Extremely slow progress! What is going on?!
Options
Replies
-
More data to consider. 1 hour road ride for me, hilly, averaging around 12/13 mph (because I go 12 miles in just under an hourspiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
- I hit 30 mph on the downhills, uphills are more of a turtle pace at times) is 450 calories according to my Garmin. I’m female, 5’4” and 145lbs.
ETA: I just started doing virtual Sprint triathlons and in that 2ish hour span I burn less than 1000 calories - last one was around 800. 5 minute swim or row, 12 mile bike (the hills kick my butt! Takes me just shy of an hour to complete), and 5k run (35ish minutes).3 -
moonangel12 wrote: »
More data to consider. 1 hour road ride for me, hilly, averaging around 12/13 mph (because I go 12 miles in just under an hourspiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph. - I hit 30 mph on the downhills, uphills are more of a turtle pace at times) is 450 calories according to my Garmin. I’m female, 5’4” and 145lbs.
ETA: I just started doing virtual Sprint triathlons and in that 2ish hour span I burn less than 1000 calories - last one was around 800. 5 minute swim or row, 12 mile bike (the hills kick my butt! Takes me just shy of an hour to complete), and 5k run (35ish minutes).
But how do you know your garmin estimates correctly? Have you set your maximum heartrate for cycling, is there any estimate of the power involved? Just because a technical gadget says you burn so many calories doesn't mean you really burn so much. Now if you were to track your calories absolutely meticulously and had a good idea of your average NEAT, measured over a period without sport, and then only added regular cycling then you'd get a good idea if it's correct or not. Or a power meter on your bike.1 -
The point I'm trying to make is that both 300cals (83watt average) for an hour and 450cals (125watts average) for an hour are perfectly believable as the range that people ride at / are capable of is so wide.
What doesn't jive is such a low power output / calorie burn and 22mph - that would involve a simply fantastically long downhill descent and I'd love to know where I could ride downhill for an hour.
My suspicion is that (not unusually) some people don't realise that "speed" displayed on a stationary bike isn't a true metric or comparison to actual speed.
If the OP wants to share her power output and duration I'd be happy to work out the calories.3 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".
But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.
Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.4 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".
But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.
Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.
Someone throwing a hopeless estimate at the OP ("I'm going really, really fast for an hour and only burning 300cals") is just plain unhelpful. People can share good estimates and that can be slightly helpful for comparison (not as helpful as sharing good methods though) but that is not a good estimate as described - it's actually terribly misleading and of no help to anyone.
BTW weight is a very poor indicator of power on a bike (non-weight bearing exercise). There's people who weigh far less than me burning DOUBLE what I can do. There's also people weighing far more than me burning a whole lot less....
Are the OP's overall/combined exercise estimates exaggerated? Oh yes - more than likely.
If the Peleton bike measures power and uses the correct maths it could be very accurate but need to hear feedback from the OP. A breakdown of all the exercise estimating methods and numbers would help enormously.
3 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".
But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.
Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.
I would actually think that these kind of sprints on a stationary bike are easier for someone that is heavier. They can press more weight into the pedals and can preserve energy pulling the opposite pedal up.1 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".
But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.
Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.
I would actually think that these kind of sprints on a stationary bike are easier for someone that is heavier. They can press more weight into the pedals and can preserve energy pulling the opposite pedal up.
I have no opinion on the calorie burn potential, specifically for heavy vs. light (except to agree with @sijomial that on a stationary bike, body weight is at most a minor factor). It's going to be more about strength and CV fitness.
But "easier"? As in subjectively easier? That, I have an opinion about, having done stationary (and regular) biking at the range of weights between 183 and 116, all of that at similar strength and fitness levels. It's subjectively easier when lighter, no question.
Sure, there's more weight to mash the pedal, with gravity. I don't see any advantage on the pull, which would IMO be more a strength issue (and it may actually be trivial harder on the pull because there's quite a lot of leg mass to move through space that isn't adding anything useful to the pull). Perhaps you're trying to say that the push on one side makes the pull on the other side easier . . . but why would I pull less than I can, just because I could?spiriteagle99 wrote: »Your bike calories are way too high. 60 minutes on the bike, covering 22 miles, burns less than 300 calories for me.
Really?
How are you measuring that? Because under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not correlate with 22mph. And is it outdoors (real miles) or a stationary bike (not really any miles at all)?
An hour an maximal effort indoors or outdoors (which if road and traffic conditions permitted I'd be delighted to do 22mph) would burn 821 net cals for me. For an much smaller, lighter female friend of mine who can actually do that sort of speed (real speed) more like 540 net cals.
Under 300 net cals for an hour really would be a very low power output and that does not compute with 22mph.
Sure, and I see why you'd comment on that. You're very tuned in to biking power and calorie requirements, which makes you a great resource on a issue like "22mph for 60 minutes is 300 calories of biking".
But OP is talking half an hour of Peleton bike. She's not going anywhere, and therefore not going 22mph. I'd say 300 calories may be plausible for a 183 pound woman spinning at intensity for half an hour, though it might still be on the high side if a relative beginner - hard to say. But that half hour, plus 20 minutes of yoga or lifting, is not 1000 calories. Not by itself, maybe part of 1000 as all-day active calories encompassing daily life activity plus exercise. And 700 (OP's lower number) is also unlikely, for 30 minutes spin + 20 minutes yoga or strength.
Spitballing, I personally wouldn't go much over 400 as an estimate for the exercise alone, for a 183 pound woman . . . having been one, and active, including some well-metered activity.
Someone throwing a hopeless estimate at the OP ("I'm going really, really fast for an hour and only burning 300cals") is just plain unhelpful. People can share good estimates and that can be slightly helpful for comparison (not as helpful as sharing good methods though) but that is not a good estimate as described - it's actually terribly misleading and of no help to anyone.
BTW weight is a very poor indicator of power on a bike (non-weight bearing exercise). There's people who weigh far less than me burning DOUBLE what I can do. There's also people weighing far more than me burning a whole lot less....
Are the OP's overall/combined exercise estimates exaggerated? Oh yes - more than likely.
If the Peleton bike measures power and uses the correct maths it could be very accurate but need to hear feedback from the OP. A breakdown of all the exercise estimating methods and numbers would help enormously.
Yes, agreed. My point was more that I felt like the "22 mph" thing was losing focus on the OP, and what she was actually doing (. . . and I didn't make that point especially clearly let alone succinctly ).
I'm quite prepared to be impressed if Peleton does sound calorie estimating based on watts, and says 500+ calories for half an hour is an accurate number, gross or net. (I'm quite certain yoga/strength isn't 200+ for 20 minutes.)
And I do understand that bodyweight is largely irrelevant for stationary bike, so citing equivalent BW in my PP is admittedly more "I've been there" than "there matters".
I could geek out badly here about estimating methods, but I'll restrain myself, in the interest of keeping the focus mainly on OP's scenario.
Calorie estimating generally is a pretty approximate process, from the calculator-based BMR estimate, to the food logging, to guesses on daily life activity, to exercise. Fortunately, some things tend to be over, others under; and personal methods consistency across all of those tends to make longer-term scale weight results a quite reliable guide to adjusting one's intake despite the level of error inherently involved. OP has some scale feedback.
