Question About Old Recumbent Bike I Use, Please Help!

Kevin0511
Kevin0511 Posts: 19 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Good evening! I have a question for any of you reading this. I'd appreciate any answers you have. I'm 18, 5'7" 204 lbs. 2 years ago, I was 185 and started living a healthier life which ended up dropping my weight to 155 in 4 months. I would be eating healthier, and switching up from the 10 year old recumbent bike and treadmill at my house. My question is, how can I trust that the information on the small digital screen is correct since it is so outdated? The recumbent bike says that I burned 930 calories in 70 minutes, with an average speed of 14 mph. It also says the distance total in that time is 18.4 miles. There's no type of resistance/adjustments, just 1 pedaling level.

Replies

  • Kevin0511
    Kevin0511 Posts: 19 Member
    2xloxqzal694.png
    I couldn't write everything in my post.
  • lauraloo66
    lauraloo66 Posts: 12 Member
    Hi Kevin,
    I feel that if there is no ability to enter your data such as weight, age etc. into the machine then whatever burn it gives you is a broad estimate. None the less, you've been successful, so a long as you're consistent keep using the info its giving you, that is you don't have to go nuts with algebraic formulas as you're getting results.
  • L_Master
    L_Master Posts: 354 Member
    First off, assuming you don't pedal like a lazy walk, you'll burn 1000kcal in 2 hours, yes. That's roughly 125w average, which even on a recumbant should be manageable for most any male, even a smaller height guy like yourself.

    Unless you have crazy aerobic fitness I don't know about, I'd say the absolute worst case scenario if you're giving it a solid cardiovascular effort is about 900 kcal in 2 hours, with as high as maybe 1300 kcal being possible. Doubt you'd be higher starting off unless you have some good cycling/running background fitness.

    FYI: The mph on the screen is worthless. It has no bearing on real life, in either direction faster or slower. If you're bike gave a power output in watts that would be meaningful, but on an indoor bike all other values are meaningless, except as an indication to whether you're going harder/easier than your previous rides.
  • Kevin0511
    Kevin0511 Posts: 19 Member
    Thank you both for the info!
  • ModernRock
    ModernRock Posts: 372 Member
    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. 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. 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 the bike can't give a anything other than a crude estimate, if resistance isn't considered, then you might fall back on estimating "light effort," "moderate effort," and "vigorous effort". Those are highly subjective based on fitness level.

    "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."

    Source: http://www.shape.com/fitness/cardio/how-inaccurate-are-calorie-counters-gym/slide/4
  • Kevin0511
    Kevin0511 Posts: 19 Member
    Thank you! I've never thought or heard of that before.

Categories