatever speed you want - replace calorie burn with your better figure.

    Enjoy your extra food on those days, you earned it.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
    A calorie burn calculation that uses your heart rate in addition to your other relevant demographics will be more accurate, I would definitely consider buying a fitness tracker with a heart rate monitor.

    For what it is worth, I looked up my last workout on a recumbent bike from February and I burned about 9 calories per minute (male, 6', 49, 170lbs), so your burn of 577 over 60 minutes seems reasonable :smile:

    The only accurate way to measure calories in a bike is with a power meter. A good heart rate monitor will be off as much as 300% for bike calories.

    As with everything else, calories are a matter of work done. Most of the work of riding a bike at any speed involves overcoming air resistance. Recumbent bikes are so massively aerodynamic compared to road bikes, that unless you adjust cda you'll be way way over.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    edited May 2019
    The 577 may be close, but it would also be counting cals you would have burned had you not worked out (gross cals) It is net cals burned you should input to MFP, so if you burn say 1.5 cals/minute (based on maintenance cals) you would have burned 90 cals in the hour, so net burn would be 485ish, which I would say 5-7 cals per minute sounds reasonable for that type of exercise.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Riding a recumbent bike outside doing 15-17MPH could be a 577 cals could be a reasonable estimate but if you mean a recumbent indoor exercise bike it does zero MPH. You cannot compare speed between a stationary bike and an outdoor bike.

    1000 cals/hour would be possible by an outstanding cyclist.

    I suspect you don't possess extraordinary fitness levels but being heavy those 1000 & 1200 estimates are a failing of databases that factors your weight and METS for a non-weight bearing exercise (I'm assuming you mean indoors).

    My guess based on your stats, gender and age is that I would be surprised if your bike isn't being over-generous, could perhaps be a reasonable gross calorie estimate. It's probably within the realms of reasonable/usable.
  • chulipa
    chulipa Posts: 650 Member
    Thanks everyone this is an indoor excersise bike and the calories on MFP is for a indoor excersise bike. I went to a local gym and asked them and he said most burn about 100 calories but that might be low. I guess it would be easier just not to eat any calories back then I can't go wrong, and if Im wrong on my food log I will be ok
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    chulipa wrote: »
    Thanks everyone this is an indoor excersise bike and the calories on MFP is for a indoor excersise bike. I went to a local gym and asked them and he said most burn about 100 calories but that might be low. I guess it would be easier just not to eat any calories back then I can't go wrong, and if Im wrong on my food log I will be ok


    Easier but wrong.
    Your daily goal is computed for a day without any exercise. Zero is guaranteed to be wrong.

    It's a fallacy you have to be accurate to get perfectly usable estimates. Your indoor bike is simply doing a better job for this particular exercise compared to the entry you picked out of the hundreds in the database here.

    That doesn't invalidate the method of eating back exercise calories though.

    PS - seems liked you spoke to the village idiot at the gym! 100 cals is ridiculously low for an hour of exercise.

  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    Stupid question, but if it's a stationary bike at the gym, does it not tell you how many cals your burning?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    chulipa wrote: »
    Thanks everyone this is an indoor excersise bike and the calories on MFP is for a indoor excersise bike. I went to a local gym and asked them and he said most burn about 100 calories but that might be low. I guess it would be easier just not to eat any calories back then I can't go wrong, and if Im wrong on my food log I will be ok

    That's the only guaranteed wrong amount - 0.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Stupid question, but if it's a stationary bike at the gym, does it not tell you how many cals your burning?

    It did - read posts above.

    This also depends on how it's estimating that.
    Motor for watts of resistance.
    Or brake pads and estimating speed and calories.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Take the lower estimate (577) and start by using about 2/3 of that. I think 577 is pretty high for a stationary bike, and am surprised MFP would give double that, as my guess is it's more like 400 or so (you weigh more than me, which can increase calories, but I don't think it would make as much of a difference for something like biking).

    I'm also wondering if you got an estimate from the bike at the gym, as that's often a good option.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Stupid question, but if it's a stationary bike at the gym, does it not tell you how many cals your burning?

    It did - read posts above.

    This also depends on how it's estimating that.
    Motor for watts of resistance.
    Or brake pads and estimating speed and calories.

    oh, duh...
    my bad.

    If it's from the stationary bike, I'd say it's as reasonable as any estimate you'll get.
  • chulipa
    chulipa Posts: 650 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Stupid question, but if it's a stationary bike at the gym, does it not tell you how many cals your burning?

    No this is one is mine I just asked a gym
  • chulipa
    chulipa Posts: 650 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Stupid question, but if it's a stationary bike at the gym, does it not tell you how many cals your burning?

    It did - read posts above.

    This also depends on how it's estimating that.
    Motor for watts of resistance.
    Or brake pads and estimating speed and calories.

    oh, duh...
    my bad.

    If it's from the stationary bike, I'd say it's as reasonable as any estimate you'll get.

    Thanks Im just trying to figure this out without being to wrong
  • chulipa
    chulipa Posts: 650 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    chulipa wrote: »
    Thanks everyone this is an indoor excersise bike and the calories on MFP is for a indoor excersise bike. I went to a local gym and asked them and he said most burn about 100 calories but that might be low. I guess it would be easier just not to eat any calories back then I can't go wrong, and if Im wrong on my food log I will be ok

    That's the only guaranteed wrong amount - 0.

    I know just get flustered walking and riding this bike is all I do until my knee replacement stops hurting
  • chulipa
    chulipa Posts: 650 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Take the lower estimate (577) and start by using about 2/3 of that. I think 577 is pretty high for a stationary bike, and am surprised MFP would give double that, as my guess is it's more like 400 or so (you weigh more than me, which can increase calories, but I don't think it would make as much of a difference for something like biking).

    I'm also wondering if you got an estimate from the bike at the gym, as that's often a good option.

    No just asked
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    edited May 2019
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
    A calorie burn calculation that uses your heart rate in addition to your other relevant demographics will be more accurate, I would definitely consider buying a fitness tracker with a heart rate monitor.

    For what it is worth, I looked up my last workout on a recumbent bike from February and I burned about 9 calories per minute (male, 6', 49, 170lbs), so your burn of 577 over 60 minutes seems reasonable :smile:

    The only accurate way to measure calories in a bike is with a power meter. A good heart rate monitor will be off as much as 300% for bike calories.

    As with everything else, calories are a matter of work done. Most of the work of riding a bike at any speed involves overcoming air resistance. Recumbent bikes are so massively aerodynamic compared to road bikes, that unless you adjust cda you'll be way way over.

    I have been in sustainment for 5 years maintaining the same general weight, with nothing more than a heart rate monitor to calculate calorie burns so that I can eat back 100% of what I burn. I cycle 2-3 days per week and haven't noticed a variance between the calories estimated from my HRM while cycling in comparison to other things I do (running, lifting, swimming, boxing, etc.). If it overestimated by 300% that would be very evident on the scale each week.

    While I understand that a power meter greatly enhances the accuracy for cycling and HRMs are not perfect, an HRM is better than just guessing or using generic tables 🤷‍♂️ Plus, the only time that I ever use a recumbent cycle is at a hotel or commercial gym, installing a power meter isn't practical :)
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    I didn't say it overestimates by 300% on every ride, I said the error can be anywhere from 0 to 300 %. Contrary to what people say, intervals vs a steadier pace don't have any discernable impact on accuracy.
  • chulipa
    chulipa Posts: 650 Member
    Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
    A calorie burn calculation that uses your heart rate in addition to your other relevant demographics will be more accurate, I would definitely consider buying a fitness tracker with a heart rate monitor.

    For what it is worth, I looked up my last workout on a recumbent bike from February and I burned about 9 calories per minute (male, 6', 49, 170lbs), so your burn of 577 over 60 minutes seems reasonable :smile:

    The only accurate way to measure calories in a bike is with a power meter. A good heart rate monitor will be off as much as 300% for bike calories.

    As with everything else, calories are a matter of work done. Most of the work of riding a bike at any speed involves overcoming air resistance. Recumbent bikes are so massively aerodynamic compared to road bikes, that unless you adjust cda you'll be way way over.

    I have been in sustainment for 5 years maintaining the same general weight, with nothing more than a heart rate monitor to calculate calorie burns so that I can eat back 100% of what I burn. I cycle 2-3 days per week and haven't noticed a variance between the calories estimated from my HRM while cycling in comparison to other things I do (running, lifting, swimming, boxing, etc.). If it overestimated by 300% that would be very evident on the scale each week.

    While I understand that a power meter greatly enhances the accuracy for cycling and HRMs are not perfect, an HRM is better than just guessing or using generic tables 🤷‍♂️ Plus, the only time that I ever use a recumbent cycle is at a hotel or commercial gym, installing a power meter isn't practical :)

    I bought one because I new it was easier on my back and knees. Maybe I will look into a HRM are they expensive?
  • phred_52
    phred_52 Posts: 189 Member
    I'm 57, 5'8, 200lb when recently started, now at 188. I do 2 hrs recumbent bike and it shows on avg 600-635 for 60 min. I've used many online calculators too, quite similar. But no matter what is used to show calories burned, i take with a grain of salt.
  • chulipa
    chulipa Posts: 650 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    chulipa wrote: »
    Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
    A calorie burn calculation that uses your heart rate in addition to your other relevant demographics will be more accurate, I would definitely consider buying a fitness tracker with a heart rate monitor.

    For what it is worth, I looked up my last workout on a recumbent bike from February and I burned about 9 calories per minute (male, 6', 49, 170lbs), so your burn of 577 over 60 minutes seems reasonable :smile:

    The only accurate way to measure calories in a bike is with a power meter. A good heart rate monitor will be off as much as 300% for bike calories.

    As with everything else, calories are a matter of work done. Most of the work of riding a bike at any speed involves overcoming air resistance. Recumbent bikes are so massively aerodynamic compared to road bikes, that unless you adjust cda you'll be way way over.

    I have been in sustainment for 5 years maintaining the same general weight, with nothing more than a heart rate monitor to calculate calorie burns so that I can eat back 100% of what I burn. I cycle 2-3 days per week and haven't noticed a variance between the calories estimated from my HRM while cycling in comparison to other things I do (running, lifting, swimming, boxing, etc.). If it overestimated by 300% that would be very evident on the scale each week.

    While I understand that a power meter greatly enhances the accuracy for cycling and HRMs are not perfect, an HRM is better than just guessing or using generic tables 🤷‍♂️ Plus, the only time that I ever use a recumbent cycle is at a hotel or commercial gym, installing a power meter isn't practical :)

    I bought one because I new it was easier on my back and knees. Maybe I will look into a HRM are they expensive?

    Highly unlikely a HRM will do anything except massively over-estimate your calories for you.
    For people who are average in build and fitness they may get somewhat close - even then there's a good chance they would be less accurate than your machine which isn't guessing.
    (I had a sophisticated HRM, I'm average weight, well above average fitness with a low exercise HR and it still over-estimated for steady state and massively over-estimated for interval training.)


    Personally I think fellow cyclist @NorthCascades finger in the air estimate of 400 would be good.
    I also think simply using your bike's estimate won't cause you any issues for the purpose of weight loss.

    Great advice I will go around 400 to start with
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    I suspect 400 is a little high for the estimated 15-17mph inside. Last Monday I did an hour on my bike inside with a pedal based power meter and burned 420 calories. That was with my speed sensor saying I went an average 20mph. 350 might be a little more reasonable for the OP.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    phred_52 wrote: »
    If I understand this correctly...there is "Nothing" that will ever give 100% accurate calories burned. Meaning "all" sites just need to do away with calories burned calculators. Regardless of what excercise is done.

    I get that right?

    Seat belts don't save people in 100% of car accidents, should we just do away with them too?

Categories