exercise - calories burned - is this for real?

jennybenny35
jennybenny35 Posts: 10
in Fitness and Exercise
I road the stationary bike today for 60 minutes. I keep it at level 6 with a few bumps up to 8 for 3 minutes and then back down. I ride @ 14-16 rpm. I am female, age 44 and my weight is 235 - I am 6'2" tall. When I go to add this exercise to my daily log it says anything from 1000 calories to 1400 calories, depending on the entry I choose. I don't think these number could ever be right. Is there anyway to even burn 1000 calories per hour? - I am new at this, but when I look at the machine it says 435 calories burned. So which number is closest to right?
«1

Replies

  • BadBerger
    BadBerger Posts: 3 Member
    Hey,
    Unfortunately I think the bike is right. The stationary bike burns the least amount of calories out of all the cardio equipment, and I normally do the same as you when on the bike and I burn about 120 in 25 minutes. I'm 27, 5'8 and 138 pounds.

    I wish it were 1000 calories though!
    :smile:
  • patrickfish7
    patrickfish7 Posts: 190 Member
    It is possible to burn 1000/hr but on high-cardio activities. An hour on a bike may be somewhere like 500-800 depending on intensity etc. The numbers on here arent way off but you have to take into account weight, fat mass vs lean mass etc. I go for a run for 45 minutes and burn about 700 calories and tend not to cycle as much so I may be off with the figures.
  • CollieFit
    CollieFit Posts: 1,683 Member
    At 235lb it's quite feasible that you burn 1000 calories doing the same activity that someone weighing 140lb would only burn 450 calories for.

    A well calibrated HRM will give you the most accurate reading.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    60 minutes at 15mph is 15 miles. If you were doing that on an actual bike out on the road, yeah, the 1000-calorie range wouldn't be far off, "depending".

    But on the stationary bike, alas, the lower number is much closer to reality.
  • DeaMcRN
    DeaMcRN Posts: 2
    I'm no expert, but there is some equation between your weight and the work/exercise/activity you do that "figures" that total. I'd love to think that 1000 cals is correct. You are bustin' it for sure at 14-16!! How long have you been exercising that way? Have you seen weight loss results?
  • PaytraB
    PaytraB Posts: 2,360 Member
    That does seem high. I quickly googled for a reference. I don't know if this reference is accurate but it seems that you possibly could burn that many calories in an hour:

    http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedcycling.htm
  • mreeves261
    mreeves261 Posts: 728 Member
    At 235lb it's quite feasible that you burn 1000 calories doing the same activity that someone weighing 140lb would only burn 450 calories for.

    A well calibrated HRM will give you the most accurate reading.

    Feasible yes, likely on a stationary bike, NO. I'm willing to bet if you get on a treadmill for an hour and work at the same intensity level you WILL NOT burn 1000 calories. Stationary bikes are NOT that intense for cardio workouts. Unless of course you are doing an advance spinning class.

    Me at 5'4" and 189 (where I started) would only burn 1000 calories in 2 hours. Yes our height and weigh are different but I would say proportionately similar for this conversation.
  • CollieFit
    CollieFit Posts: 1,683 Member
    Calorielab (which I find pretty accurate, almost spot on to my HRM) calculates that a person cycling between 14-16mph weighing in at 235lb would burn 963 calories. Someone weighing 130lb doing the same pace and time would only burn 531.



    http://calorielab.com/burned/
  • PaulHalicki
    PaulHalicki Posts: 576 Member
    Let's put it this way: Just because this website removes X calories from your intake due to exercise you log, doesn't mean you should eat X calories extra on that day. I try to stick to my calorie budget, even when I take long bicycle rides. I give myself a little reward (either a beer or some chocolate milk) and maybe go over my basic calorie budge a few hundred calories, but I'm not going to eat an extra 2000 calories because MFP says I exercised that much away.
  • DeaMcRN
    DeaMcRN Posts: 2
    Calorielab (which I find pretty accurate, almost spot on to my HRM) calculates that a person cycling between 14-16mph weighing in at 235lb would burn 963 calories. Someone weighing 130lb doing the same pace and time would only burn 531.



    http://calorielab.com/burned/
    Good info! Thanks for sharing this link!
  • CollieFit
    CollieFit Posts: 1,683 Member
    I ride @ 14-16 rpm.

    Erm..... hang on I read that as 14-16mph which is a decent pace...... 14-16 RPM would not be...
  • 1PatientBear
    1PatientBear Posts: 2,089 Member
    Let's put it this way: Just because this website removes X calories from your intake due to exercise you log, doesn't mean you should eat X calories extra on that day.

    Actually, that's exactly what it means. Some people feel MFP overestimates burns and choose not to eat back all their exercise calories and that's fine if it works for them. But the way the MFP system is set up is based upon the premise that you DO eat the calories you burn.
  • lucan07
    lucan07 Posts: 509
    I road the stationary bike today for 60 minutes. I keep it at level 6 with a few bumps up to 8 for 3 minutes and then back down. I ride @ 14-16 rpm. I am female, age 44 and my weight is 235 - I am 6'2" tall. When I go to add this exercise to my daily log it says anything from 1000 calories to 1400 calories, depending on the entry I choose. I don't think these number could ever be right. Is there anyway to even burn 1000 calories per hour? - I am new at this, but when I look at the machine it says 435 calories burned. So which number is closest to right?

    Male 5'11" age 54 233lb doing 40km at avg cadence 75 and avg speed 17.8mph it took me 83mins and according to HRM avg HR 132 I burnt 1045 calories. so would seem a little high possibly at 1000 and possibly low at 435.
  • PaulHalicki
    PaulHalicki Posts: 576 Member
    Actually, that's exactly what it means. Some people feel MFP overestimates burns and choose not to eat back all their exercise calories and that's fine if it works for them. But the way the MFP system is set up is based upon the premise that you DO eat the calories you burn.

    I understand that's their intent, but I don't think their calorie estimates are anywhere near accurate enough to do that. Those estimates are probably +/- 50%. And that's born out by constant discussions of people saying "MFP says X calories but my other website says Y" and X and Y are miles apart. Without fully understanding a person's metabolism, these calorie counts for exercise are just stabs in the dark.
  • 1PatientBear
    1PatientBear Posts: 2,089 Member
    Actually, that's exactly what it means. Some people feel MFP overestimates burns and choose not to eat back all their exercise calories and that's fine if it works for them. But the way the MFP system is set up is based upon the premise that you DO eat the calories you burn.

    I understand that's their intent, but I don't think their calorie estimates are anywhere near accurate enough to do that. Those estimates are probably +/- 50%. And that's born out by constant discussions of people saying "MFP says X calories but my other website says Y" and X and Y are miles apart. Without fully understanding a person's metabolism, these calorie counts for exercise are just stabs in the dark.

    I doubt if MFP would have reached the level of popularity and success that it has if was taking "stabs in the dark" for exercise calorie counts. True, they may not be accurate but the philosophy remains the same. That's why many people will buy a heart rate monitor and enter their true calories burned when they exercise; then, they eat THOSE calories back. Regardless of which calorie number you use, the fact remains that MFP is built with the intent of having people eat their exercise calories.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Those estimates are probably +/- 50%.

    The estimates are actually pretty good. The problem is MFP categorizes by things like effort ("vigorous", "light") and speed, which leads to...dubious...user choices, which is where the big errors really come from. If they simply had "distance" as an input to the running calorie burn estimate, things would be a lot cleaner.

    And of course, in this thread's case, a stationary bike generally leads to quite a bit fewer calories burned than riding an actual bike on an actual rode, too.
  • CollieFit
    CollieFit Posts: 1,683 Member
    So, OP, is it mph, kph or rpm???
  • Fitfully_me
    Fitfully_me Posts: 647 Member
    So, OP, is it mph, kph or rpm???

    Uh, there is no way its RPM. 60 seconds and only 14-16 rotations in?!
    Hoping OP will clarify.
  • jennybenny35
    jennybenny35 Posts: 10
    It must be mph! I got to thinking about that - and that would be really slow at 14 rpm! lol I am cookin! I keep my heart rate @ around 145-150bpm. I am sweating like crazy. I had been riding my bike - outside on the street - for about 2 months before we joined the gym 13 days ago! I had been going about 3.5 miles in 20 minutes. but... I actually feel lucky because I LOVE cardio. I push and challenge myself .... I am up to 60 minutes on the elliptical machine and try to do that at least 4 times a week. Today I did the stationary bike because, one, I read it's good to change it up once in awhile, and two, my ankle was bugging me after my hour on the elliptical yesterday. I will say it is harder for me to get my heart rate up on the bike I noticed ( it's a lot easier to go slow ) - but I am not at the gym to waste my time so I push for more resistance and speed. I have had great success so far - in the 13 days I have lost 5lbs! This is after I had been stuck for weeks @ 240! I am starting to add some weight training days. I am just very new at all of this and somewhat intimidated by all the in's and out's (rules). When I have more money - I may invest in a personal trainer for a few lessons.
  • PaulHalicki
    PaulHalicki Posts: 576 Member
    Those estimates are probably +/- 50%.

    The estimates are actually pretty good. The problem is MFP categorizes by things like effort ("vigorous", "light") and speed, which leads to...dubious...user choices, which is where the big errors really come from. If they simply had "distance" as an input to the running calorie burn estimate, things would be a lot cleaner.

    And of course, in this thread's case, a stationary bike generally leads to quite a bit fewer calories burned than riding an actual bike on an actual rode, too.

    I agree with that. I can tell you how far I ride on every ride, but don't pay much attention to speed or time. I started using Sports-Tracker just to have an idea of what to enter on MFP.

    But I still don't feel compelled to eat the calories I burn. I'm usually not that hungry when I get back from a ride, and most of my rides are at night, so why eat a bunch of stuff just before I go to bed? Because some web site says I should? Not a good enough reason.

Categories