Stationary bike - more resistance or more time/speed for more calorie burn? Accurate calories?
Options
Replies
-
@MikePfirrmanMikePfirrman wrote: »I have both a C2 rower and a Schwinn AD Pro (better quality bike). Both have Watts measurements. The C2 Rower is famous for it's accuracy. I find, overall, the Schwinn overestimates Watts (now this is just based on my feel having used both of them for a lot of time) by around 15% to 20%. I wonder how accurate the Watts are on other bikes as well.
Power meter accuracy is far better than using feelings between two completely different movements, one stop start linear and one non-stop cyclical. You really would have compare bikes to bikes and rowers to rowers.
DCRainmaker has a write up on it comparing different brands if you are really interested but it's pretty damn dull reading!
My Wattbike claims + or - 2% accuracy but in trials it tends to be more like +/- 1%.
But TBH for calorie counting power meter accuracy on a bike is of trivial importance, the variables in personal cycling efficiency might account for about 4% in calories - again compared to other estimating methods pretty trivial.
In the end for exercise estimates the standard only really needs to be reasonable rather than precise.2 -
brisadeldesierto wrote: »HR is a good but personal measure of your exertion but not always of calories, they are of course primarily designed as training aids. For example when indoor cycling unless you have a good cooling fan your HR can be elevated by getting hotter - that increase isn't really indicative of a proportional rise in calories.
It would though translate different combinations of cadence and resistance to a common metric for comparative effort.
How important accuracy is to you I can't really judge (how many hours a week do you ride?). If only a couple of hours a week a bit of inaccuracy is going to be lost in the general estimating of food, activity and exercise. In that case probably not worth investing any money in a solution. Exercise accuracy is a very minor player for most people in your weekly calorie balance compared to food logging accuracy.
How much power you are producing is incredibly varied and mostly related to your fitness level and effort of a particular ride. 100w for a hour (for a female) would I suspect be a pretty reasonable/conservative "finger in the air" for a moderate effort session if you are reasonably fit. That's 360 net calories.
The common "cut by 50%" is an mathematical abomination!
Randomly halving a bad estimate doesn't improve accuracy, it just reduces the size of a bad estimate.
Another option is to try and calibrate yourself to get a guideline for approximate effort and calories. Using a better quality bike in a gym would be great of course but running or a Concept2 rower are all pretty easy to get a decent estimate from.
Such a detailed answer! I really appreciate it!
Up until now I was doing between 30 mins to 1 hour 6 times a week of the stationary bike, and I would definitely not call me a fit person. Some days I would go longer & faster but at low resistance, and some days slower and shorter but at medium resistance. When I go "fast" (for me), I keep my HR around 110-120 bpm, because I noticed this is the fastest I can go steady without getting out of breath. My rest pulse is ~65 in the morning. I do have a fan next to me! I sometimes turn the AC on too (summer).
I used to not log the biking because most days that would be the only exercise I did, since some days I would not even walk 3 k steps. However, I now cut off my calorie intake even further (1400 to 1300) and added a small weight training routine (I would say about 15 mins) and another 15 mins of aerobics focusing on different muscles 6 times a week. And I somehow figured it would be easier to log the biking than to log the rest of the exercises/steps (the days that I walk more). But seeing how inaccurate that is, I might not log anything at all!
When you say calibrate myself, do you mean going to a gym and using a bike that measures for instance the watts, and then try to figure out how much effort I was doing to produce that amount of watts, then try to replicate it at home? If so, what kind of bike should I be looking for in a gym, besides that it measures the watts produced?
Thanks a lot again!
I almost never disagree with sijomial (and I may not be now, because I'm not sure I'm interpreting him accurately):
Personally, I don't find rate of perceived exertion (RPE, a.k.a., how I feel) a very good guide to accuracy of calorie estimates from very different modes of activity. I spin and row regularly (have for 10+ years), and think there's going to be pretty significant RPE difference between something like biking (mostly legs) and rowing (more body parts).
What I'd say instead is that if your exercise is pretty consistent (type and duration) - doesn't have to be exact - then just using a consistent calorie estimating method, logging food accurately, and monitoring weight loss rate for 4-6 weeks is going to be your best guide.
As he says, exercise for most of us is a minor player in our overall calorie picture, useful though it is for fitness and health. If we use consistent exercise estimates (estimate the calories in the same way each time), and try to pick the most reasonable source of that estimate (even it isn't perfect), that's plenty good enough to work in practice. In 4-6 weeks, we take a look at average weekly weight loss. If we're losing at a sensible, expected level, we're good. If not, we adjust intake as needed to get there. For that, consistent exercise estimates work fine.1 -
@AnnPT77
Don't disagree at all.
Just an idea to get the roughest of rough estimates to see what you are capable of to help spot the suspect outliers.
If you are working hard to get a reliable 600 cal burn and then hop on the "ACME Wonder Calorie Buster Elliptical" and it tells you that you've burned 1000 then you are going to raise a skeptical eyebrow.
Also agree on consistency and reasonableness. Even with an extremely high exercise burn from my cycling I don't need accuracy to get the desired weight results.
2 -
@sijomial I will definetly try to progress my exercise! I know my exercise HR is pretty low, I get tired very easily! I am working on increasing it though! Thanks a lot for the advice & the encouragement
@AnnPT77 The thing is I noticed the MFP/bike gave me really high estimates (an average weekly of over 1800 kcal just by biking), so it didn't seem like a minor player! That's more than a whole day worth of calories for me, or if I split it into 7 days, that would be an increase of ~20% of my daily caloric intake. Anyway, I now see how it must be very far from the truth. What you pointed out about trying to see how it goes after a few weeks & then adjust seems like a good plan though! Thanks for the advice!0 -
brisadeldesierto wrote: »But seeing how inaccurate that is, I might not log anything at all!
I can guarantee that 0 is absolutely wrong.
I scanned through the comments - those from the regulars with good advice was never 0.
Doing that can just lead to this, especially with 6 x weekly workouts.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/43148181#Comment_431481812 -
I can guarantee that 0 is absolutely wrong.
I scanned through the comments - those from the regulars with good advice was never 0.
Doing that can just lead to this, especially with 6 x weekly workouts.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/43148181#Comment_43148181
I really appreciate the link and the concern!
When I said that I was still confused on how to approach the calorie counting of the exercise. To be honest it's not like it's completely clear for me now, but I was planning on doing what they suggested me of "calibrating" with a gym equipment (have to find a nearby gym that has the right equipment). Meanwhile, I changed the amount of weekly workouts on MFP profile, which lead me to an increase of my calories. And as they suggested me, I'll see how it goes with the weight loss.0 -
@MikePfirrmanMikePfirrman wrote: »I have both a C2 rower and a Schwinn AD Pro (better quality bike). Both have Watts measurements. The C2 Rower is famous for it's accuracy. I find, overall, the Schwinn overestimates Watts (now this is just based on my feel having used both of them for a lot of time) by around 15% to 20%. I wonder how accurate the Watts are on other bikes as well.
Power meter accuracy is far better than using feelings between two completely different movements, one stop start linear and one non-stop cyclical. You really would have compare bikes to bikes and rowers to rowers.
DCRainmaker has a write up on it comparing different brands if you are really interested but it's pretty damn dull reading!
My Wattbike claims + or - 2% accuracy but in trials it tends to be more like +/- 1%.
But TBH for calorie counting power meter accuracy on a bike is of trivial importance, the variables in personal cycling efficiency might account for about 4% in calories - again compared to other estimating methods pretty trivial.
In the end for exercise estimates the standard only really needs to be reasonable rather than precise.
Yeah, sorry to sidetrack the discussion. I just saw the one comment about measuring Watts on common gym equipment and thought of the Air Dyne Pro, which isn't really just a bike, it's an "Assault" style bike that has an upper body element to it, so it works upper and lower at the same time.
I guess I was just cautioning against some of the inconsistencies I've seen in Watts. I know the WattsBike or the new C2 BikeErg are much more accurate in Watts. I also think some of the Nautilus Stairmasters seem (to me) pretty accurate. I'm not enough of a biker to ever pay nearly a $1000 for power meter pedals but I would imagine they are fairly accurate too.
Again, this is just my experience with knowing my EFT on the C2 Rower (accurate) versus the AD Pro (really overestimated), which is unacceptably different, based on what I like to see in accuracy for training. Just wondering how accurate other common gym equipment is and if it's accessible to most people.0 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »I'm not enough of a biker to ever pay nearly a $1000 for power meter pedals but I would imagine they are fairly accurate too.
You don't have to imagine. The published accuracy specs have been validated by third parties including university research departments.
Pedals were suggested for one specific bike, and can be had for about half what you say. But you can get a PowerTap wheel for about $200. Just FYI.1 -
brisadeldesierto wrote: »I can guarantee that 0 is absolutely wrong.
I scanned through the comments - those from the regulars with good advice was never 0.
Doing that can just lead to this, especially with 6 x weekly workouts.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/43148181#Comment_43148181
I really appreciate the link and the concern!
When I said that I was still confused on how to approach the calorie counting of the exercise. To be honest it's not like it's completely clear for me now, but I was planning on doing what they suggested me of "calibrating" with a gym equipment (have to find a nearby gym that has the right equipment). Meanwhile, I changed the amount of weekly workouts on MFP profile, which lead me to an increase of my calories. And as they suggested me, I'll see how it goes with the weight loss.
Those are exercise goals for the Exercise Diary.
It has absolutely no bearing on your eating goal - which is based on daily activity with assumption of no workouts until done.
If you saw daily calories go up - it's because of some other reason.
If you can find a treadmill merely to get a MPH reading of what feels like equivalent effort to your bike effort, and similar HR (for now, that will improve) - you can get decent enough estimate based on walking/jogging speed.
Got a Planet Fitness nearby - they may allow a free trial or paid visit.
After 5 min warmup - you could get several speed levels and HR levels for comparison later.0 -
Those are exercise goals for the Exercise Diary.
It has absolutely no bearing on your eating goal - which is based on daily activity with assumption of no workouts until done.
If you saw daily calories go up - it's because of some other reason.
If you can find a treadmill merely to get a MPH reading of what feels like equivalent effort to your bike effort, and similar HR (for now, that will improve) - you can get decent enough estimate based on walking/jogging speed.
Got a Planet Fitness nearby - they may allow a free trial or paid visit.
After 5 min warmup - you could get several speed levels and HR levels for comparison later.
But it does give you an estimate of how much you can burn from those X amount of exercises in a week. So I divided the total weekly burn by 7, then increased my daily calorie goal by that number. I get that it doesn't take into account what type of exercis you would be doing or the intensity, but it's actually very close to what I was getting from estimating from the HR (my bike does measure the HR). So it felt like a good place to start.0 -
Again - it's a goal-only figure just for exercise - it's not used in any math anywhere related to food goal.
It gives no estimate of calories for your selected minutes/hours weekly - you can change both goals.
It really sounds like you are attempting to use a tool in a manner you really didn't understand anyway.
Just saying - the advice has been use the tool as designed and then see where you are in 2 weeks.
Frankly if a woman - it takes 4 weeks since there are literal changes to metabolism through the month.1 -
brisadeldesierto wrote: »Those are exercise goals for the Exercise Diary.
It has absolutely no bearing on your eating goal - which is based on daily activity with assumption of no workouts until done.
If you saw daily calories go up - it's because of some other reason.
If you can find a treadmill merely to get a MPH reading of what feels like equivalent effort to your bike effort, and similar HR (for now, that will improve) - you can get decent enough estimate based on walking/jogging speed.
Got a Planet Fitness nearby - they may allow a free trial or paid visit.
After 5 min warmup - you could get several speed levels and HR levels for comparison later.
But it does give you an estimate of how much you can burn from those X amount of exercises in a week. So I divided the total weekly burn by 7, then increased my daily calorie goal by that number. I get that it doesn't take into account what type of exercis you would be doing or the intensity, but it's actually very close to what I was getting from estimating from the HR (my bike does measure the HR). So it felt like a good place to start.
No - the exercise setting in your set up is only an aspiration. It might just as well be "I will brush my teeth three times a day".
It does not increase your calories. That would be completely contrary to logging/estimating/eating back exercise calories as that would be double counting.
Your activity setting (not exercise) changes your calories, your stats change your calories, your weight loss goal changes your calories.
You seem to be describing a TDEE calculator and not the way MyFitnessPal works.0 -
I get that it's only an aspiration/goal. But if I am currently doing those exercises, and the advice is to eat the exercise calories back, what's the difference between 1) adding extra calories on average for each day and not logging the exercises and 2) log every day the exercise and then eat X amount of calories back on that day? So far I have not been skipping the workouts, and if for some reason one day I skip it, it sounds simpler to me to just eat less calories that day and move on, than to each day start loging every exercise. The food logging & planning is already time consuming as it is, so since I didn't see a clear answer here as to how to log the exercises, I thought it would be easier to take this approach.Just saying - the advice has been use the tool as designed and then see where you are in 2 weeks.
Am I the only one who doesn't see the concensus of the "advice" in the comments? I see only 1 person that suggested to use the MFP tool before you, and she said to eat only 50% of the calories back. She also got "wooed". Other opinions were: eating 50% of the calories back is wrong, use a power meter/compare with a bike with power meter, compare it to outdoor biking, estimate using HR and eat 100% of those calories back, HR is not a good estimate but might be better than my bike's estimate (which I said is almost the same from MFP exercise stationary bike light effort, so I assumed this one would be wrong as well).
And I know that it will take some weeks for me to see the weight trend, I'm not new in the weight loss journey. I just started increasing the exercise and needed some advice on that, but honestly I feel a little overwhelmed with all new information and all the different opinions.2 -
Your method would be the average weekly TDEE method. And very valid method - what most websites use.
But then you better do the planned workouts or weight loss slows or stops.
So not really learning the life lesson.
But that is not what MFP does - though it can be tweaked to use that way.
Come up with an average weekly level of activity that includes daily and workouts - average out to daily - and eat that daily with a reasonable deficit for the weight loss.
Try this to get that level of activity and how to setup MFP to do it. Then don't log your workouts.
Just TDEE Please spreadsheet - better than rough 5 level TDEE charts from 1919 study.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G7FgNzPq3v5WMjDtH0n93LXSMRY_hjmzNTMJb3aZSxM/edit?usp=sharing2 -
Yes the TDEE method is perfectly valid, what it isn't is a better estimate.
(It's actually worse as you are estimating your duration as well.)
That guessing in advance how much, what intensity and what exercise you will actually do works perfectly well for weight control for loads and loads of people should reassure you that although accurate estimates are nice they are absolutely not required to successfully manage your weight.
Yes you should include your significant exercise routine in your calorie calculations.
No it doesn't matter that your estimates aren't precise. Reasonable is good enough to be effective.
Unless you are doing endurance cardio then either method works (both have pros and cons).
If a simple every day goal appeals to you then go for it. If a varied daily allowance appeals more then choose that.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 956 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions