15mins Cycle 646 calories burnt?!

Options
Krypter24
Krypter24 Posts: 3 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi,

As the title says I've recently bought an indoor cycle machine and started using every day as soon as I get home, 4th day on the run and try to get at least 15mins in before tea bedtime routine with my child.

I'm finding it hard to grasp that the colories burnt are accurate or kind of close to accuracy. MyFitnessPal and UA record almost give the same reading but it just seems way too good to be true. UA record asks for your weight height etc and asks how many miles you did in what time so how accurate is it?

5"10"
280pounds
5.2miles
15mins
20.8mph

646 calories?!?
MFP says around 666

Is that right or accurate to a percentage of 10% or something because if so that's almost unbelievable.

Replies

  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,224 Member
    Options
    That is likely too high for an indoor ride where you don't actually have to move your weight while biking. Outside at about 222 pounds I would burn about 800-1000 calories in an hour, so 650ish indoors for 15 minutes where you don't even have to push your weight around seems excessively high. I'm sure others will chime in.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Options
    This calculator says 226 kCal for 15 minutes at your weight and 21 mph. But that's outside where you'd have to overcome the air resistance at 21 mph, so the truth will be less indoors.
  • Krypter24
    Krypter24 Posts: 3 Member
    edited March 2017
    Options
    Thank you both, it just seems hard to grasp how MFP and ua record app are so way out. If you see the picture attached its the indoor cycle attached.

    The indoor cycle has its own calorie count too which gives me 296burned

    Would like to have the most accurate possible value

    sa98erdxmdbv.png
  • Krypter24
    Krypter24 Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    I think I've found the reason of the extremely high calorie burn. Mix up between exercise bike in the gym category and indoor bike in the cycle category. Seems more believable!

    q982vlyf9cnm.png
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    TBH even the second number (which is far more reasonable) still seems a little high. I'm lighter than you (weight is less of a factor cycling tan running unless you're hitting a lot of hills) and typically my Garmin will estimate between 400 to 500 cal for a 45 min interval ride (and that's with it tracking HR, cadence & speed).

    If your goal is weight loss make sure you're logging your food as accurately as possible and use the estimates from the bike for a few weeks. If you're not losing weight as quickly as you'd expected that will give you a better idea of the accuracy and you can adjust your diet as needed. There's always a little trial and error involved....good luck!
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,121 Member
    Options
    I have trouble believing that's what MFP says.

    When I cycle indoors, I select "Stationary bike, light effort (bicycling, cycling, biking)" and that gives me about 350 cal/hour.

    If I've done a particularly strenuous ride ... if I can really, honestly say I've put in a huge effort for the entire time ... I'll choose, "Stationary bike, moderate effort (bicycling, cycling, biking)". I rarely choose this one, however, because if I'm cycling inside, I'm doing commercial intervals and while I am putting in a good effort during the commercials, I'm not during the shows.
  • Rushgirl82
    Rushgirl82 Posts: 223 Member
    Options
    If you can afford it, buy a heart rate monitor with a chest strap. I feel more comfortable using those numbers than MFP's or the machines numbers.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,121 Member
    Options
    Rushgirl82 wrote: »
    If you can afford it, buy a heart rate monitor with a chest strap. I feel more comfortable using those numbers than MFP's or the machines numbers.

    Why?

  • Rushgirl82
    Rushgirl82 Posts: 223 Member
    edited March 2017
    Options
    @Machka9 Because the numbers on a machine or in MFP are estimated numbers based on nothing about you. They are just general. My heart rate monitor is set up for my gender, age, height and weight and actually measures my heart beat and provides a more accurate calculation. They are apparently way more accurate from the research I've done on them.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,121 Member
    edited March 2017
    Options
    Rushgirl82 wrote: »
    @Machka9 Because the numbers on a machine or in MFP are estimated numbers based on nothing about you. They are just general. My heart rate monitor is set up for my gender, age, height and weight and actually measures my heart beat and provides a more accurate calculation. They are apparently way more accurate from the research I've done on them.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10523082/quick-accuracy-test-calories-from-mfp-vs-hrm-vs-power-meter#latest

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/38694789#Comment_38694789

  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    Rushgirl82 wrote: »
    @Machka9 Because the numbers on a machine or in MFP are estimated numbers based on nothing about you. They are just general. My heart rate monitor is set up for my gender, age, height and weight and actually measures my heart beat and provides a more accurate calculation. They are apparently way more accurate from the research I've done on them.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,121 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Rushgirl82 wrote: »
    @Machka9 Because the numbers on a machine or in MFP are estimated numbers based on nothing about you. They are just general. My heart rate monitor is set up for my gender, age, height and weight and actually measures my heart beat and provides a more accurate calculation. They are apparently way more accurate from the research I've done on them.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

    I've been wearing a HRM while cycling again just recently, and the interesting thing I've discovered is that my highest heart rates occur in two situations:

    1) Something has alarmed me. For example, the other day I thought we were going straight and so I was casually cycling along drinking my water. My husband thought we were turning, and turned right in front of me. Suddenly I had to do a mad juggle with my waterbottle, and grabbing for the brakes, and swerving. My HR was one of the higher ones I've seen in a while just then. Was I burning a whole lot more calories? Probably not, I was hardly moving.

    2) Just before a big climb ... the anticipation and fear of the climb sends my HR way up. Meanwhile, I'm actually riding along at quite a relaxed and comfortable pace ... probably burning quite a low number of calories. When I actually get on the climb and actually start working, my HR settles down a bit.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,121 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Rushgirl82 wrote: »
    @Machka9 Because the numbers on a machine or in MFP are estimated numbers based on nothing about you. They are just general. My heart rate monitor is set up for my gender, age, height and weight and actually measures my heart beat and provides a more accurate calculation. They are apparently way more accurate from the research I've done on them.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

    And thanks for that article. :)

  • Rushgirl82
    Rushgirl82 Posts: 223 Member
    Options
    Yeah good reads guys. Thanks.
    I don't eat all my calories back anyways thankfully but good to know. :)

Categories