I’m overweight and trying to lose weight via diet and stationary cycling but I’m confused with different calculators
if
Stationary bike says 100 calories (no weight input)
online calculators say 200 400 600 etc asking me the same info including weight
In: 4
I belive I cud possibly maybe explain it bcus I have made a calorimeter ,maybe it wud be wrong but still..
Three main equations are used in these calculators
1.Miffflin St Jeor Equation
2.Harris Benedict Equation
3.Katch McArdle Equation
So the different answers maybe bcus of that q
There are multiple factors that can affect the number of calories burned while cycling, including weight, intensity, and duration. Different cycling calorie calculators may use different formulas to estimate the number of calories burned, which can account for some of the variation in results. Additionally, some calculators allow you to input your own variables (such as weight and intensity), while others use fixed values, which can also affect the final calorie estimate.
Different cycling calorie calculators use different formulas to estimate the number of calories burned during a ride. Some factors that can affect the estimate include the cyclist’s weight, the intensity of the ride, and the duration of the ride.
There are too many variables to accurately track how many calories are burned during a work out session, so it just gives a rough estimate… very rough. A system would have to know your starting weight, body fat percentage, the amount of sweat and CO2 produced from the workout… etc. Even if you precisely tracked your calorie intake for a month, along with weight, and your exact cycling routine. You could get a more accurate estimate, but as you lost weight and built muscle even that would start to vary.
Because they’re not designed to be accurate. They’re designed to make you feel good about working towards a goal. There are way too many variables involved for any online calculator outside of a medical setting to be remotely accurate: RHR, THR, wake/rest cycles, body weight, body fat %, muscular concentration, exercise being performed, weights involved in that exercise, caloric intake (which is whole other ball of wax: the #s that are actually on foods are allowed a huge variation in their calculations, as well [e.g. sugar packets can be labeled as having 0 calories per serving if they’re small enough]), intensity of exercise, exact time spent on each exercise at each intensity level, and so on and so on. It’s just too much to plug in and keep updated. Some gym equipment can help mitigate some of those tracking issues, but the body composition and basic metabolism stuff would still be based on an estimated average expenditure at a given weight/gender/age, all of which also play a role.
It is more beneficial for you to track the time you spend *doing* exercise than it is attempting to calorie count, anyways. Odds are real good that you’ll never reach the **ideal** weight, because that’s a myth, anyway (also based on averages and perceptions and a bunch of other misogynistic BS), but it is entirely possible that you can reach a body composition that is healthy, and that should be your goal. Don’t focus on what “looks good”, focus on what it will be like to feel good, and you *will* get there (with a little effort). It will take some time. The recommended weight gain/loss metric is really low (.5 – 4 lbs *per month* is recommended, lower at lower weights and higher at higher weights, up to a point), but you *will* get there and it will be worth it, I promise.
Latest Answers