I need help
Options
Replies
-
hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Krystle1984 wrote: »I would say 1600 calories from 26 minutes on the exercise bike is wildly over inflated. What's your height/weight?
I use the computer on the hardest level
The computer is obviously wrong. I mean it's SO wrong that I'm not sure that's even in the realm of possible.
I use a Reebok zr10 and read when tested they were only 7% out
Tested by whom? The burn you're logging is in the range of 4-6 times the per minute rate of Tour de France riders on mountain stages.
I have it on highest level 32
You can have the bike on your head while riding a unicycle and milking a yak .... it doesn't change the fact that your logged burns are ridiculously exaggerated. 10-12 calories per minute is high, 55+ per minute is ludicrous.
I just put wot computer saidbrianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Krystle1984 wrote: »I would say 1600 calories from 26 minutes on the exercise bike is wildly over inflated. What's your height/weight?
I use the computer on the hardest level
The computer is obviously wrong. I mean it's SO wrong that I'm not sure that's even in the realm of possible.
I use a Reebok zr10 and read when tested they were only 7% out
Tested by whom? The burn you're logging is in the range of 4-6 times the per minute rate of Tour de France riders on mountain stages.
I have it on highest level 32
You can have the bike on your head while riding a unicycle and milking a yak .... it doesn't change the fact that your logged burns are ridiculously exaggerated. 10-12 calories per minute is high, 55+ per minute is ludicrous.
I just put wot computer said
Now you continue to defend that laughable number after multiple people pointed out that it is impossible. When you accept the reality of how flawed your logging is you can start to progress. Until then ....
What you on about all I said was I put what on the computer you want to calm down
I am calm. Would you like to deal in the realm of reality?
Yes, the computer is inaccurate, I get that now. And thank you to those of you who have recommended a more accurate alternative.
I came here for advice, and was just saying what reading my exercise bike was giving me.
Fair enough...it sounded like you were trying to defend the computer and the number it was giving you.
I'd do what jemhh advised ^^ up there a few posts. More accurately measure and record your calorie intake, use reasonable exercise calorie burns, and I would guess you'll have much better results.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »
Yatypicalsmith wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Krystle1984 wrote: »I would say 1600 calories from 26 minutes on the exercise bike is wildly over inflated. What's your height/weight?
I use the computer on the hardest level
The computer is obviously wrong. I mean it's SO wrong that I'm not sure that's even in the realm of possible.
I use a Reebok zr10 and read when tested they were only 7% out
Tested by whom? The burn you're logging is in the range of 4-6 times the per minute rate of Tour de France riders on mountain stages.
I have it on highest level 32
You can have the bike on your head while riding a unicycle and milking a yak .... it doesn't change the fact that your logged burns are ridiculously exaggerated. 10-12 calories per minute is high, 55+ per minute is ludicrous.
I just put wot computer saidbrianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Krystle1984 wrote: »I would say 1600 calories from 26 minutes on the exercise bike is wildly over inflated. What's your height/weight?
I use the computer on the hardest level
The computer is obviously wrong. I mean it's SO wrong that I'm not sure that's even in the realm of possible.
I use a Reebok zr10 and read when tested they were only 7% out
Tested by whom? The burn you're logging is in the range of 4-6 times the per minute rate of Tour de France riders on mountain stages.
I have it on highest level 32
You can have the bike on your head while riding a unicycle and milking a yak .... it doesn't change the fact that your logged burns are ridiculously exaggerated. 10-12 calories per minute is high, 55+ per minute is ludicrous.
I just put wot computer said
Now you continue to defend that laughable number after multiple people pointed out that it is impossible. When you accept the reality of how flawed your logging is you can start to progress. Until then ....
What you on about all I said was I put what on the computer you want to calm down
Is your native tongue something other than English?
Because your grammar and spelling in English is atrocious.
First, I believe OP was saying "Yes," not asking you "why." Second, I don't know why OP's spelling and grammar are relevant -- it's completely off-topic.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »
Yatypicalsmith wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Krystle1984 wrote: »I would say 1600 calories from 26 minutes on the exercise bike is wildly over inflated. What's your height/weight?
I use the computer on the hardest level
The computer is obviously wrong. I mean it's SO wrong that I'm not sure that's even in the realm of possible.
I use a Reebok zr10 and read when tested they were only 7% out
Tested by whom? The burn you're logging is in the range of 4-6 times the per minute rate of Tour de France riders on mountain stages.
I have it on highest level 32
You can have the bike on your head while riding a unicycle and milking a yak .... it doesn't change the fact that your logged burns are ridiculously exaggerated. 10-12 calories per minute is high, 55+ per minute is ludicrous.
I just put wot computer saidbrianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Krystle1984 wrote: »I would say 1600 calories from 26 minutes on the exercise bike is wildly over inflated. What's your height/weight?
I use the computer on the hardest level
The computer is obviously wrong. I mean it's SO wrong that I'm not sure that's even in the realm of possible.
I use a Reebok zr10 and read when tested they were only 7% out
Tested by whom? The burn you're logging is in the range of 4-6 times the per minute rate of Tour de France riders on mountain stages.
I have it on highest level 32
You can have the bike on your head while riding a unicycle and milking a yak .... it doesn't change the fact that your logged burns are ridiculously exaggerated. 10-12 calories per minute is high, 55+ per minute is ludicrous.
I just put wot computer said
Now you continue to defend that laughable number after multiple people pointed out that it is impossible. When you accept the reality of how flawed your logging is you can start to progress. Until then ....
What you on about all I said was I put what on the computer you want to calm down
Is your native tongue something other than English?
Because your grammar and spelling in English is atrocious.
First, I believe OP was saying "Yes," not asking you "why." Second, I don't know why OP's spelling and grammar are relevant -- it's completely off-topic.
Look at the contrast between the OP's initial and latter posts in this thread ... from incomprehensible to actual sentences with punctuation. It means knowing, not believing, what they are trying to say.0 -
To be super blunt: you can't half-*kitten* weight loss and expect to get full-on results.
Listen to the excellent advice given here. Be more realistic about your exercise calorie burns and tighten up your calorie counts.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »
Yatypicalsmith wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Krystle1984 wrote: »I would say 1600 calories from 26 minutes on the exercise bike is wildly over inflated. What's your height/weight?
I use the computer on the hardest level
The computer is obviously wrong. I mean it's SO wrong that I'm not sure that's even in the realm of possible.
I use a Reebok zr10 and read when tested they were only 7% out
Tested by whom? The burn you're logging is in the range of 4-6 times the per minute rate of Tour de France riders on mountain stages.
I have it on highest level 32
You can have the bike on your head while riding a unicycle and milking a yak .... it doesn't change the fact that your logged burns are ridiculously exaggerated. 10-12 calories per minute is high, 55+ per minute is ludicrous.
I just put wot computer saidbrianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Krystle1984 wrote: »I would say 1600 calories from 26 minutes on the exercise bike is wildly over inflated. What's your height/weight?
I use the computer on the hardest level
The computer is obviously wrong. I mean it's SO wrong that I'm not sure that's even in the realm of possible.
I use a Reebok zr10 and read when tested they were only 7% out
Tested by whom? The burn you're logging is in the range of 4-6 times the per minute rate of Tour de France riders on mountain stages.
I have it on highest level 32
You can have the bike on your head while riding a unicycle and milking a yak .... it doesn't change the fact that your logged burns are ridiculously exaggerated. 10-12 calories per minute is high, 55+ per minute is ludicrous.
I just put wot computer said
Now you continue to defend that laughable number after multiple people pointed out that it is impossible. When you accept the reality of how flawed your logging is you can start to progress. Until then ....
What you on about all I said was I put what on the computer you want to calm down
Is your native tongue something other than English?
Because your grammar and spelling in English is atrocious.
First, I believe OP was saying "Yes," not asking you "why." Second, I don't know why OP's spelling and grammar are relevant -- it's completely off-topic.
Look at the contrast between the OP's initial and latter posts in this thread ... from incomprehensible to actual sentences with punctuation. It means knowing, not believing, what they are trying to say.
And it's fine to ask clarifying questions if you don't understand, but I think coming into the thread just to critique spelling and grammar IS off-topic.
0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Krystle1984 wrote: »I would say 1600 calories from 26 minutes on the exercise bike is wildly over inflated. What's your height/weight?
I use the computer on the hardest level
The computer is obviously wrong. I mean it's SO wrong that I'm not sure that's even in the realm of possible.
I use a Reebok zr10 and read when tested they were only 7% out
It doesn't matter what you use. That kind of calorie burn from 26 minutes of riding an exercise bike is simply IMPOSSIBLE.
A 600-lb 6'6" 30-y-o man can do it in 30 minutes RUNNING at a pace of 12 min/mile.
Then he would die. LOLOL.
Dude. Your burn is SOOOO off.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »
Yatypicalsmith wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Krystle1984 wrote: »I would say 1600 calories from 26 minutes on the exercise bike is wildly over inflated. What's your height/weight?
I use the computer on the hardest level
The computer is obviously wrong. I mean it's SO wrong that I'm not sure that's even in the realm of possible.
I use a Reebok zr10 and read when tested they were only 7% out
Tested by whom? The burn you're logging is in the range of 4-6 times the per minute rate of Tour de France riders on mountain stages.
I have it on highest level 32
You can have the bike on your head while riding a unicycle and milking a yak .... it doesn't change the fact that your logged burns are ridiculously exaggerated. 10-12 calories per minute is high, 55+ per minute is ludicrous.
I just put wot computer saidbrianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Krystle1984 wrote: »I would say 1600 calories from 26 minutes on the exercise bike is wildly over inflated. What's your height/weight?
I use the computer on the hardest level
The computer is obviously wrong. I mean it's SO wrong that I'm not sure that's even in the realm of possible.
I use a Reebok zr10 and read when tested they were only 7% out
Tested by whom? The burn you're logging is in the range of 4-6 times the per minute rate of Tour de France riders on mountain stages.
I have it on highest level 32
You can have the bike on your head while riding a unicycle and milking a yak .... it doesn't change the fact that your logged burns are ridiculously exaggerated. 10-12 calories per minute is high, 55+ per minute is ludicrous.
I just put wot computer said
Now you continue to defend that laughable number after multiple people pointed out that it is impossible. When you accept the reality of how flawed your logging is you can start to progress. Until then ....
What you on about all I said was I put what on the computer you want to calm down
Is your native tongue something other than English?
Because your grammar and spelling in English is atrocious.
First, I believe OP was saying "Yes," not asking you "why." Second, I don't know why OP's spelling and grammar are relevant -- it's completely off-topic.
Look at the contrast between the OP's initial and latter posts in this thread ... from incomprehensible to actual sentences with punctuation. It means knowing, not believing, what they are trying to say.
And it's fine to ask clarifying questions if you don't understand, but I think coming into the thread just to critique spelling and grammar IS off-topic.
Do you have anything to contribute about the OP's logging? His caloric estimations at nearly 60 calories per minute? Any help to offer?
0 -
Hi there I found this
Stationary bikes are in their own class of cardio machines because they support your body weight, Olson says. "If the bike is calculating calories based on technical data such as METs (metabolic equivalents) and watts (which measures power output), the calorie readout can be very accurate." In fact, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco's Human Performance Center found stationary bikes to be themost accurate of all cardio machines, with an overestimation of only seven percent.
One thing to keep in mind: A bike can't determine your pedaling technique, which could throw off your final count, Olson says. "For example, you will burn more calories if you are using a standing climb posture at a heavy resistance, compared to seated pedaling at the same resistance. This is because when you stand and climb, you are no longer weight supported." How big is the difference? According to Olson, a 15-minute standing climb burns about 15 percent more calories than seated pedaling at the same resistance.
Boost your burn: Pedal with purpose! You'll burn fewer calories overall (seated or standing) if you pedal without enough resistance. Try this killer cycling routineto blast 500 calories in 35 minutes!
0 -
hipeeps3010 wrote: »Hi there I found this
Stationary bikes are in their own class of cardio machines because they support your body weight, Olson says. "If the bike is calculating calories based on technical data such as METs (metabolic equivalents) and watts (which measures power output), the calorie readout can be very accurate." In fact, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco's Human Performance Center found stationary bikes to be themost accurate of all cardio machines, with an overestimation of only seven percent.
One thing to keep in mind: A bike can't determine your pedaling technique, which could throw off your final count, Olson says. "For example, you will burn more calories if you are using a standing climb posture at a heavy resistance, compared to seated pedaling at the same resistance. This is because when you stand and climb, you are no longer weight supported." How big is the difference? According to Olson, a 15-minute standing climb burns about 15 percent more calories than seated pedaling at the same resistance.
Boost your burn: Pedal with purpose! You'll burn fewer calories overall (seated or standing) if you pedal without enough resistance. Try this killer cycling routineto blast 500 calories in 35 minutes!
I'm not trying to be mean, but it seems like you're trying REALLY hard to justify the machine's number.
We are all telling you, it's off, and it's off A LOT.
Your choice now is to either accept that truth (and it IS the truth), or continue to fail at weight loss.0 -
hipeeps3010 wrote: »Hi there I found this
Stationary bikes are in their own class of cardio machines because they support your body weight, Olson says. "If the bike is calculating calories based on technical data such as METs (metabolic equivalents) and watts (which measures power output), the calorie readout can be very accurate." In fact, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco's Human Performance Center found stationary bikes to be themost accurate of all cardio machines, with an overestimation of only seven percent.
One thing to keep in mind: A bike can't determine your pedaling technique, which could throw off your final count, Olson says. "For example, you will burn more calories if you are using a standing climb posture at a heavy resistance, compared to seated pedaling at the same resistance. This is because when you stand and climb, you are no longer weight supported." How big is the difference? According to Olson, a 15-minute standing climb burns about 15 percent more calories than seated pedaling at the same resistance.
Boost your burn: Pedal with purpose! You'll burn fewer calories overall (seated or standing) if you pedal without enough resistance. Try this killer cycling routineto blast 500 calories in 35 minutes!
500 calories / 35 minutes = 14.28 calories per minute
14.28 cal per min x 26 minutes = 371.28 calories0 -
Just say I only wanted some help not abuse I was only saying what I do to try and lose weight am not a pro and just for the record I was 3-ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Hi there I found this
Stationary bikes are in their own class of cardio machines because they support your body weight, Olson says. "If the bike is calculating calories based on technical data such as METs (metabolic equivalents) and watts (which measures power output), the calorie readout can be very accurate." In fact, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco's Human Performance Center found stationary bikes to be themost accurate of all cardio machines, with an overestimation of only seven percent.
One thing to keep in mind: A bike can't determine your pedaling technique, which could throw off your final count, Olson says. "For example, you will burn more calories if you are using a standing climb posture at a heavy resistance, compared to seated pedaling at the same resistance. This is because when you stand and climb, you are no longer weight supported." How big is the difference? According to Olson, a 15-minute standing climb burns about 15 percent more calories than seated pedaling at the same resistance.
Boost your burn: Pedal with purpose! You'll burn fewer calories overall (seated or standing) if you pedal without enough resistance. Try this killer cycling routineto blast 500 calories in 35 minutes!
I'm not trying to be mean, but it seems like you're trying REALLY hard to justify the machine's number.
We are all telling you, it's off, and it's off A LOT.
Your choice now is to either accept that truth (and it IS the truth), or continue to fail at weight loss.
Well for your information I was thinking of taking it back to the shop just posting what I read before I bought a bike0 -
Well then I'm not sure what more we can say. I sincerely wish you the best of luck.0
-
hipeeps3010 wrote: »Just say I only wanted some help not abuse I was only saying what I do to try and lose weight am not a pro and just for the record I was 3-ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Hi there I found this
Stationary bikes are in their own class of cardio machines because they support your body weight, Olson says. "If the bike is calculating calories based on technical data such as METs (metabolic equivalents) and watts (which measures power output), the calorie readout can be very accurate." In fact, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco's Human Performance Center found stationary bikes to be themost accurate of all cardio machines, with an overestimation of only seven percent.
One thing to keep in mind: A bike can't determine your pedaling technique, which could throw off your final count, Olson says. "For example, you will burn more calories if you are using a standing climb posture at a heavy resistance, compared to seated pedaling at the same resistance. This is because when you stand and climb, you are no longer weight supported." How big is the difference? According to Olson, a 15-minute standing climb burns about 15 percent more calories than seated pedaling at the same resistance.
Boost your burn: Pedal with purpose! You'll burn fewer calories overall (seated or standing) if you pedal without enough resistance. Try this killer cycling routineto blast 500 calories in 35 minutes!
I'm not trying to be mean, but it seems like you're trying REALLY hard to justify the machine's number.
We are all telling you, it's off, and it's off A LOT.
Your choice now is to either accept that truth (and it IS the truth), or continue to fail at weight loss.
Well for your information I was thinking of taking it back to the shop just posting what I read before I bought a bike
I paid 700 UK pounds for what I thought was the best at Reading the calories as it all the technical stuff on it
0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »Well then I'm not sure what more we can say. I sincerely wish you the best of luck.
Can anyone recommend a machine with a more accurate calorie count?0 -
There are so many online calculators that give you a pretty good idea of your calories. I wouldn't pay extra specifically for the calorie calculator function of a stationary bike. No matter how accurate it claims to be, it's going to be an estimate. If you log your food as accurately as you can and then log your calories from an online calculator, give it several weeks, and then reassess whether or not you are losing at a good rate and need to eat fewer calories or more calories, you'll be doing just as well as a person who spent the money on a more expensive bike.0
-
hipeeps3010 wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Just say I only wanted some help not abuse I was only saying what I do to try and lose weight am not a pro and just for the record I was 3-ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Hi there I found this
Stationary bikes are in their own class of cardio machines because they support your body weight, Olson says. "If the bike is calculating calories based on technical data such as METs (metabolic equivalents) and watts (which measures power output), the calorie readout can be very accurate." In fact, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco's Human Performance Center found stationary bikes to be themost accurate of all cardio machines, with an overestimation of only seven percent.
One thing to keep in mind: A bike can't determine your pedaling technique, which could throw off your final count, Olson says. "For example, you will burn more calories if you are using a standing climb posture at a heavy resistance, compared to seated pedaling at the same resistance. This is because when you stand and climb, you are no longer weight supported." How big is the difference? According to Olson, a 15-minute standing climb burns about 15 percent more calories than seated pedaling at the same resistance.
Boost your burn: Pedal with purpose! You'll burn fewer calories overall (seated or standing) if you pedal without enough resistance. Try this killer cycling routineto blast 500 calories in 35 minutes!
I'm not trying to be mean, but it seems like you're trying REALLY hard to justify the machine's number.
We are all telling you, it's off, and it's off A LOT.
Your choice now is to either accept that truth (and it IS the truth), or continue to fail at weight loss.
Well for your information I was thinking of taking it back to the shop just posting what I read before I bought a bike
I paid 700 UK pounds for what I thought was the best at Reading the calories as it all the technical stuff on it
The bike is still fit for purpose. It will still help you reach your goals. You just have to adjust how many calories you're logging.
Just be glad you realised early on how inaccurate the burn was and adjust it going forward. Good luck!
0 -
hipeeps3010 wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Just say I only wanted some help not abuse I was only saying what I do to try and lose weight am not a pro and just for the record I was 3-ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Hi there I found this
Stationary bikes are in their own class of cardio machines because they support your body weight, Olson says. "If the bike is calculating calories based on technical data such as METs (metabolic equivalents) and watts (which measures power output), the calorie readout can be very accurate." In fact, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco's Human Performance Center found stationary bikes to be themost accurate of all cardio machines, with an overestimation of only seven percent.
One thing to keep in mind: A bike can't determine your pedaling technique, which could throw off your final count, Olson says. "For example, you will burn more calories if you are using a standing climb posture at a heavy resistance, compared to seated pedaling at the same resistance. This is because when you stand and climb, you are no longer weight supported." How big is the difference? According to Olson, a 15-minute standing climb burns about 15 percent more calories than seated pedaling at the same resistance.
Boost your burn: Pedal with purpose! You'll burn fewer calories overall (seated or standing) if you pedal without enough resistance. Try this killer cycling routineto blast 500 calories in 35 minutes!
I'm not trying to be mean, but it seems like you're trying REALLY hard to justify the machine's number.
We are all telling you, it's off, and it's off A LOT.
Your choice now is to either accept that truth (and it IS the truth), or continue to fail at weight loss.
Well for your information I was thinking of taking it back to the shop just posting what I read before I bought a bike
I paid 700 UK pounds for what I thought was the best at Reading the calories as it all the technical stuff on it
Hopefully you bought it locally and can go back to the shop, explain the situation, show them what you are doing, and they can advise you. Otherwise, call tech support.
0 -
[quote
You can have the bike on your head while riding a unicycle and milking a yak .... it doesn't change the fact that your logged burns are ridiculously exaggerated. 10-12 calories per minute is high, 55+ per minute is ludicrous. [/quote]
I love you.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »
Yatypicalsmith wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Krystle1984 wrote: »I would say 1600 calories from 26 minutes on the exercise bike is wildly over inflated. What's your height/weight?
I use the computer on the hardest level
The computer is obviously wrong. I mean it's SO wrong that I'm not sure that's even in the realm of possible.
I use a Reebok zr10 and read when tested they were only 7% out
Tested by whom? The burn you're logging is in the range of 4-6 times the per minute rate of Tour de France riders on mountain stages.
I have it on highest level 32
You can have the bike on your head while riding a unicycle and milking a yak .... it doesn't change the fact that your logged burns are ridiculously exaggerated. 10-12 calories per minute is high, 55+ per minute is ludicrous.
I just put wot computer saidbrianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Krystle1984 wrote: »I would say 1600 calories from 26 minutes on the exercise bike is wildly over inflated. What's your height/weight?
I use the computer on the hardest level
The computer is obviously wrong. I mean it's SO wrong that I'm not sure that's even in the realm of possible.
I use a Reebok zr10 and read when tested they were only 7% out
Tested by whom? The burn you're logging is in the range of 4-6 times the per minute rate of Tour de France riders on mountain stages.
I have it on highest level 32
You can have the bike on your head while riding a unicycle and milking a yak .... it doesn't change the fact that your logged burns are ridiculously exaggerated. 10-12 calories per minute is high, 55+ per minute is ludicrous.
I just put wot computer said
Now you continue to defend that laughable number after multiple people pointed out that it is impossible. When you accept the reality of how flawed your logging is you can start to progress. Until then ....
What you on about all I said was I put what on the computer you want to calm down
Is your native tongue something other than English?
Because your grammar and spelling in English is atrocious.
First, I believe OP was saying "Yes," not asking you "why." Second, I don't know why OP's spelling and grammar are relevant -- it's completely off-topic.
Look at the contrast between the OP's initial and latter posts in this thread ... from incomprehensible to actual sentences with punctuation. It means knowing, not believing, what they are trying to say.
And it's fine to ask clarifying questions if you don't understand, but I think coming into the thread just to critique spelling and grammar IS off-topic.
Do you have anything to contribute about the OP's logging? His caloric estimations at nearly 60 calories per minute? Any help to offer?
I think OP has received some really good advice so far. If you think my comments were inappropriate, I apologize.0 -
Krystle1984 wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Just say I only wanted some help not abuse I was only saying what I do to try and lose weight am not a pro and just for the record I was 3-ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Hi there I found this
Stationary bikes are in their own class of cardio machines because they support your body weight, Olson says. "If the bike is calculating calories based on technical data such as METs (metabolic equivalents) and watts (which measures power output), the calorie readout can be very accurate." In fact, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco's Human Performance Center found stationary bikes to be themost accurate of all cardio machines, with an overestimation of only seven percent.
One thing to keep in mind: A bike can't determine your pedaling technique, which could throw off your final count, Olson says. "For example, you will burn more calories if you are using a standing climb posture at a heavy resistance, compared to seated pedaling at the same resistance. This is because when you stand and climb, you are no longer weight supported." How big is the difference? According to Olson, a 15-minute standing climb burns about 15 percent more calories than seated pedaling at the same resistance.
Boost your burn: Pedal with purpose! You'll burn fewer calories overall (seated or standing) if you pedal without enough resistance. Try this killer cycling routineto blast 500 calories in 35 minutes!
I'm not trying to be mean, but it seems like you're trying REALLY hard to justify the machine's number.
We are all telling you, it's off, and it's off A LOT.
Your choice now is to either accept that truth (and it IS the truth), or continue to fail at weight loss.
Well for your information I was thinking of taking it back to the shop just posting what I read before I bought a bike
I paid 700 UK pounds for what I thought was the best at Reading the calories as it all the technical stuff on it
The bike is still fit for purpose. It will still help you reach your goals. You just have to adjust how many calories you're logging.
Just be glad you realised early on how inaccurate the burn was and adjust it going forward. Good luck!
So I can I tell what am doing as it's telling me am doing 1600 cal say I did 30 min on hardest settingsKrystle1984 wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Just say I only wanted some help not abuse I was only saying what I do to try and lose weight am not a pro and just for the record I was 3-ceoverturf wrote: »hipeeps3010 wrote: »Hi there I found this
Stationary bikes are in their own class of cardio machines because they support your body weight, Olson says. "If the bike is calculating calories based on technical data such as METs (metabolic equivalents) and watts (which measures power output), the calorie readout can be very accurate." In fact, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco's Human Performance Center found stationary bikes to be themost accurate of all cardio machines, with an overestimation of only seven percent.
One thing to keep in mind: A bike can't determine your pedaling technique, which could throw off your final count, Olson says. "For example, you will burn more calories if you are using a standing climb posture at a heavy resistance, compared to seated pedaling at the same resistance. This is because when you stand and climb, you are no longer weight supported." How big is the difference? According to Olson, a 15-minute standing climb burns about 15 percent more calories than seated pedaling at the same resistance.
Boost your burn: Pedal with purpose! You'll burn fewer calories overall (seated or standing) if you pedal without enough resistance. Try this killer cycling routineto blast 500 calories in 35 minutes!
I'm not trying to be mean, but it seems like you're trying REALLY hard to justify the machine's number.
We are all telling you, it's off, and it's off A LOT.
Your choice now is to either accept that truth (and it IS the truth), or continue to fail at weight loss.
Well for your information I was thinking of taking it back to the shop just posting what I read before I bought a bike
I paid 700 UK pounds for what I thought was the best at Reading the calories as it all the technical stuff on it
The bike is still fit for purpose. It will still help you reach your goals. You just have to adjust how many calories you're logging.
Just be glad you realised early on how inaccurate the burn was and adjust it going forward. Good luck!
So if I stick to what am doing say 30min at the hardest level how do work out what cal am doing
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions