Fitness tracker for stationary bike

Hello!

Are there any fitness trackers that measure how many calories you burn on a indoor bike? I can’t believe I burned 600 cals this morning in 22 mins on high intensity

Replies

  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,237 Member
    You are wise to not believe that you burned 600 calories in 22 minutes.

    Where did that figure come from? Perhaps we can help you get a better estimate.
  • haylzp24
    haylzp24 Posts: 8 Member
    It was from the bike! It would be amazing if I did but I’d like something more accurate.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    without knowing all your details - you are probably looking 200cal max - i'm a cyclist and 30min is about 150cal for me
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    haylzp24 wrote: »
    Hello!

    Are there any fitness trackers that measure how many calories you burn on a indoor bike? I can’t believe I burned 600 cals this morning in 22 mins on high intensity

    A male pro cyclist would be working hard to burn that amount so you are very wise to doubt those numbers, horrendously exaggerated would be my guess.

    Does the bike (make and model might be helpful) show you your power output in watts or kj?

    An external fitness tracker would need to be picking up power data from your bike to give you a useful number. Cadence isn't relevant on its own, indicated "speed" is irrelevant for indoor cycling as it bears so little relation to real speed outdoors.
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    Maybe the bike was giving you the readout for calories per hour? It would still be a little high, but no worse than other types of exercise machines (I've generally seen error rates in the 20-30% range).
  • haylzp24
    haylzp24 Posts: 8 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    haylzp24 wrote: »
    Hello!

    Are there any fitness trackers that measure how many calories you burn on a indoor bike? I can’t believe I burned 600 cals this morning in 22 mins on high intensity

    A male pro cyclist would be working hard to burn that amount so you are very wise to doubt those numbers, horrendously exaggerated would be my guess.

    Does the bike (make and model might be helpful) show you your power output in watts or kj?

    An external fitness tracker would need to be picking up power data from your bike to give you a useful number. Cadence isn't relevant on its own, indicated "speed" is irrelevant for indoor cycling as it bears so little relation to real speed outdoors.

    It measures it in watts but it’s not consistent as I do get tired but I keep pushing myself.

    It’s a reebok gb40s

  • haylzp24
    haylzp24 Posts: 8 Member
    without knowing all your details - you are probably looking 200cal max - i'm a cyclist and 30min is about 150cal for me

    Doesn’t seem much does it :( I just don’t want to be calculating it wrong as imagine if I ate back almost all those cals! I wouldn’t be getting anywhere.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    haylzp24 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    haylzp24 wrote: »
    Hello!

    Are there any fitness trackers that measure how many calories you burn on a indoor bike? I can’t believe I burned 600 cals this morning in 22 mins on high intensity

    A male pro cyclist would be working hard to burn that amount so you are very wise to doubt those numbers, horrendously exaggerated would be my guess.

    Does the bike (make and model might be helpful) show you your power output in watts or kj?

    An external fitness tracker would need to be picking up power data from your bike to give you a useful number. Cadence isn't relevant on its own, indicated "speed" is irrelevant for indoor cycling as it bears so little relation to real speed outdoors.

    It measures it in watts but it’s not consistent as I do get tired but I keep pushing myself.

    It’s a reebok gb40s

    An average of 170 watts for an hour would burn about 612 net cals.
    (The simple version of the maths is average watts for an hour X 3.6 = net cals)

    So if you are averaging 170w for roughly a third of that time then 204 net cals would be a pretty good estimate.
    It's also a pretty good effort, well done.

    To go back to your original question - if your Reebok bike transmits via Bluetooth or ANT+ protocols then yes you could link a fitness tracker. Garmin or Wahoo perhaps. (A quick search online didn't reveal that it can transmit any data though.)

    But if you are just interested in calorie estimates I'd probably just say save your money and do the maths yourself.
  • haylzp24
    haylzp24 Posts: 8 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    haylzp24 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    haylzp24 wrote: »
    Hello!

    Are there any fitness trackers that measure how many calories you burn on a indoor bike? I can’t believe I burned 600 cals this morning in 22 mins on high intensity

    A male pro cyclist would be working hard to burn that amount so you are very wise to doubt those numbers, horrendously exaggerated would be my guess.

    Does the bike (make and model might be helpful) show you your power output in watts or kj?

    An external fitness tracker would need to be picking up power data from your bike to give you a useful number. Cadence isn't relevant on its own, indicated "speed" is irrelevant for indoor cycling as it bears so little relation to real speed outdoors.

    It measures it in watts but it’s not consistent as I do get tired but I keep pushing myself.

    It’s a reebok gb40s

    An average of 170 watts for an hour would burn about 612 net cals.
    (The simple version of the maths is average watts for an hour X 3.6 = net cals)

    So if you are averaging 170w for roughly a third of that time then 204 net cals would be a pretty good estimate.
    It's also a pretty good effort, well done.

    To go back to your original question - if your Reebok bike transmits via Bluetooth or ANT+ protocols then yes you could link a fitness tracker. Garmin or Wahoo perhaps. (A quick search online didn't reveal that it can transmit any data though.)

    But if you are just interested in calorie estimates I'd probably just say save your money and do the maths yourself.

    Thank you! I wish it would give an average speed as that would make it easier. I’ll try and work it out tomorrow and keep an eye on the watts :)
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    haylzp24 wrote: »
    without knowing all your details - you are probably looking 200cal max - i'm a cyclist and 30min is about 150cal for me

    Doesn’t seem much does it :( I just don’t want to be calculating it wrong as imagine if I ate back almost all those cals! I wouldn’t be getting anywhere.

    it happens to the best of us - swimming always gets me - i'm always starving after, but it burns less calories than cycling
  • Vegas_Mick
    Vegas_Mick Posts: 3 Member
    This is why I don't eat back my calories ever. Calorie counting is already an inexact science; eating back calories just adds one more layer of doubt.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Vegas_Mick wrote: »
    This is why I don't eat back my calories ever. Calorie counting is already an inexact science; eating back calories just adds one more layer of doubt.

    So do you use a TDEE estimation rather than MFP which uses NEAT to determine calorie count
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    haylzp24 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    haylzp24 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    haylzp24 wrote: »
    Hello!

    Are there any fitness trackers that measure how many calories you burn on a indoor bike? I can’t believe I burned 600 cals this morning in 22 mins on high intensity

    A male pro cyclist would be working hard to burn that amount so you are very wise to doubt those numbers, horrendously exaggerated would be my guess.

    Does the bike (make and model might be helpful) show you your power output in watts or kj?

    An external fitness tracker would need to be picking up power data from your bike to give you a useful number. Cadence isn't relevant on its own, indicated "speed" is irrelevant for indoor cycling as it bears so little relation to real speed outdoors.

    It measures it in watts but it’s not consistent as I do get tired but I keep pushing myself.

    It’s a reebok gb40s

    An average of 170 watts for an hour would burn about 612 net cals.
    (The simple version of the maths is average watts for an hour X 3.6 = net cals)

    So if you are averaging 170w for roughly a third of that time then 204 net cals would be a pretty good estimate.
    It's also a pretty good effort, well done.

    To go back to your original question - if your Reebok bike transmits via Bluetooth or ANT+ protocols then yes you could link a fitness tracker. Garmin or Wahoo perhaps. (A quick search online didn't reveal that it can transmit any data though.)

    But if you are just interested in calorie estimates I'd probably just say save your money and do the maths yourself.

    Thank you! I wish it would give an average speed as that would make it easier. I’ll try and work it out tomorrow and keep an eye on the watts :)

    Speed actually probably won't help.
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    Your absolute best bet would be buy power meter pedals and a computer (Garmin, Wahoo, Lezyne). You'll get accurate power figures and thus accurate calorie figures.

    However, this is a $600+ option ;)
  • icemom011
    icemom011 Posts: 999 Member
    I'm a cyclist too, and i find that my fitbit gives pretty accurate estimate of the calories burned on the bike. It's much cheaper option ;)
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    FWIW this was my ride this morning. 529 cal in 90 minutes going 60km / 40 miles on the bike trainer. I have a speed & cadence sensor on the bike and am riding on a smart trainer that estimates the wattage (my power meter is on my other bike, I need to buy a second one)

    m2fgyilx3o18.jpg

    Without knowing your watts it is pretty much guesswork, sjomial's formula should be pretty close if the bike gives you your wattage.