File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /fit/

If you spend one hour on a recumbent stationary bike, and the calories burned readout says 516, how accurate is that likely to be?

I'm guessing that's just the calories on average, the average weight, average height, male, would have burned, but I'm not too sure. (I'm 300Ibs, btw).

(pic unrelated)
>> Anonymous
Big. Fat. Lie.
4
Fat. Trusting. Douches.
>> Anonymous
>>456980
OP here.

Erm, definitely not a lie brah :/
>> Anonymous
It's a unit of energy. Your size/weight/anything has nothing to do with it.
>> Anonymous
Uh, you kinda burn more calories if you are fat because you are moving more mass.
>> Anonymous
OP here, but generally how much calories would have I burned?
>> Anonymous
>>456991

>>456965
>stationary bike

Nothing of variable mass moves, you fucking idiot. All that is being moved is a constant mass flywheel.

Don't fucking post when you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
>> Anonymous
>>456991
You've burned however many the readout says you have. With a small margin of error (so maybe 510-520.) This is the same if you weigh 15 pounds or 15 tons.
>> Anonymous
>>456993
OK, OK, I'm a little confused. So I didn't actually burn any calories from that bike, or what? I'm slightly confused.
>> Anonymous
>>456995
No one is that stupid. I will not get trolled.
>> Anonymous
>>456993
Ahhh, I actually see what you're saying now. Nevermind.

>>456994
So I'll always burn the same amount of calories for the same workout, regardless of whether I'm 300Ibs, or 150Ibs?
>> Anonymous
>>456997
Why be such an asshole?

I'm not coming on here being an asshole or trying to offend people, I'm just looking for a little explanation understanding.
>> Anonymous
>>456993
Wait so you are saying you burn the same amount of calories spinning with stick legs rather than gigantic swells of fat?
>> Anonymous
>>456993
Wait so you are saying you burn the same amount of calories spinning with stick legs rather than gigantic fatty legs?
>> Anonymous
>>457001
OP here, that's why I found what he said slightly confusing. But I figured he's just saying that if it were a real bike you would burn a lot more due to you actually having to counter your own weight more so than a skinny person would (making everything harder), and the same principle for running. I think that's basically what he's saying. I'm still not too sure though.
>> Anonymous
ITT: Retards.
>> Anonymous
ITT: Retards calling retards retards.
>> Anonymous
ITT: Retards calling retards calling retards retards.
>> Anonymous
>>457023

ITT: Self admitting retards.
>> Anonymous
>>457023

ITT: Recursive retards
>> sage sage
ITT: SAGE.
>> Anonymous
>>457007

GUYS IT LOOKS LIKE EINSTEIN HERE FINALLY UNDERSTANDS IT
>> Anonymous
>>456965
300Ibs, 1 Hour?

Go lie somewhere else.
>> Anonymous
>>457148
Why would that be a lie, lol?
>> Anonymous
>>457029
I don't think it's as simple as that.
>> Anonymous
I fucking love strom troopers!
>> Anonymous
>>457776
Same.

Shits SO cash.
>> Anonymous
maybe just, like, don't eat anything
>> Anonymous
>>456980Here.

Lets do a simple calc:

"Well established" that 100cal / mile @ pace of 5-6 mph, or "running".
This means: 1 mile every 9.5-12 mins. Assumes bunch of stuff but 154lb person would burn 107 cals doing this.
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

So. You spent several... units of time seated peddling your legs and burnt 516 calories.

Now. Do you feel like you ran 5 miles?

Y/N?

Oh... wait. Did you take into account how many calories you would have burnt just sitting on your ass without peddling your legs?

Guess not.

Hrm.

Lets be nice to your lard ass;
http://walking.about.com/cs/howtoloseweight/a/howcalburn.htm says 5 mph at 300 lbs -> 218 calories.

So. Do you feel like you ran two miles? At 5mph? (2 miles in 24 minutes...)


Guess they're a big lie.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
welcome to 4chan what a bunch of wankers
>> Anonymous
how long did it take you to lose all that weight?
>> Anonymous
>>458312
erm, well I've only lost around 20Ibs so far..