<p>Yeah! I’m always surprised by the ridiculous calorie numbers it throws at me!</p>
<p>I have my weight plugged into my heart rate monitor, so – in theory, it should give an accurate calorie burn. To be honest, I don’t even glance at the calorie burn any more. I don’t believe the nuimbers reported by any of this stuff. I think it’s all bogus. </p>
<p>I take that back, I think the Schwinn Airdyne is probably fairly accurate and very sobering compared to the numbers typically thrown around. It’s reporting a very specific thing: actual calories of work to push those pedals against that known resistance at x speed. The real calores would make you cry compared to the pie in the sky numbers most exercise equipment and heart rate montitors throw at you.</p>
<p>Part of the explanation is this: There are two ways to look at calories. Estimates are that we burn 5 calories for every liter of oxygen we breath. So, when we are huffin’ and puffin’ on the treadmill, we are “burning” a lot of calories. Unfortunately, we would be burning most of those same calories sitting on the couch eating bon-bons. The real number of interest is “net calories” – the actual number of calories burned minus the large percentage we are burning just as base metabolism. That’s the number that the Airdyne is basically reporting and why it’s so sobering and why I don’t pay any attention to calories. </p>
<p>Any calories we burn exercising are just a tiny percentage of the calories we are burning to just stay alive. For example, my basal metabolic rate estimate says that I would burn 1700 calories a day if I just lay in bed for 24 hours – never even taking a single step. This why the fat loss pros are so big on doing exercise that raises metabolism for 24 hours after the workout, so that there is a calorie burn not just during the workout, but for an entire day afterwards. </p>
<p>I don’t want to throw numbers at you, because honestly, I just don’t remember. I literally don’t even look at it. The workout I have stored in my heart rate monitor is Friday’s 42 minute Spartacus workout, including 5 minute warm up and 5 minute cool down on the Airdyne. I averaged a heart rate of 82% for the 42 minutes with a peak of 96%, both of which are very high. At least for my level of fitness, this was a very intense workout. The heart rate monitor says that I burned 636 calories. I think that’s optimistic, probably by a factor of two when it comes to a number that would be meaningful in terms of fat loss. And, I say that believing that the Spartacus Workout is an example of far and away the most efficient type fat burning workout. If you want to burn fat, there’s nothing better than doing that workout.</p>
<p>Here’s some real calorie numbers for treadmill running from Runner’s World magazine:</p>
<p>[How</a> Many Calories Are You Really Burning? | From Runner’s World](<a href=“http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html]How”>http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, you would really be burning about 400 calories running four miles at a 9:30 pace. The reality is that burning a couple hundred calories is a good workout, not the pie-in-the-sky numbers all this equipment throws at us. If were were really burning those kinds of calories, it would be a piece of cake to exercise your way to easy fat loss without cutting food consumption. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.</p>