Spinning vs. "vigorous cycling"

jennacfraser
jennacfraser Posts: 7
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
Take a look in the exercise calorie burn estimator...

I've recently taken up spinning and I have to say I've never worked up that much of a sweat in 45 minutes. However, the registered Spinning listed in the exercise category at 45 minutes only burns about 400 calories for me (30, female, ~168lbs). I feel like that's far too little. However, looking under cycling with and selecting vigorous burns decidedly more, 6-700.

Now, I understand while spinning you're not going at a high pace for a long time, but it certainly feels like it at the gym I go to.

So, I'm wondering, any suggestions on what I should choose? Am I fooling myself by not choosing spinning and choosing the higher calorie burn, or am I shorting myself the intense work that I am doing?



Thanks!

Replies

  • wizzybeth
    wizzybeth Posts: 3,578 Member
    I too work up a huge sweat at spin and consider it a vigorous workout. But I never take more than 300 calories for a 45 min spin. Sometimes I only count 250 or 275. I am afraid of overestimates with regard to calorie burn
  • MostlyWater
    MostlyWater Posts: 4,294 Member
    I never count more than 250 from a 45 minute Spin class at the Equinox. I spin 2 or 3 times a week and have done so for about 2 years now.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited April 2015
    The advertised spinning burns are marketing rubbish - you'd have to be a Tour de France calibre specimen to achieve what they claim.

    I would start by cutting the claimed burns in half, if you're in decent shape. Cut them by 3/4 if you're not.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Intervals always feel harder than the actual calorie burn. Feel is not a great indicator of energy used!

    When I compare steady state effort on a power meter equipped trainer against a properly calibrated HRM the numbers are almost identical.

    But power meter versus HRM for intense intervals sees HRM over read calories by 10 - 20%.

    Take the lower estimate would be my advice.
  • jennacfraser
    jennacfraser Posts: 7
    Thanks, everyone.

    Anyone know why that is? I mean, I struggle in spin (not in the best shape) but I go as hard as I can. I'm drenched by the time I get out.

    So, why is it that the advertised rates aren't all they're cracked up to be (or why do you take no more than XX calories off?)
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited April 2015
    Calorie burn is primarily a function of how far you go, and how much you weigh. When you get fast enough, speed factors in, too (same distance at high speed burns a lot more than same distance a low speed).

    The fact that it feels hard doesn't really matter - when you're pushing yourself it *always* feels hard, no matter what your physical condition. The difference is that if you're in shape, you've gone a lot further, therefore burnt a bunch more calories.

    Hence the famous cycling quote... "It never gets easier - you just go faster".
  • wizzybeth
    wizzybeth Posts: 3,578 Member
    I only take a fraction of the estimated calorie burn because I don't trust the numbers and I'm afraid I will lose my calorie deficit if I eat back all the calories the estimate says I burned.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    jennacfraser wrote: »
    Thanks, everyone.

    Anyone know why that is? I mean, I struggle in spin (not in the best shape) but I go as hard as I can. I'm drenched by the time I get out.

    So, why is it that the advertised rates aren't all they're cracked up to be (or why do you take no more than XX calories off?)

    There's simply a far too wide range of fitness abilities to give one number that works for everyone.
    I can comfortably exceed the average because I'm unusually fit and cycle a lot.
    A mate of mine can produce a third more power than me for an hour or alternatively match my maximum one hour rate for four hours.

    Keep at it!!
  • AndiJH
    AndiJH Posts: 84 Member
    My instructor always says more resistance=more calories burned. Granted, you should still be able to maintain the pace with more resistance....so it's all about your fitness level. I'd say in a 45-min class I burn somewhere between 350-400, but I'm just basing that on my usual calorie burn while running (approx. 100 cals per 10 minutes at 6mph)
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    The spin bikes at my gym have a power meter. I also have a Garmin with HRM. Both give very similar calorie estimates and neither are anywhere near 6-700 calories for 45 minutes, I'm probably around 3-400 and working hard.
    Spinning does not compare to outdoor cycling for me, outdoor cycling is harder. To hit the speeds listed for "vigorous" cycling is pretty tough for me, even in very flat areas.
  • jennacfraser
    jennacfraser Posts: 7
    Ok, thanks so much everyone :3
  • cheshirecatastrophe
    cheshirecatastrophe Posts: 1,395 Member
    edited April 2015
    As for the difference between spinning (indoor) and vigorous/extremely vigorous outdoor cycling: Once you get above a certain threshold (15-16 mph, IIRC), the primary factor in how hard you're working is actually the wind resistance against you. There isn't that factor indoors.

    On the other hand, the lack of wind inside means you FEEL like you are working a whole ton harder, because there isn't a breeze to cool you off.

    A good metric as far as calorie burning is that it's pretty difficult for non-elite athletes to get very much about 7 net calories burned/minute, and almost impossible for anyone to break 10 net calories/min. (Gross burns will be higher, but that takes into account the calories you'd be burning if you were sitting at your desk playing Minesweeper.)
  • stingrayinfl
    stingrayinfl Posts: 284 Member
    if you are going to go with one of the two options, go conservative
  • beemerphile1
    beemerphile1 Posts: 1,710 Member
    A heart rate monitor would help you determine how much work you are doing.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    When you cycle, you are actually moving something so it will burn more calories.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Always be conservative with burn estimates...
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,732 Member
    MFP, and many other calorie counting tools, overestimate the number of calories we burn when spinning or cycling.

    I go with 100 cal for every 5 km. That seems to be about right based on how much I'm losing.
  • rcontr7
    rcontr7 Posts: 61 Member
    I'm around your weight and with my heart rate monitor I burn around 388 for 45 minutes. Super high intensity classes won't get you at high as myfitnesspals estimations. Buy a heart rate monitor. My polar is fantastic.
  • paj315
    paj315 Posts: 335 Member
    I used to take 4-5 spin classes a week and wore my chest strap polar heart rate monitor and my calorie burn averaged per class between 300-550 calories for a 50 min class (for reference age 35 weight 175).
This discussion has been closed.

Categories