Regular stationary bike vs recumbent stationary bike.

maryh1986

I wonder if anybody else has experience with this. I have a recumbent stationary bike and I worked out for 30 minutes today on it and I felt like I really but in a vigorous effort. The readout says I was going at an average of 22.7 mph and I burned 250 calories and went 11.1 miles. But the only match up that got close to the number of calories I burned was the very light effort (30 minutes = 221 calories). I wouldn't consider this light effort because it kicked my butt, I am like soaked with sweat right now.

I'm wondering if a spin bike for 30 minutes yields better results then a recumbent bike. Does anyone have any advice? I could up the resistance on my bike if that might help burn more calories but I'm not sure what affect that would have. Thanks.

AnninStPaul

I would not trust the readout on your bike -- my bike underreports my heart rate by 1/3 and overestimates calories by 1/2...not a good combination. Have you tried using an HRM?

Sp1nGoddess

You'll burn massive calories in a spinning class. A spin bike or standard exercise bike burns more than the recumbent simply because you have to engage your upper body to maintain balance, rather than sitting and leaning back. Increased resistance does of course increase your calorie burn. Machines are notoriously inaccurate in their calorie calculations.

maryh1986

Yea. I'll have to get a HRM, this is missing the gauge for HRM. I got the bike for free from my mother though because she wasn't using it. She also has an elliptical and a treadmill she doesn't use but I live in an apartment and don't have the room for them.