Bike-riding at the pace of a snail: effective?

Options
Joyamj
Joyamj Posts: 24 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Good Evening, good people. I basically punked out on my cardio for the day (read: this week) and did little more than sit on my recumbent exercise bike. :huh: I know, I know.

I was the Little Engine that Barely Could.

I figured if I sat there pedaling long enough, my body would burn at least a little something significant. After 20 minutes @ 12mph, the bike read that I had burned 192 calories. I don't trust it. There was not a single bead of sweat to be found, barely an increase in heart rate, and I was breathing normally.

Was my bike lying to me? Or am I underestimating my ability to slay calories with no effort at all? All thoughts appreciated!
«1

Replies

  • susannamarie
    susannamarie Posts: 2,148 Member
    Options
    20 min @ 12 mph gives you 4 miles, it doesn't seem unreasonable. A commonly given figure for an average weight person is roughly 50 cal/mile.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    you didn't burn no 200 calories in no 20 mins while barely pedaling no bike.
  • Joyamj
    Joyamj Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    you didn't burn no 200 calories in no 20 mins while barely pedaling no bike.

    My sentiments exactly. LOL
  • Joyamj
    Joyamj Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    20 min @ 12 mph gives you 4 miles, it doesn't seem unreasonable. A commonly given figure for an average weight person is roughly 50 cal/mile.

    this would be ideal!! thanks for your take
  • Megabot
    Megabot Posts: 173 Member
    Options
    I doubt it too. Those numbers are off, often. When I have days like that I just read. And sit there for like 1:30, so at least I'm moving constantly for a while. definitely don't feel the same as if I did even a 20-minute HIIT / circuit training workout :)
  • KaleeCat
    KaleeCat Posts: 152 Member
    Options
    Those machines *typically* overestimate calories burned, HRMs are more accurate. So I can't say how much you burned, but know that at least you burned more calories than if you were to just sit on the couch watching tv..
  • Joyamj
    Joyamj Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    kind of disappointing that i don't burn major calories while doing almost nothing tho. lol. looks like tomorrow's a two-a-day!
  • Chris_Pierce
    Chris_Pierce Posts: 267 Member
    Options
    When I first got my stationary bike I checked my pulse every few minutes and used that information (along with my body fat %, age, height, weight etc) to find my "calories burned" on several different calorie calculators. It turns out that my bike is a little low on it's calorie calculations.
    So to stay on the safe side, I use the actual numbers that my bike gives me.
  • RaspberryKeytoneBoondoggle
    RaspberryKeytoneBoondoggle Posts: 1,349 Member
    Options
    Good for you for moving though:). That's more than I did today.
  • Loralrose
    Loralrose Posts: 203
    Options
    That depends entirely on how much resistance you were pedaling at.
  • Joyamj
    Joyamj Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    That depends entirely on how much resistance you were pedaling at.

    Level 10 on my bike!
  • Joyamj
    Joyamj Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    When I first got my stationary bike I checked my pulse every few minutes and used that information (along with my body fat %, age, height, weight etc) to find my "calories burned" on several different calorie calculators. It turns out that my bike is a little low on it's calorie calculations.
    So to stay on the safe side, I use the actual numbers that my bike gives me.

    once I get an HRM i'll try it
  • MB2MN
    MB2MN Posts: 334 Member
    Options
    I burn about that many when I ride at 18-20 mph...so I think it's probably high unless you are pretty heavy which you don't look to be from your pic.
  • rbiss
    rbiss Posts: 422 Member
    Options
    Unlikely. I did basically the same thing swimming yesterday. My heart rate was between 110 and 120 for 50 minutes and I am very very overweight. I burned practically nothing because my heart rate wasn't high enough. I needed a day off though, so I figured it was better than barely walking because my legs are killing me! Sometimes its okay, but don't count it was a workout if your tracking calories.
  • MB2MN
    MB2MN Posts: 334 Member
    Options
    Unlikely. I did basically the same thing swimming yesterday. My heart rate was between 110 and 120 for 50 minutes and I am very very overweight. I burned practically nothing because my heart rate wasn't high enough. I needed a day off though, so I figured it was better than barely walking because my legs are killing me! Sometimes its okay, but don't count it was a workout if your tracking calories.

    I don't think you burned "practically nothing". Heart rate isn't the be all, end all of calorie burning. If it was we could just sit around watching scary movies all day!
  • bexiesbruv
    bexiesbruv Posts: 14
    Options
    Unlikely. I did basically the same thing swimming yesterday. My heart rate was between 110 and 120 for 50 minutes and I am very very overweight. I burned practically nothing because my heart rate wasn't high enough. I needed a day off though, so I figured it was better than barely walking because my legs are killing me! Sometimes its okay, but don't count it was a workout if your tracking calories.

    I read something about low HR exercise is more beneficial to fat loss than high HR and low HR for a long period is even better. Higher HR over a longer period give more overall calories burned but they can come from everywhere, so I think you are doing it right if you want to lose fat and not risk muscle loss.
    As to the OP question. Likely would be better (if you are able) to go for a 20 minute, brisk walk, or just watch TV standing up.:smile:
  • Joyamj
    Joyamj Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    I burn about that many when I ride at 18-20 mph...so I think it's probably high unless you are pretty heavy which you don't look to be from your pic.

    i'm 178 at the moment! 5'0"
  • MB2MN
    MB2MN Posts: 334 Member
    Options
    I burn about that many when I ride at 18-20 mph...so I think it's probably high unless you are pretty heavy which you don't look to be from your pic.

    i'm 178 at the moment! 5'0"

    Yeah so I'm lighter than you but even still, I think that number is a bit high.
  • Joyamj
    Joyamj Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    Unlikely. I did basically the same thing swimming yesterday. My heart rate was between 110 and 120 for 50 minutes and I am very very overweight. I burned practically nothing because my heart rate wasn't high enough. I needed a day off though, so I figured it was better than barely walking because my legs are killing me! Sometimes its okay, but don't count it was a workout if your tracking calories.

    I read something about low HR exercise is more beneficial to fat loss than high HR and low HR for a long period is even better. Higher HR over a longer period give more overall calories burned but they can come from everywhere, so I think you are doing it right if you want to lose fat and not risk muscle loss.
    As to the OP question. Likely would be better (if you are able) to go for a 20 minute, brisk walk, or just watch TV standing up.:smile:

    interesting....low HR for long periods of time sounds like watching LOTR on the treadmill. i like where this is going
  • Joyamj
    Joyamj Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    Good for you for moving though:). That's more than I did today.

    :flowerforyou:

Categories