Traveler
Total Posts: 928
|
05-23-20 11:55 AM - Post#898378
To the best of my knowledge, most Schwinn Airdynes that came out after Y2k have a measuring device that displays a number of workout related metrics.
One of the metrics is calories burned.
Does anyone know what bodyweight the calculation is based upon?
If, for example, the bodyweight utilized to generate calories is 160 lbs., and you weighed 192 lbs, would it be correct to gross up calories burned by 20 percent?
Thanks in advance for replying.
Stay Healthy, Stay Strong
|
Dan John
Total Posts: 12292
|
05-23-20 05:01 PM - Post#898389
I have no idea. I think sometimes, like the 220-Age number, are just convenient lies.
Daniel John
Just handing down what I was handed down...
Make a Difference.
Live. Love. Laugh.
Balance work, rest, play and pray (enjoy beauty and solitude)
Sleep soundly. Drink Water. Eat veggies and protein. Walk.
Wear your seat belt. Don’t smoke. Floss your teeth.
Put weights overhead. Pick weights off the floor. Carry weights.
Reread great books. Say thank you |
|
Traveler
Total Posts: 928
|
I have no idea. I think sometimes, like the 220-Age number, are just convenient lies.
That sounds about right - unfortunately.
I suppose it is useful if you want to see if you are making progress, comparing efforts on it.
I was hoping to take the calorie count and using a calculator over at exrx to compare it to my efforts on the treadmill at the gym; do a METS to METS comparison.
I hadn't used the Airdyne in a long time. When I stopped going to the gym, earlier this year, I started using it again.
I am hitting 500 calories for 30 minutes on the Airdyne, doing steady state work.
Over the last week, I have begun alternating HIIT with MISS (Moderate Intensity Steady State.) I would like to compare my Airdyne efforts with my long history of treadmill work. However, I suppose I will just have to compare apples to apples.
Thanks for the response Dan. I hope you and your family are healthy and staying safe.
Stay Healthy, Stay Strong
|
Dan John
Total Posts: 12292
|
05-24-20 12:11 PM - Post#898427
Thank you. I hope all of our people here are doing well.
BTW, I think the "convenient lie" thing works really well. The problem, of course, is when...later...it becomes Dogma. Sometimes we do things and just agree it works. We need to continue to readdress our presumptions.
Daniel John
Just handing down what I was handed down...
Make a Difference.
Live. Love. Laugh.
Balance work, rest, play and pray (enjoy beauty and solitude)
Sleep soundly. Drink Water. Eat veggies and protein. Walk.
Wear your seat belt. Don’t smoke. Floss your teeth.
Put weights overhead. Pick weights off the floor. Carry weights.
Reread great books. Say thank you |
|
Justin Jordan
Total Posts: 854
|
05-25-20 08:24 AM - Post#898455
I suspect that the best way is going to be to compare heart rate and time. If you're cruising at, I dunno, 130 beats per minutes for half an hour doing one thing, then 130 per minute doing another is roughly equivalent.
Outside of a lab, that's probably the best you're going to comparing across machines/exercise.
|
Adam S
Total Posts: 629
|
05-25-20 10:16 AM - Post#898464
I suspect that the best way is going to be to compare heart rate and time. If you're cruising at, I dunno, 130 beats per minutes for half an hour doing one thing, then 130 per minute doing another is roughly equivalent.
Outside of a lab, that's probably the best you're going to comparing across machines/exercise.
This is probably right. They are going to be "roughly equivalent." I don't think it's going to be exactly equivalent because I think it is possible that you maximum heart rate may actually vary depending on the exercise. I know that sounds crazy: a maximum heart rate is, well, a maximum heart rate, right? But my maximum recorded heart rate on the Airdyne is higher than anything I have managed to produce during a run. The disparities weren't due to different recording devices, but conditions, such as fatigue, hydration, temperature, humidity, or even sheer will to max out could explain why I consistently have reached no higher than 183 when testing maxes on runs, but 189 (if memory serves) on the Airdyne. But maybe--and I really mean to sound tentative here--the fact that you are exerting with both arms and legs on the Airdyne could affect the maximum heart rate on that machine. The only point I am trying to make is that any comparison between different exercises (or to sound fancy, "exercise modalities") might only be approximate, as you note. But that is probably sufficient. I will finish by noting that my wife and I LOVE the Airdyne and are actually looking for a used one to put in her mother's house for our extended stays there. There is nothing like going all out on the Airdyne.
| Why are you squatting in the curl rack? |
|
RyanH
Total Posts: 853
|
-
Edited by RyanH on 05-25-20 11:19 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
DanMartin
Total Posts: 20705
|
05-25-20 12:52 PM - Post#898470
Doing a bit of Google-Fu, it looks like the AirDyne calculator uses the arbitrary weight of a 160 pound trainee to determine calories burned.
|
Justin Jordan
Total Posts: 854
|
05-25-20 01:03 PM - Post#898471
I suspect that the best way is going to be to compare heart rate and time. If you're cruising at, I dunno, 130 beats per minutes for half an hour doing one thing, then 130 per minute doing another is roughly equivalent.
Outside of a lab, that's probably the best you're going to comparing across machines/exercise.
There are, for sure, non cardio limits to what I can do with just legs or (presumably) arms alone. I CAN'T walk fast enough to get my heart rate as high as I can on an Airdyne for the same length of time. Just mechanically can't do it.
This is probably right. They are going to be "roughly equivalent." I don't think it's going to be exactly equivalent because I think it is possible that you maximum heart rate may actually vary depending on the exercise. I know that sounds crazy: a maximum heart rate is, well, a maximum heart rate, right? But my maximum recorded heart rate on the Airdyne is higher than anything I have managed to produce during a run. The disparities weren't due to different recording devices, but conditions, such as fatigue, hydration, temperature, humidity, or even sheer will to max out could explain why I consistently have reached no higher than 183 when testing maxes on runs, but 189 (if memory serves) on the Airdyne. But maybe--and I really mean to sound tentative here--the fact that you are exerting with both arms and legs on the Airdyne could affect the maximum heart rate on that machine. The only point I am trying to make is that any comparison between different exercises (or to sound fancy, "exercise modalities") might only be approximate, as you note. But that is probably sufficient. I will finish by noting that my wife and I LOVE the Airdyne and are actually looking for a used one to put in her mother's house for our extended stays there. There is nothing like going all out on the Airdyne.
|
Traveler
Total Posts: 928
|
Doing a bit of Google-Fu, it looks like the AirDyne calculator uses the arbitrary weight of a 160 pound trainee to determine calories burned.
I searched and I found nothing about weight, so thank you Dan. I will check again.
Interestingly, I assumed it was based on a 160 lbs. individual, owing to prior experience with fitness related formulas.
If you wanted to do a comparison of another type of cardio, for which you have solid metrics, would you gross up the calories by 20% if you weighed 190lbs?
I use this calculator to judge the efficacy, or lack there of, for my treadmill workouts:
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunME Ts
My intention is to take total calories and compare it to what I have done on the treadmill, so that I can see if I am working at a comparable level.
Yes, the Airdyne is panaerobic, but I would still like to compare METS to METS.
Thanks again Dan for the info. I hope you and yours are doing well.
Stay Healthy, Stay Strong
|
Jordan Derksen
Total Posts: 392
|
05-25-20 04:59 PM - Post#898486
I tried to figure out this relationship a few years ago. It was a toss up whether I used my Airdyne at home or the C2 Rower at college. I noticed specifically on the airdyne that on the occasion it would reset and I didn't bother putting in my weight but just hit enter at 160lb the final mileage and calorie count was very different than if I put in my weight at 200.
I was also trying to compare the wattage and cals between airdyne and rower. I gave up after a while. Its all a smoke screen i think.
|
|