0 -
Arguing about exact calorie burns aside, it looks like, based on real world results, the OP is either overestimating calories out or underestimating calories in. If logging is accurate and all foods are weighed, then the exercise calories are probably too high. Either way, the only solution to the problem is to cut calories until weight loss happens at the expected rate, since adding more exercise would be a recipe for burnout.12
-
-
-
Just to put your 1800-2000 calories into context, I'm a 65 year old male 186cm/currently 129kg, down from 141kg in 2 months. I walk often and cycle often as well. I fast 16 hrs a day and generally consume 1500 calories/day, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less. You can tell when you're burning fat from the taste in your mouth and the fact that although you are in calorie deficit, you don't feel terribly hungry. Well at least that's how it works for me.1
-
paulwatts747 wrote: »Just to put your 1800-2000 calories into context, I'm a 65 year old male 186cm/currently 129kg, down from 141kg in 2 months. I walk often and cycle often as well. I fast 16 hrs a day and generally consume 1500 calories/day, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less. You can tell when you're burning fat from the taste in your mouth and the fact that although you are in calorie deficit, you don't feel terribly hungry. Well at least that's how it works for me.
What taste tells you that you are burning fat?1 -
It's like the bottom of a birdcage. It's well documented.1
-
paulwatts747 wrote: »It's like the bottom of a birdcage. It's well documented.
Don't recall tasting a single birdcage bottom, the whole 50 pounds down at a pretty good clip. Glad to have avoided it . . . since it's so well documented.
Sorry to hear - sincerely - that that's how it works for you!5 -
paulwatts747 wrote: »It's like the bottom of a birdcage. It's well documented.
Weird I've lost plenty of weight and never tasted anything like that. Care to site your sources?3 -
Google is your friend. Try "ketosis". Obviously it doesn't happen to everyone. It's really not anything that sugar free gum can't fix.
While I'm here I'll just say that I am very reticent to post in this place because there is always someone who will suggest that you are wrong, or lying, or making it up. It's worse than Facebook.1 -
paulwatts747 wrote: »Google is your friend. Try "ketosis". Obviously it doesn't happen to everyone. It's really not anything that sugar free gum can't fix.
While I'm here I'll just say that I am very reticent to post in this place because there is always someone who will suggest that you are wrong, or lying, or making it up. It's worse than Facebook.
Ah: I can believe it, if in ketosis. Presumably it's unlikely to happen to most people who stick to carbs around 50% of calories, as I did. Low carb is not my jam. I should've guessed when you mentioned not only the taste, but also not being hungry. While I wasn't hungry at the 50%-ish carbs either, I know that some people find that reducing carbs/increasing fats helps with appetite control. Seems to be working for you, which is great!6 -
Who has actually licked a birdcage lol.
This thread is blowing my mind.
3 -
paulwatts747 wrote: »Google is your friend. Try "ketosis". Obviously it doesn't happen to everyone. It's really not anything that sugar free gum can't fix.
While I'm here I'll just say that I am very reticent to post in this place because there is always someone who will suggest that you are wrong, or lying, or making it up. It's worse than Facebook.
So it only happens to people who are in ketosis??
In that case, agreed, obviously it doesn't happen to everyone - since the vast majority of weight losers do so without going into ketosis.
Sounds a most unpleasant side effect of keto diet - yet another reason I am glad I did not lose weight via that route
Also agreed - this forum is worse than Facebook ( or better depending on your perspective) - unlike Facebook you can't just make unfounded sweeping statements without being asked to provide evidence or cite sources.
I wouldn't call that suggesting you are wrong or making it up or lying though - I would call it being asked to provide evidence or cite sources.6 -
paulwatts747 wrote: »Just to put your 1800-2000 calories into context, I'm a 65 year old male 186cm/currently 129kg, down from 141kg in 2 months. I walk often and cycle often as well. I fast 16 hrs a day and generally consume 1500 calories/day, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less. You can tell when you're burning fat from the taste in your mouth and the fact that although you are in calorie deficit, you don't feel terribly hungry. Well at least that's how it works for me.
1500 calories does not seem enough for a 186 cm tall male ( about 6ft 2 in for non metric readers)
That is absolute minimum for males, most of whom will be shorter than 186cm.
To put that into context I was a 163 cm tall female and I lost on almost that amount ( 1460)
And that is net amount - one is supposed to eat back exercise calories on top of the base level.( which I did)
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions