Am I real burning 600 cals?
Options
waxhawblob
Posts: 11 Member
Riding a stationary bike...doing 60 mins on "strength intervals" keeps speed btw 14 and 19 mph. Really? Yes... Sweating like a pig:)
0
Replies
-
No-one but you knows your fitness level.
If the bike measures power output in watts it could well be accurate.
For me 600/hour is a very steady ride, but I'm not you.....
Sweating is very little to do with calories burns by the way.0 -
TL/DR:
If the manufacturer did their homework by applying a proven stationary bike energy requirement equation to their particular machine, including a way to account for resistance level, then your stationary bike has the potential to be really accurate. You don't support or move your own weight, so it doesn't need to know anything about you to estimate the calorie burn. So, at the same rate of energy expenditure, a person with a higher level of fitness will be able to pedal longer. (On a regular bike, it is extremely difficult to estimate calorie burn due to the huge number of variables. First, you have to support, balance, and move your own weight. Second, the road conditions, elevation changes, and even wind speed and direction. Third, the gears you chose to use, the weight of the bike, and even the thickness of the tires.)
Explanation:
Stationary bikes (recumbent stationary bikes in particular) have the potential to have reasonably accurate calorie calculators--better than just about any other equipment. Quite simply, this is because you neither have to support your weight or put and keep it in motion.
As long as the calorie counter adjusts based on the (1) resistance setting, (2) distance (number of revolutions) and (3) time, then your personal characteristics are irrelevant.
A stationary bike doesn't need to know your weight, age, gender, or even fitness level to estimate how much energy it took to move the pedals. The amount of energy necessary to turn the pedals is the same regardless of who is doing the pedaling. Yes, a fit person might have barely broken a sweat while an out of shape person might be ready to pass out, but the amount of energy needed to move the pedals is the same.
If resistance isn't considered, or there's some other reason to believe the bike can't give a anything other than a crude estimate, then you might fall back on an online calorie estimator with "light effort," "moderate effort," and "vigorous effort" categories. Those are highly subjective based on fitness level, so all bets are off. A fit person doing 10 minutes of vigorous effort will likely burn more calories than what an unfit person describes as a vigorous effort.
http://www.shape.com/fitness/cardio/how-inaccurate-are-calorie-counters-gym/slide/4
"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 the most accurate of all cardio machines, with an overestimation of only seven percent."
You could do some experiments where you ride at the same speed for the same amount of time at two very different levels of resistance. The calorie burned should be higher at the higher level of resistance.
If you are logging calories accurately, and eating them back, you'll eventually learn the accuracy of your calorie burned estimate. Simply choose a percent to eat back and stick with it for a few weeks. Then, adjust more or less based on weight loss goal. I have a recumbent stationary bike and when I started out I only ate back 50%. I was losing faster than expected (and hungry). I upped it to 75% and that's been about right to stay on track to maintain the same net loss. (For what its worth, around 600 calories is also what I get for an hour doing one of interval programs.)0 -
Thanks! Great explanations0
-
10 calories above resting metabolic rate is quite the exertion level. Although some exercise bikes are capable of fairly accurate caloric estimates, look at the features they have. Power meters don't come on the less expensive models. Neither does precise resistance setting.
One other important factor is if the device reports gross or net calories. Over the course of an hour, that can be a couple hundred calories difference.0 -
Given a BMR of 1800, and assuming steady BMR burn throughout the day, that's only 75 calories an hour. If the bike didn't take into account what you would have burned anyway (and have already logged as part of your BMR), then eating back no more than 87.5% of that exercise's burn should do the trick.
That percent is going to vary by a person's BMR where:
BMR per hour/estimated calorie burn =
Percent reduction of calorie burn needed to adjust for what you would have burned anyway assuming the machine didn't make a rough adjustment already.0 -
ModernRock wrote: »Given a BMR of 1800, and assuming steady BMR burn throughout the day, that's only 75 calories an hour. If the bike didn't take into account what you would have burned anyway (and have already logged as part of your BMR), then eating back no more than 87.5% of that exercise's burn should do the trick.
BMR is not the right number to base the calculations from. BMR fails to account for anything besides what are essentially coma calories. RMR comes closer.
The issue of net versus gross calories gets compounded when most machines then provide inflated numbers on top of reporting gross. There are reasons why so many people on MFP have to resort to trial and error to come close to exercise burns versus simply inputting an accurate number from some device.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »Given a BMR of 1800, and assuming steady BMR burn throughout the day, that's only 75 calories an hour. If the bike didn't take into account what you would have burned anyway (and have already logged as part of your BMR), then eating back no more than 87.5% of that exercise's burn should do the trick.
BMR is not the right number to base the calculations from. BMR fails to account for anything besides what are essentially coma calories. RMR comes closer.
The issue of net versus gross calories gets compounded when most machines then provide inflated numbers on top of reporting gross. There are reasons why so many people on MFP have to resort to trial and error to come close to exercise burns versus simply inputting an accurate number from some device.
So Brian you may wish to revise your "One other important factor is if the device reports gross or net calories. Over the course of an hour, that can be a couple hundred calories difference. " statement.
That would be one hell of a RMR (4800cals) or am I misunderstanding the point you are trying to make?0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »Given a BMR of 1800, and assuming steady BMR burn throughout the day, that's only 75 calories an hour. If the bike didn't take into account what you would have burned anyway (and have already logged as part of your BMR), then eating back no more than 87.5% of that exercise's burn should do the trick.
BMR is not the right number to base the calculations from. BMR fails to account for anything besides what are essentially coma calories. RMR comes closer.
The issue of net versus gross calories gets compounded when most machines then provide inflated numbers on top of reporting gross. There are reasons why so many people on MFP have to resort to trial and error to come close to exercise burns versus simply inputting an accurate number from some device.
So Brian you may wish to revise your "One other important factor is if the device reports gross or net calories. Over the course of an hour, that can be a couple hundred calories difference. " statement.
That would be one hell of a RMR (4800cals) or am I misunderstanding the point you are trying to make?
Even a RMR of 2400 calories (quite doable for a male, especially one who is overweight) ... 100 per hour ... when factored into a reported 600 calorie burn is 16.6666% off ... assuming the burn itself isn't inflated. If the burn itself is only 400 ... the margin of error is then 25%.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »BMR is not the right number to base the calculations from. BMR fails to account for anything besides what are essentially coma calories. RMR comes closer.
OK, so following the same equation, my BMR of 1800 is replaced with an approximate RMR of 2000. So, that's 83 calories doing pretty much nothing an hour instead of 75 doing absolutely nothing an hour.
83/600 estimated burn = 13.8% reduction instead of the 12.5% for BMR.
So, to be on the safe side, a safe upper limit starting point of eating back 86.2% instead of 87.5%. Or, no more than 517 calories instead of no more than 525.brianpperkins wrote: »The issue of net versus gross calories gets compounded when most machines then provide inflated numbers on top of reporting gross. There are reasons why so many people on MFP have to resort to trial and error to come close to exercise burns versus simply inputting an accurate number from some device.
The suggestion was made to use the stationary bike estimate as a starting point, and research shows that their starting point is often better than most exercise machines. I've yet to see anyone suggest that people should eat back 100% percent of whatever the machine says, as no home (or even typical gym) equipment is going to perfectly take into account all of the variables. Stationary bikes, however, do have a lot of potential for accuracy for work required, which translates pretty well into calories burned.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »Given a BMR of 1800, and assuming steady BMR burn throughout the day, that's only 75 calories an hour. If the bike didn't take into account what you would have burned anyway (and have already logged as part of your BMR), then eating back no more than 87.5% of that exercise's burn should do the trick.
BMR is not the right number to base the calculations from. BMR fails to account for anything besides what are essentially coma calories. RMR comes closer.
The issue of net versus gross calories gets compounded when most machines then provide inflated numbers on top of reporting gross. There are reasons why so many people on MFP have to resort to trial and error to come close to exercise burns versus simply inputting an accurate number from some device.
So Brian you may wish to revise your "One other important factor is if the device reports gross or net calories. Over the course of an hour, that can be a couple hundred calories difference. " statement.
That would be one hell of a RMR (4800cals) or am I misunderstanding the point you are trying to make?
Even a RMR of 2400 calories (quite doable for a male, especially one who is overweight) ... 100 per hour ... when factored into a reported 600 calorie burn is 16.6666% off ... assuming the burn itself isn't inflated. If the burn itself is only 400 ... the margin of error is then 25%.
So you meant that can be possibly 100 calories an hour off for a large male not 200 calories an hour as you originally stated.0 -
An RMR of 4800 is possible so it would still apply.0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »Given a BMR of 1800, and assuming steady BMR burn throughout the day, that's only 75 calories an hour. If the bike didn't take into account what you would have burned anyway (and have already logged as part of your BMR), then eating back no more than 87.5% of that exercise's burn should do the trick.
BMR is not the right number to base the calculations from. BMR fails to account for anything besides what are essentially coma calories. RMR comes closer.
The issue of net versus gross calories gets compounded when most machines then provide inflated numbers on top of reporting gross. There are reasons why so many people on MFP have to resort to trial and error to come close to exercise burns versus simply inputting an accurate number from some device.
So Brian you may wish to revise your "One other important factor is if the device reports gross or net calories. Over the course of an hour, that can be a couple hundred calories difference. " statement.
That would be one hell of a RMR (4800cals) or am I misunderstanding the point you are trying to make?
Even a RMR of 2400 calories (quite doable for a male, especially one who is overweight) ... 100 per hour ... when factored into a reported 600 calorie burn is 16.6666% off ... assuming the burn itself isn't inflated. If the burn itself is only 400 ... the margin of error is then 25%.
So you meant that can be possibly 100 calories an hour off for a large male not 200 calories an hour as you originally stated.
If you play nitpick games, I said "can be" ... not "it is in this instance".ModernRock wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »BMR is not the right number to base the calculations from. BMR fails to account for anything besides what are essentially coma calories. RMR comes closer.
OK, so following the same equation, my BMR of 1800 is replaced with an approximate RMR of 2000. So, that's 83 calories doing pretty much nothing an hour instead of 75 doing absolutely nothing an hour.
83/600 estimated burn = 13.8% reduction instead of the 12.5% for BMR.
So, to be on the safe side, a safe upper limit starting point of eating back 86.2% instead of 87.5%. Or, no more than 517 calories instead of no more than 525.brianpperkins wrote: »The issue of net versus gross calories gets compounded when most machines then provide inflated numbers on top of reporting gross. There are reasons why so many people on MFP have to resort to trial and error to come close to exercise burns versus simply inputting an accurate number from some device.
The suggestion was made to use the stationary bike estimate as a starting point, and research shows that their starting point is often better than most exercise machines. I've yet to see anyone suggest that people should eat back 100% percent of whatever the machine says, as no home (or even typical gym) equipment is going to perfectly take into account all of the variables. Stationary bikes, however, do have a lot of potential for accuracy for work required, which translates pretty well into calories burned.
Potential for accuracy is great ... but largely depends on the model of machine. Reaching that potential requires a power meter, precise known levels of resistance, and regular calibration ... that eliminates most machines I've seen outside of lab setting.
0 -
It's not nit picking Brian. Exaggeration is misleading.
Pointing out that people can take into account the difference between net and gross calories is certainly helpful (maybe should rather than can, that's debatable if it's actually worth the effort when it's based on an estimate anyway....) but doubling the likely amount of that difference for an average sized man is misleading for the vast majority of people.
If you are striving for accuracy (an exercise in futility to a degree) then under estimating is no better then over estimating.0 -
waxhawblob wrote: »Riding a stationary bike...doing 60 mins on "strength intervals" keeps speed btw 14 and 19 mph. Really? Yes... Sweating like a pig:)
Just in case you are still following.....
Highly depends on the brand of machine and how programmable it is. The higher end machines generally have fairly solid formulas and means to measure resistance in place. Even some of the lower cost machines are getting fairly high tech as the tech drops in price to manufacture.
If the bike has a readout with calories burned per minute or METs you can see what the readout is if you completely stop. If it still slowly adds calories or shows a calorie per minute pace, then it is probably adding in BMR/RMR based on your weight.
Some machines won't let you completely stop or they will go into a pause mode below a certain RPM. If that is the case you can sometimes see the pace or METs and compare it to resting, which is 1 MET, to see if the machine is calculating BMR or not.
As for the burn itself, as said above it completely depends on your fitness level. I haven't been on an exercise bike in quite a while, but I can knock out 600+ net on my elliptical without working super hard. But I also bike when I can, and work my legs on the higher resistance settings on the elliptical on a regular basis.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Potential for accuracy is great ... but largely depends on the model of machine. Reaching that potential requires a power meter, precise known levels of resistance, and regular calibration ... that eliminates most machines I've seen outside of lab setting.
I agree with the statement about the model of the machine, but the power meter on many higher end stationary bikes and ellipticals is an eddy current system that is quite a bit different from a biking power meter. The strength of the magnetic field results in known resistance, and that is controlled by the electronics. So in all machines I have seen that use this system, there is no calibration that must be done. On my elliptical the only variable that can alter calibration in any way is very easy to set, and a one time event.
If anyone knows of any other type system used in a modern machine I'm all ears. I just bring this up to look for answers as I see this calibration thing come up quite a bit, and I've yet to find a higher end machine that needs it.
In regards to lower end machines, resistance can be mechanical which would create a lot more variance and probably more potential for error. But personally I think that error exists in just about any formula used and any measuring device used, short of being hooked up to high end lab quality equipment. For anyone else, all we can hope for is to minimize the margins of error.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 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
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions