Spinning

[yomamma]

I am new at using the Fitbit.  I spin four times a week.   I also walk.  When I walk, I can use over 6,000 steps but it isn't really a great cardio workout.  When I spin for 50 minutes, I may not get more than 5,200 steps because of the intensity of the workout.  Which is better?  The greater number of steps or the hard cardio workout?

[Jeroen]

Depends what you goal is. Spinning is good for cardio but when you want to burn fat your hearth rate needs to be below the  “fat-burning zone”. So a combination of both is the ideal one I would say.

[gerrymcd]

I wouldn't class one exercise as being 'better' than the other.  Walking is really good exercise, as is spinning.  They just have slightly different effects on the body.  For example, spinning will likely push your heart rate higher than walking (unless you are walking really quickly up a steep hill).  Spin is also pretty low impact, but for good overall health and retaining bone mass its important to workout with some weight (body weight or 'weights').  Walking provides slighly more of this than spinning.

I think most people would agree that a varied workout schedule is much better than favoring one type of exercise.   Sounds like you are coming close to that goal. Chuck in a little strength training, and the odd swim and you will be close to perfect! 

[CAGIRL · Accepted solution]

I've walked in place to get my steps and still counted them since I was being active and moving, versus sitting on the couch. That being said, I don't feel that all steps are created equal. I can step in place for 40 min, walk for 40 min, cycle for 40 minutes, or run for 40. I'm going to maximize my metabolism and burn by running.I feel that I get a better burn in cycle class even though I don't get as many "steps". I then add the time manually to ensure my calories are properly tracked.

[Heybales]

---

@Jeroen wrote:

Depends what you goal is. Spinning is good for cardio but when you want to burn fat your hearth rate needs to be below the  “fat-burning zone”. So a combination of both is the ideal one I would say.

---

This is a misunderstanding of the myth of the fat-burning zone.

The myth goes to burn a higher % of fat, you need to remain in that HR zone (more accurately called the active-recovery HR zone for ages now until the fad started).

The problem is, the only reason the % of fat burned is more, is because you are burning fewer calories.

And you are only looking at that workout without rest of the day involved.

But guess what, you work above that zone and burn more calories, while the % may be lower, that's because you are burning the SAME quantity of fat usually.

But guess what happens after the workout since you burned more calories? More fat is burned later too.

You are actually making it sound like you stop burning fat above that zone, which isn't true at all.

You keep burning fat, the % of it used though keep decreasing up until lactate threshold is reached, or anaerobic threshold, otherwise meaning without oxygen, which fat burning needs. 

Let's use my figures from VO2max test to show by example what actually happens. And why viewing the workout by itself without the other 23 hrs of the day is not really useful.

Lets say I do the fat-burning HR zone to get 50% fat burn (you'll never get 100% in exercies anyway, closest to 100% is sleeping), which I do for running as active recovery all the time.

For me, that's HR of 129 and calorie burn of 671 / hr.

So 671 x 0.5 = 336 cal of fat burned / 9 (cal/g) = 37 grams of fat burned. Or 1.3 oz.

671 x 0.5 = 336 cal of carbs burned / 4 = 84 grams of carbs burned.

Now lets say I do a more intense workout, top of aerobic HR zone, 158 HR, and 986 / hr.

This is 19% fat burn, 81% carb burn (yeah, bad results in test since 2 days after triathlon, it's better now).

Total calories burned 986 x 0.19 = 187 cal fat burned / 9 = 21 grams or 0.74 oz.

986 x 0.81 = 799 cal carbs burned / 4 = 200 grams carbs burned.

Now, here's where rest of the day comes in to play. My next meal the rise in insulin is going to send those carbs off to liver and muscle stores that provided the energy for that workout.

When blood sugar returns to normal, then normal fat burning is enabled again when insulin drops.

Which of those workouts is going to get rid of the carbs I ate faster, allowing faster return to normal fat burning mode post meal?

I don't even eat 200 grams of carbs in a meal. So I've got several meals covered there for getting back to normal fat burning mode during less active times much quicker.

No, if you only have so much time available for a workout and it's purpose is to burn fat and calories to assist in weight loss - doing the "fat-burning zone" myth is a mistake.

If you are doing hard workouts and to do such need easy ones on days between, then yes, the active recovery HR zone can be beneficial then. Because frankly, even there, that easy workout is going to allow my hard workout to be truly hard, and it will more than make up for it being easy.

[Denisema]

I do spinning classes 4/5x's per week, but feel I don't get a good reading off my fitbit. My husband purchased the small in which does not fit around my ankle. Any other alternatives that might work. Most of my workout apparel does not have pockets either. Today I kept putting my hand on the top part of my leg which I think helped with gathering steps, but not comfortable in spinning. 

[Heybales]

---

@Denisema wrote:

I do spinning classes 4/5x's per week, but feel I don't get a good reading off my fitbit. My husband purchased the small in which does not fit around my ankle. Any other alternatives that might work. Most of my workout apparel does not have pockets either. Today I kept putting my hand on the top part of my leg which I think helped with gathering steps, but not comfortable in spinning. 

---

Forget even attempting to get a better step count, unless the only reason is to have higher steps counted.

If it's about wanting a better estimate of calorie burn - the formula for translating steps into calories is ONLY valid for walking and running, not the non-"steps" you get biking or spinning.

If you have a step-based device - manually log the workout and pick your intensity.

If you have a HR-based device - you are getting good estimate already once you've worn it for a couple weeks.

In either case - the more you have the device tied to one leg, the more you will not see both steps, but just one of that leg, if even that. Better is on hip that could see action on both feet depending on your smoothness of pedal stroke.

[ItsCallie]

I burned over 400 calories in under an hour of spinning and it counted as less than 2K steps. I don't think I deserve 18 miles worth of steps, but I don't think 2,000 steps is really sufficient to the task. Very disappointed.

[Heybales]

---

@ItsCallie wrote:

I burned over 400 calories in under an hour of spinning and it counted as less than 2K steps. I don't think I deserve 18 miles worth of steps, but I don't think 2,000 steps is really sufficient to the task. Very disappointed.

---

How exactly do you think turns of the pedal should be translated into steps?

Because you realize steps is what gives distance - and the distance cycling and distance walking have no correlation at all.

Suggest reading all the responses already in this topic.

If you were doing weight lifting you'd really be doing something to transform the body - and guess how many steps you'd get out of it?

Does that mean not worth doing?

Sometimes what's best to do has nothing to do with steps.

[SunsetRunner]

I actually look at it differently. After spinning I don't expect to see any extra steps. It's not a step-based activity. Maybe "workout" could be considered as some exercises are step-based etc. but definitely not "spinning" or "bike" ( which adds extra steps, too ). I'd rather see it corrected and the overall steps impact should be 0 ( maybe counter resumed whenever activity is paused ). I don't understand why any steps are counted in at all. Calories burnt in the HR based trackers are based on heart rate rather than steps ( I'm hoping the steps have nothing to do with it ).