Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

TOPIC: treadmil vs. stationary bike calories

 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
September 13, 2011 2:08 PM
Why is it I can do an hour on a treadmill with moderate incline for 60 minutes, maintain a heart rate of about 103 and hardly break a sweat and burn 477 calories. But i do 45 minutes on the stationary bike, sweat like a dog, maintain a hr of 125 or better and only burn 400 cal. Sure feels like I'm getting a harder workout in on the bike vs. treadmill. the treadmill settings take into account my weight when i program it, the bike doesnt. I dont have an HMR yet but plan to get one soon. is 400 cal correct on the bike?
September 13, 2011 2:13 PM
400 seems low for 45min.. I used to do spin classes and would burn 1100+ in 60min.. I know the intensity is different, but I would get a HRM as soon as you can
  288170
September 13, 2011 2:13 PM
sometimes we think we're working harder, but we're working too hard. I think that's the best use of an actual HRM attached to you cause you can see where you ideal heart rate is. You're probably doing the treadmill at a better pace, and you're using more muscles than on the stationary bike.
  1027239
September 13, 2011 2:20 PM
I can't stand relying on the gym's equipment, which is used and abused by hundreds of people and began to have questions like this myself.

I posted a topic here earlier today about HRMs and which one would work for me.

I ordered a Polar FT7 from Amazon for $78 and I hope I'll finally know for sure what I burn! (I just hope that I haven't been OVERestimating.....)

You might want to think about getting one too!
Edited by rosied915 On September 13, 2011 2:20 PM
  6133650
September 13, 2011 2:21 PM
The calorie counters on the machines are not very accurate... an HRM would be helpful for you.

When I got mine I learned that I burn much more calories than the machines estimated... which is awesome, cause I get to eat more :)
September 13, 2011 2:23 PM
thats my fear that I'm over estimating and killing my progress, or under and killing my progress because im in too much of a deficit. cmon... birthday.....daddy needs his HRM!!!!!
September 13, 2011 2:24 PM
is the polar ftm chest strap pretty big or adjustable. I'm 300 lbs and dont want to look like im wearing a rubber band.
September 13, 2011 2:35 PM
bump
  5666334
September 13, 2011 2:43 PM
I always try to go for time over exertion. To get the best benefit from exercise I usually try and do something less strenuous for a longer period of time and slowly work my way up. I started jogging at 5mph on the treadmill and could barely last 10 minutes. Over time I kept that pace and eventually got up to 30 minutes, then 40. Then I did 5.5mph for 25 minutes and worked my way up to 40 minutes. Now I run 6mph for 40 minutes and at times I go for 50. I've started running at 6.5mph recently and it's gone back down to 30 minutes and I can barely do that.

Even though I'm 5'10", my pants length is only 28 inches, so at 6.5mph I'm going pretty good. If you're taller you can probably go a lot faster.
  7177917
September 13, 2011 2:56 PM
QUOTE:

is the polar ftm chest strap pretty big or adjustable. I'm 300 lbs and dont want to look like im wearing a rubber band.


They come in different sizes up to XXXL which I think I measured before stretches to like 60" around so you will be fine.
  288170
September 13, 2011 3:03 PM
QUOTE:

is the polar ftm chest strap pretty big or adjustable. I'm 300 lbs and dont want to look like im wearing a rubber band.


Well - I had the larger version of the chest strap for my Polar CS200 bike specifc HRM, and it fit me okay despite my (then) 58" chest measurment, wasn't at the end of its adjutment, so I reckon you'll be fine wink
  9699395
September 13, 2011 3:06 PM
maybe it's got something to do with bodyweight?

when you are on the bike, you aren't having to hold your bodyweight (the seat does).... i've always found jogging really so much more beneficial in shredding fat and wiping me out, than the bike riding...
September 13, 2011 3:17 PM
maybe, but im only doing a brisk walk. Herniated neck disc prevents me from jogging. but my wife says (she is a wellness major) that treadmill walking is easier than actual walking because your getting "help" with moving your legs.
September 13, 2011 3:55 PM
i got an ft7 polar and the difference from the actual machines they never seem right
  83586
September 13, 2011 4:05 PM
I use a Polar HRM and nothing burns as many calories for me as running. Bike and elliptical are always lower, with bike typically the least amount of calories burned. I always figured that it had to with the fact the upper body isn't involved at all. Running is really a head to toe thing and when I do the elliptical I keep my hands off the machine and entirely and engage my upper body similar to just running. With the bike there's not really a good way to do that, so even at higher resistances and pedaling as hard as I can, it's just never as high. But I use that as my own odd form of motivation to keep pedaling harder, just to try to get the calories up. heh
September 14, 2011 7:02 AM
maybe I'll try an eliptical tomorrow...... They look really uncomfortable to use.....
September 14, 2011 3:09 PM
QUOTE:

thats my fear that I'm over estimating and killing my progress, or under and killing my progress because im in too much of a deficit. cmon... birthday.....daddy needs his HRM!!!!!


Hey, that's how I'm justifying my purchase too!!bigsmile
(me~ age 51~ TOMORROW!)embarassed
  6133650
September 14, 2011 3:14 PM
QUOTE:

maybe I'll try an eliptical tomorrow...... They look really uncomfortable to use.....


I started out NOT use the arm thingies till I got the hang of it. I am VERY short and the stride seemed big for me and was not adjustable but if I tried to keep myself as straight up as possible, it was easier.

The first time I did the elliptical, I did 3 minutes and I was dying!!

So I'll draw the line in the sand for you, OK? 1st day, 3 minutes!!

Let me know how it goes.......
  6133650
September 14, 2011 3:31 PM
will do!!!!
September 14, 2011 3:32 PM
QUOTE:

maybe, but im only doing a brisk walk. Herniated neck disc prevents me from jogging. but my wife says (she is a wellness major) that treadmill walking is easier than actual walking because your getting "help" with moving your legs.


Not true. There are some differences with running, but for walking there is no significant difference. It's possible that a cheapo or "big box" treadmill might be really sloppy about the calorie counter, but the equations for estimating calories burned for walking are relatively simple and accurate. In many if not most cases, as long as you are not holding on to the handrails, calorie estimates for walking on a treadmill should be pretty accurate--in some cases much more accurate than an HRM.

If you can get used to the incline, uphill walking (at a comfortable speed) can be a great calorie burner.
September 14, 2011 3:38 PM
I own a recumbent stationary bike and I always thought it was pretty accurate in regards to calorie burn. It asks for my weight when I start. Then I started wearing my HRM on it and found that it underestimates my burns by about 30%. THIRTY PERCENT. So that 200 calories I thought I burned was actually about 260 calories. I was pretty shocked. Now I wear my HRM when I use it.

As far as the HRM goes, it does a good job of measuring my running calories (110-120 per mile) so I'm pretty sure it's as accurate as it can be.
  5282428

Reply

Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.