Cardio and the gains this site gives:

bigfuzzybear · September 2013

So, I'm a newbie to this stuff. I'm doing moderate (I think) effort on an exercise bike at my University's gym. It's the only Cardio I know of right now that I can do for long enough to benefit from it. I work out 3-4 times a week, And always do cardio when I work out. I am, as of last weigh-in, 293 pounds. People tell me there's a visible difference, so yay.

Anyway, now to my question: How much can I trust the calories-burned that this site gives? I did a full hour, non-stop biking and maintained a heartrate of 147-160 throughout the entire time. It told me that I burned 930 calories from what I did. I'm pretty sure the only way I could burn that many calories would be lighting myself on fire.

For note: Since I've started, I've had only one day where I've exceeded my caloric goal for the day. I never eat back my calories.

hilts1969 · September 2013

So, I'm a newbie to this stuff. I'm doing moderate (I think) effort on an exercise bike at my University's gym. It's the only Cardio I know of right now that I can do for long enough to benefit from it. I work out 3-4 times a week, And always do cardio when I work out. I am, as of last weigh-in, 293 pounds. People tell me there's a visible difference, so yay.

Anyway, now to my question: How much can I trust the calories-burned that this site gives? I did a full hour, non-stop biking and maintained a heartrate of 147-160 throughout the entire time. It told me that I burned 930 calories from what I did. I'm pretty sure the only way I could burn that many calories would be lighting myself on fire.

It is one of those areas that without the right equipment it would be hard to workout exactly, google different sites and get an average, well done with the hour though keep it up

bigfuzzybear · September 2013

For reference, I'm 6' tall. 1.82 meters, for metric-minded folks. And I don't know about the rest of my measurements. Haven't done them.

Mr_Knight · September 2013

I did a full hour, non-stop biking and maintained a heartrate of 147-160 throughout the entire time. It told me that I burned 930 calories from what I did. I'm pretty sure the only way I could burn that many calories would be lighting myself on fire.

That's a pretty solid workout. Is there any indication of how far you "travelled"? Ultimately, it's going to be distance that sets the parameters for your calorie burn

The guidelines are roughly 48 calories/mile for "slow" cycling and 58 calories/mile for "fast" cycling, based on a 190 pound person. If you weight more or less than that, simple scaling will get you close enough.

bigfuzzybear · September 2013

I got over 22 miles. My first time on the bike I did 13, so there's already HUGE progress. My workouts alternate between 50 minutes (little under 800 calories) if I'm going to be doing any lifting. A full hour at that pace, and I really don't have the energy to do enough lifting to even bother with it. I just don't track my lifting because it doesn't track any caloric process. Plus, I'm kind of hit or miss with it, depending on the Gym population. Lots of people there, less access to machines, etc.

Mr_Knight · September 2013

So 22 miles at 48 calories/mile -> 1056 calories. Derate by 20% -> 844 calories.

Sounds like your machine is in the right ballpark. If you are logging everything, including food, you'll be able to tell over time if there is a major discrepancy.

phjorg1 · September 2013

When you are heavier you burn more calories. I don't know your height/musculature, so I don't know how heavy 293 is for you, but if it is rather heavy for your frame it is possible that you burned this much.

Online calculators seem to put the burn for you at around 1,000 calories per hour according to your age/weight/average heart rate (148 bpm), so it looks like 930/hour could be fairly accurate.

when you're on a stationary bike it doesn't matter if you're a hundred pounds or a thousand pounds. you're not having to move your mass. just the machine resistance. So MFP will VASTLY overestimate calories burned for obese people on exercises like this.

to the OP. There is really no way to tell without more accurate data. I will say that 1000cal in an hour is a VERY high amount. And basically impossible for anyone who is new to exercise, or smaller in weight. Tour de france riders going full out burn about 700 calories in an hour. so using that as your metric, you're claiming you're burning like 50% more calories an hour than the heaviest burning athletes on the planet. So I would be highly sceptical of that number. If you want to see if you're capable of that sort of burn then hop on a treadmill and run at 5mph for an hour. If you can do that, congrats, your calorie burn on the bike is close to accurate.

bigfuzzybear · September 2013

I was doubting that the numbers it was giving were accurate. The bike reported almost a third of the calories lost, compared to MFP, but it only asked my age, not my weight. I keep hearing that big people lose calories faster. I was just wondering, mainly, if the difference between assumed healthy and my current state was that wide. Hence why i asked the question in the first place.

Side note: Tonight was the first time in a LONG time I've even eaten into my exercise. I'm calling this my cheat day, and I'm still 500 under goal, which puts me near a thousand calories under BMR. And that's from best-fitting things at a Chinese Buffet. We were meeting family. Could be high, could be low. Regardless, I'm exercising, I'm eating LESS on the whole, and I'm feeling better than I have in a long time. I've never been particularly healthy in my adult life. I now think I'm on my way to achieving that. And honestly, without this site, I'd probably still weigh over 300 pounds. This place, and the tools it gives, are making a difference in my life, if no one else's.

laele75 · September 2013

< *proud enabler who brought him here*

Glad it's working for you, babe. I always expect the burns to be too high, but in the end, if you're losing weight, you're doing something right.

SJackson50 · September 2013

< *proud enabler who brought him here*

Glad it's working for you, babe. I always expect the burns to be too high, but in the end, if you're losing weight, you're doing something right.

Concur!

landodewd · September 2013

I was using mfp to log my exercise but it seemed like it wasn't right. So I bought a Heart rate monitor and used it to track calories burned. I am 340lbs and it was crazy the calories I burned compared to what the sight said I did.

trogalicious · September 2013

HRM for the win. That's the only way to get a closer estimate.

CaffeinatedConfectionist · September 2013

As others have suggested, you can try calculating the calorie burn from a variety of websites and take the average. If you're really concerned about getting a more accurate calorie burn estimate, you may want to consider investing in a heart rate monitor with a chest strap. Though these still provide just an estimate, the higher end HRMs allow you to input your stats and your V02 max (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max) to give a more accurate estimate. Just as an example, my HRM tends to give me a number that is about 1/3 the calorie burn estimated by my machine (in this case an elliptical rather than an exercise bike) and also significantly less than MFPs estimate. I still think my HRM overestimates, and it is really only good for steady state cardio - can't give you a remotely accurate burn for weight lifting or circuit training, for example. You can expect higher burns when newer to exercise (for the same duration/intensity, as you get more fit one assumes you can exercise for longer/more intensely) but your calorie burn will drop for as you get more fit.

DavPul · September 2013

INB4 someone says you have to get a HRM!!!

ETA: Awww shucks, too late.

Cardio and the gains this site gives:

Replies

Categories