Recumbent bike

Options
2»

Replies

  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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: 10,970 Member
    Options
    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?
  • phred_52
    phred_52 Posts: 189 Member
    Options
    aokoye wrote: »
    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?

    I'm assuming you're being facetious, but just in case - no that's not what anyone said. In a nutshell what people are saying is that you should take calorie estimates from some devices and/or websites with a larger grain of salt than others.
    I really need to learn the emoticons...it was meant as you said. Reckon' I need to keep my wacky sense of humor away..(grin)

    I've never taken such numbers to be accurate. I will say, the calories burned number on recumbent bike sure does look good...600+, 1hr...I'm just being funny with that comment. If I did, I would subtract 20-25%.

    The "only" numbers I care about are: beginning weight...goal weight...and number of months I want for reaching goal.
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    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?

    That's ridiculous.
    It would be dumb to think 100% accuracy is a requirement, just like food logging which can't be 100% accurate either.

    Should I log all my fresh produce as zero calories due to the natural variance between varieties and ripeness means I can't be 100% accurate?

    Reasonable is good enough for purpose on both sides of the CI/CO equation.

    Agreed, too many people allow the concept of "perfect" to impair the application of "good" or "adequate"

Categories