Distance on Bike indoors?

Options
dietstokes
dietstokes Posts: 216 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hey guys,

I was wondering if anyone knows how to calculate hypothetical distance covered on a bike that is attached to an indoor resistance trainer? I know I maintain about 120 cycles per minute. I'm just trying to figure out what to input for my exercise. Thanks!

Replies

  • stonea22
    stonea22 Posts: 46
    Options
    The best thing is to get a bike computer. They can be rather cheap and will show you RPM, distance, time etc. have a bike shop install so it is properly calibrated.
  • dietstokes
    dietstokes Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    I hope to get one eventually, but that doesn't help me now to figure out what to input. Should I pick the between 10-12 mph choice on mfp? or one that is lower? I'm just not familiar enough with bikes to know my average speed.
  • riders999
    riders999 Posts: 7
    Options
    10-12mph is about my average speed on a mountain bike (fat tyres) for a 90 minute ride, a road bike would be considerably faster though not sure how the 2 compare to an indoor bike though,
  • blueretro
    blueretro Posts: 17
    Options
    Hey guys,

    I was wondering if anyone knows how to calculate hypothetical distance covered on a bike that is attached to an indoor resistance trainer? I know I maintain about 120 cycles per minute. I'm just trying to figure out what to input for my exercise. Thanks!

    120 cycles per minute is quite a considerable rate. It all depends on which gear you have the bike in, but I would hazard a guess you would average about 14 mph.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Your 120 cycles is probably for each foot going down, right?

    That would be a cadence of 60. That is really low, and if you are upping the resistence to get a workout, potentially very hard on the knees.
    You should probably be between 85-95 for general workouts.

    There is a Spin bike category for exactly the reason it's impossible to use the bike exercise categories when there is no distance.
    Also, weight is less of a factor because you have no rolling resistance differences, so that part of the formula is different.
    Plus with no wind resistance, the major part of the calculation is out the window.
    so you would be very exaggerating your calorie burn.

    Use the Spinbike or exercise bike category since you are not on the road doing a distance.

    This would be a perfect use of a HRM, to confirm you are having a good workout. Because you will tend to sweat, and that is not a good indicator of level of effort.
  • pucenavel
    pucenavel Posts: 972 Member
    Options
    You also have to figure in the resistance of the trainer v. road. I have a bike computer on my bike and for the same effort level, I will ride MUCH farther on the open road in a give time period.

    From just trial and error, I've come the conclusion that my trainer is about the equivalent of riding up about a 3-4% grade.

    My advice on bike computers is to avoid wireless. The hardwired ones are cheaper, more reliable and they don't burn through batteries so much. I used to have to change the batteries 2-3 times a year and had to worry about interference from (of all things) my iPod (If my iPod got within 6 inches of the receiver - like in my pocket, the thing would report my speed as 70mph). I've had a hard wired one for over a year on the same battery.
  • pucenavel
    pucenavel Posts: 972 Member
    Options
    HRM's are not cheap either.

    You can approximate your calorie burn using calculators on the internet if you know resting heart rate, age and a few other factors.

    To figure your average heartrate, take your pulse at the quarter points of your ride (i.e. - 15 min, 30 min, 45 min, 1 hour for a 1 hour ride) and average them. That's close enough. Count your beats in 6 seconds and multiply by 10. Again - close enough considering the calculators are only approximating the calorie burn anyhow.
  • dietstokes
    dietstokes Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    So I just got on the trainer for 30 minutes, and I had an average that ranged from 73-77 the entire time. So I would be okay at saying moderate pace right?
  • pucenavel
    pucenavel Posts: 972 Member
    Options
    You are probably working harder at 75 cadence than you would at 95 - I know that sounds weird, but it's true.

    Read this:

    http://www.endurancenation.us/blog/cycling/cycling-cadence/

    But if you don't want to, the short story is you are better off spinning fast in an easy gear than slow on a hard gear.

    I ride at 95 (and peak at around 110), but it took awhile to get there - drop the gearing down two notches and see how that feels, you'll probably be in the 80's somewhere. When I first started using cadence that's about where I started. I went from 70 to 85 overnight and was riding FASTER on the open road the very next day as a result.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    So I just got on the trainer for 30 minutes, and I had an average that ranged from 73-77 the entire time. So I would be okay at saying moderate pace right?

    Your cadence has no bearing on your speed.

    The exercise you are looking for isn't about speed, cadence, or otherwise. It's about your effort.

    And doing the heart rate that pucenavel mentioned is the only way to get a good idea.

    Stationary bike, vigorous effort (bicycling, cycling, biking) is one category, if you are really vigorous in your effort. Your HR should be way up there.

Categories