Recumbent Bikes

babillant
babillant Posts: 9
edited October 2 in Fitness and Exercise
Hello All,

I've been doing a recumbent bike at home for the last week and to burn around 385 calories I have to sit on it for 55 minutes at about 15-16 MPH "Rolling Hills" Program, Level 9-10. When I put in "stationary bike" to my fitness pal, if I put in 55 minutes "moderate pace" it says I've burned WAY more calories than what it says on the bike itself.

I don't know what to believe. Just to be on the safe side, I've been downgrading the minutes on myfitnesspal to reflect the calories it says I've burned on the recumbent bike, even though I'm working out almost twice as long as I've input on this site.

Any advice? Is there a way I can know exactly how many calories I'm burning? Would I need a heartrate monitor?

Thanks!

Babillant

10623458.png
Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Weight Loss Tools

Replies

  • Wuggums
    Wuggums Posts: 339 Member
    I regularly use my recumbent bike at home and have found that MFP way overestimates the calories burned. I have a Polar FT4 HRM, and the calorie burn it shows is usually pretty close to what is shown on the machine. I usually burn about 300-325 calories in 45-50 minutes on the bike doing a ramp interval program at Level 10, averaging about 15-17 MPH. So my advice is to go with the 385 calories burned that the machine is telling you.
  • Visser1971
    Visser1971 Posts: 131
    Hi there,

    I have one too and it calculates the calories based on RPM's. I usually burn about 500 according to the bike for a 45 minute session. That is pretty close to what is listed here on MFP, but I am really putting a lot of effort into it, so lots of RPM's - 60 to 80. I also have an integrated Heart Rate Monitor and work out in the 75% range (I am just starting) and can keep it there the whole workout.

    If you are doing 15-16 RPM's then that is quite low, so the 385 on your bike is likely more accurate and you need to list this as light effort instead of moderate.

    Hope this helps. Cheers, Christy
  • McKayMachina
    McKayMachina Posts: 2,670 Member
    Take your HR manually a few times during your workout, average it and enter it here:

    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    Works like a charm!

    Protip: Take it in 15-second intervals, then just average the readings and multiply by 4 at the end to get your bpm.
  • bethvandenberg
    bethvandenberg Posts: 1,496 Member
    when I do the bike (I wear an HRM) I do random hills or alpine pass, starting at 8 and going up from there, I burn about 426 in 55 min. :) Hope that helps.
  • msstep
    msstep Posts: 3
    Any info on the number of MFP calories burned on treadmill/ergometer compared to what the machine readout says? Is one more accurate than the other? If so, which one? thanks!
  • nickiben
    nickiben Posts: 117 Member
    I regularly use my recumbent bike at home and have found that MFP way overestimates the calories burned. I have a Polar FT4 HRM, and the calorie burn it shows is usually pretty close to what is shown on the machine. I usually burn about 300-325 calories in 45-50 minutes on the bike doing a ramp interval program at Level 10, averaging about 15-17 MPH. So my advice is to go with the 385 calories burned that the machine is telling you.

    I have the same HRM as MFP and the gym machines were all way off
  • nickiben
    nickiben Posts: 117 Member
    I regularly use my recumbent bike at home and have found that MFP way overestimates the calories burned. I have a Polar FT4 HRM, and the calorie burn it shows is usually pretty close to what is shown on the machine. I usually burn about 300-325 calories in 45-50 minutes on the bike doing a ramp interval program at Level 10, averaging about 15-17 MPH. So my advice is to go with the 385 calories burned that the machine is telling you.

    I have the same HRM as MFP and the gym machines were all way off
  • babillant
    babillant Posts: 9
    Hi there,

    I have one too and it calculates the calories based on RPM's. I usually burn about 500 according to the bike for a 45 minute session. That is pretty close to what is listed here on MFP, but I am really putting a lot of effort into it, so lots of RPM's - 60 to 80. I also have an integrated Heart Rate Monitor and work out in the 75% range (I am just starting) and can keep it there the whole workout.

    If you are doing 15-16 RPM's then that is quite low, so the 385 on your bike is likely more accurate and you need to list this as light effort instead of moderate.

    Hope this helps. Cheers, Christy

    Thanks! And Whoops I think I meant 15-17 MPH, not RPM :-P
  • babillant
    babillant Posts: 9
    I regularly use my recumbent bike at home and have found that MFP way overestimates the calories burned. I have a Polar FT4 HRM, and the calorie burn it shows is usually pretty close to what is shown on the machine. I usually burn about 300-325 calories in 45-50 minutes on the bike doing a ramp interval program at Level 10, averaging about 15-17 MPH. So my advice is to go with the 385 calories burned that the machine is telling you.

    Thanks for the info, looks like I'm sticking to what the bike says!
  • VeganGal84
    VeganGal84 Posts: 938 Member
    Interesting! My recumbant bike is actually pretty close to what the calorie count on MFP gives. Maybe 20-50 calories off, but not too extreme!

    For example, last night I did 60 minutes of high intensity (cranking up the resistance every 5 minutes and pumping legs HARD) and the machine said 678 calories burned, and MFP said 699. Not a huge difference!
  • babillant
    babillant Posts: 9
    Interesting! My recumbant bike is actually pretty close to what the calorie count on MFP gives. Maybe 20-50 calories off, but not too extreme!

    For example, last night I did 60 minutes of high intensity (cranking up the resistance every 5 minutes and pumping legs HARD) and the machine said 678 calories burned, and MFP said 699. Not a huge difference!

    You go girl! Sounds like you do intense... not quite there yet myself! Working on getting used to working out first, but you are a true motivation!
  • VeganGal84
    VeganGal84 Posts: 938 Member
    Interesting! My recumbant bike is actually pretty close to what the calorie count on MFP gives. Maybe 20-50 calories off, but not too extreme!

    For example, last night I did 60 minutes of high intensity (cranking up the resistance every 5 minutes and pumping legs HARD) and the machine said 678 calories burned, and MFP said 699. Not a huge difference!

    You go girl! Sounds like you do intense... not quite there yet myself! Working on getting used to working out first, but you are a true motivation!

    Thanks! I don't have an HRM, so I may be overestimating, too, but it hasn't affected my progress or anything, so I'm not going to worry about it.
  • chasfh
    chasfh Posts: 4
    I have a Diamondback 1100 and I do 35 minutes at roughly 90 RPM, which I would term as vigorous. I do the five five minutes at level 4, then kick it up to level 5 for the final thirty.

    When I look at the number of calories burned, it says: 950.

    That definitely seems high. I'll go with the 490 the MFP database has for stationary bikes.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories