Views on recumbent bike

andreadahlgren6213

Hi there - joined mfp a couple of months ago and wanted to focus on establishing some regular habits, so I chose the cardio that I wnjoy the most - the recumbent bike. I am wondering what others think about this as an intro to workouts.

I bike for 20-40 minutes every day because I’m more likely to stick with a daily routine than anything else. I use a program that changes the intensity throughout the workout (increases to a peak, decreases to a low, increases to a peak again, then decreases to a low). I have been increasing the resistance every so often to ensure that my heart rate stays up (started at a level 8 or 9 and am now at 17).

My questions are:
1. Do you think the calorie burn is accurate (currently about 500 calories for 40 min at level 17)?
2. I am planning to add rowing and then trx workouts, but should I be concerned about this being my main/only cardio?

riffraff2112

I dont think any machine gives an accurate reading for calories burned. Better to use an online app that you can personalize for your age and weight. I wouldnt be concerned if you chose these as cardio choices. I would recommend some weight training as well though!

The recumbent bike is not nearly the calorie burn that running on a treadmill, or even an elliptical gives because you are using only your legs. You can incorporate sprints, and increased tension to add to your burn and it does have some advantages over other cardio machines.
1. it frees your hands to hold a book, or a phone so that you can read, distract yourself. I can sit on a bike for hours and play cards on my phone, or read a book. I even bring flashcards with me to study with. Cant do that on any other cardio machine!
2. No impact so other than a sore butt, it is something you can do and not be limping around nursing sore muscles for days.
3. It is a great intro machine to form a habit of working out like you mentioned.

amorfati601070

It’s not totally accurate but it would measure power (watts) which is probably the best way to determine the amount of energy you used. Of course humans are biological and not pure mechanical though. If it measures your HR too then it should be pretty accurate.

Don’t use the recumbent one if you can avoid it. I think they’re bad for the knees. Get on the upright spin type instead.

aokoye

amorfati601070 wrote: »

It’s not totally accurate but it would measure power (watts) which is probably the best way to determine the amount of energy you used. Of course humans are biological and not pure mechanical though. If it measures your HR too then it should be pretty accurate.

Don’t use the recumbent one if you can avoid it. I think they’re bad for the knees. Get on the upright spin type instead.

What's your reasoning with regards to recumbent bikes being bad for knees? Also not all power meters are created equally with regards to accuracy. If, for example, you need to do a zero offset/calibrate your power meter (per the manufacturer's instructions) and you're not doing that, it's not going to be as accurate as if you had followed the manufacturer's instructions. Never mind that we don't know if there's a power meter in the recumbent that the OP is using, how it's calculating calories (regardless as to whether or not there is a PM), etc.

aokoye

I highly doubt the calorie count is close to accurate, highly highly doubt. This is one of those situations where eating back half your exercise calories until you can determine an amount that seems right (on the basis of how much we're you're losing each week) makes sense. Having rowing and cycling, or just rowing or cycling be your primary form of cardio is fine. Those are my primary forms of cardio and I know a number of people who are in the same. I row competitively on the water so there's a lot of bias there. I also know a number of people who are competitive cyclists and more who are recreational, so again, lots of bias.

The main thing with using a rowing machine is making sure that you're doing it correctly. This has both to do with making sure you're actually exercising effectively and also from an injury prevention standpoint. Watching the videos that Concept2 has made is going to be your best bet for that as well as reading their how to information.

cowleyl

aokoye wrote: »

amorfati601070 wrote: »

It’s not totally accurate but it would measure power (watts) which is probably the best way to determine the amount of energy you used. Of course humans are biological and not pure mechanical though. If it measures your HR too then it should be pretty accurate.

Don’t use the recumbent one if you can avoid it. I think they’re bad for the knees. Get on the upright spin type instead.

What's your reasoning with regards to recumbent bikes being bad for knees? Also not all power meters are created equally with regards to accuracy. If, for example, you need to do a zero offset/calibrate your power meter (per the manufacturer's instructions) and you're not doing that, it's not going to be as accurate as if you had followed the manufacturer's instructions. Never mind that we don't know if there's a power meter in the recumbent that the OP is using, how it's calculating calories (regardless as to whether or not there is a PM), etc.

I respectfully disagree about recumbent bikes being bad for your knees. I use my recumbent bike almost every day. I had a double total knee replacement 12 months ago, and the work I did on my recumbent bike in the six months prior strengthened my knees and I had an amazing recovery. I could really feel the difference.

zebasschick

my physical therapist and a couple sports medicine doctors i've talked to feel recumbents are better for your knees in general.

i suspect it depends on your personal ergonomics and the ergonomics of your bike.

our schwinn recumbent was more comfortable for both of us than our xterra, and there was a schwinn - i think it was the A20 - where the rail is more vertical that feels totally different to my legs than the schwinn we owned, which was the 250. different bikes can have slightly different lengths of pedal cranks, and to me, at 5' 3", that matters. and i tried one brand where the front of the seat was tilted slightly upward, which wasn't a good thing for me but some people love that bike.

sijomial

" Do you think the calorie burn is accurate (currently about 500 calories for 40 min at level 17)? "

No - sounds like it is a very badly inflated estimate.
That would require elite level of power for a female cyclist operating at extreme effort for the entire 40 minutes.

"I am planning to add rowing and then trx workouts, but should I be concerned about this being my main/only cardio? "

Depends on your goals and what you enjoy. I would be more concerned if it's your only exercise as opposed to your only cardio. Certainly fine as an intro if you enjoy it.

aokoye

cowleyl wrote: »

aokoye wrote: »

amorfati601070 wrote: »

It’s not totally accurate but it would measure power (watts) which is probably the best way to determine the amount of energy you used. Of course humans are biological and not pure mechanical though. If it measures your HR too then it should be pretty accurate.

Don’t use the recumbent one if you can avoid it. I think they’re bad for the knees. Get on the upright spin type instead.

What's your reasoning with regards to recumbent bikes being bad for knees? Also not all power meters are created equally with regards to accuracy. If, for example, you need to do a zero offset/calibrate your power meter (per the manufacturer's instructions) and you're not doing that, it's not going to be as accurate as if you had followed the manufacturer's instructions. Never mind that we don't know if there's a power meter in the recumbent that the OP is using, how it's calculating calories (regardless as to whether or not there is a PM), etc.

I respectfully disagree about recumbent bikes being bad for your knees. I use my recumbent bike almost every day. I had a double total knee replacement 12 months ago, and the work I did on my recumbent bike in the six months prior strengthened my knees and I had an amazing recovery. I could really feel the difference.

Just for clarification, I wasn't saying that recumbents are bad for your knees. I was wondering what amorfati601070's logic was. While I was rarely on a recumbent after my knee surgeries as I personally just don't enjoy them as much, there were definitely times during physical therapy sessions when I'd be on one.

vivo1972

I ride a recumbent outside and burn the same calories as an upright. If the terrain is hilly I will burn more on the recumbent - can the machine recline the seat and give you a pulling up a hill feeling?
PS they are good for the knees ignore that, one of my mates has one leg and rides a recumbent for this very reason.

NorthCascades

Cycling in general is good for your knees.

Recommend bikes are the only choice if you wear Birkenstocks and have a beard that goes down to your belly button. 🚴‍♂️

aokoye

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIsa0L5UNgs

andreadahlgren6213

Thank you for the feedback - I appreciate the various perspectives offered here.

Yes, that is my only exercise so far, but I am moving from a pretty much sedentary lifestyle (I’m a counsellor and spend my day sitting and talking) with occasional ski days and the odd walk.

My plan is gradually build a consistent, well balanced routine that I can maintain for years to come. I started with the bike because I really enjoy reading or watching a show. I have been consistent (almost daily) for almost ten weeks and am ready to build on what I’ve started. I suspected the calorie burn was a high estimate, but I wanted to focus on the habit itself.

My next step is to incorporate some strength training routines and I have found some approachable routines on one of the mfp forums (thank you mfp!).

Thank you for sharing helpful views and insights!