I've had it; No more Diet [Archive]

smoke

02-01-07, 08:11 AM

Blackberry

02-01-07, 08:23 AM

You could be losing fat and gaining muscle, which weighs more...Just sayin'

timmhaan

02-01-07, 09:06 AM

did you change the foods you're eating? more veggies, fruits, etc.?

bac

02-01-07, 09:17 AM

i've been at this for 5 weeks now. working out on the trainer daily, i've cut my food intake quite a bit, drastically reduced dinner, and nothing. lose a pound a week? i haven't dropped an ounce in over a month. i just can't figure this out. every bit of weight loss info out there is b.s. i'm through trying. why be hungry? i'll eat like i used to and stay the same weight

sorry, i'm in a grumpy mood. but i'm really getting frustrated with this as well.

-smoke

Something is off here. Simply put, if you burn more than you intake, you will lose weight. So, you're either NOT burning more than your intake, or you've gained muscle and lost fat. How do your clothes fit now compared to 5 weeks ago. That's a good indicator if you don't have access to good body fat measurement.

smoke

02-01-07, 09:45 AM

HDWound

02-01-07, 10:13 AM

What kind of workouts are you doing on the trainer? What kind of level of effort?

zowie

02-01-07, 10:17 AM

Try adding hypnosis to get rid of the negativity and frustration. I'm not kidding, attitude and body image are a neglected part of the picture.

Make sure your hour on the bike has the necessary intensity. I find that coaching cds or dvds can help me ratchet things up. Are you sitting there reading a magazine or doing resistence intervals, speed intervals, one-leg intervals, etc.?

Try alternating the indoor biking with another aerobic activity like running. For me, even during outdoor riding season, this makes a big difference.

daredevil

02-01-07, 10:20 AM

I feel your pain.

Az B

02-01-07, 11:21 AM

i am eating more veggies. and, from what i've read, it's not as simple as calories in/calories out. i've seen some stuff that says that, as your intake is reduced, your metabolism will slow down as well, trying to compensate.

Actually, it still is that simple. If you're working more, you will eat more. As long as calories in is less than or equal calories out, you will lose some weight. You can't cut calories too much or it will affect your energy level and make it harder to work out. But it really is that simple.

Forget about the muscle replacing fat theory. Most people can only gain 2-3 lbs of muscle in a year, and that's if they're trying hard. (Some people can do more, but we're talking getting huge)

Something simply isn't adding up. Are you logging your intake? Are you following a training plan? Are you training 6 days a week? Are you following a training plan of some kind?

Az

SSP

02-01-07, 11:58 AM

i've been at this for 5 weeks now. working out on the trainer daily, i've cut my food intake quite a bit, drastically reduced dinner, and nothing. lose a pound a week? i haven't dropped an ounce in over a month. i just can't figure this out. every bit of weight loss info out there is b.s. i'm through trying. why be hungry? i'll eat like i used to and stay the same weight

sorry, i'm in a grumpy mood. but i'm really getting frustrated with this as well.

-smoke

What's your current height and weight?

And, what's your estimated body fat percentage? You can find an easy-to-use calculator here: http://www.he.net/~zone/prothd2.html

grebletie

02-01-07, 12:54 PM

i am eating more veggies. and, from what i've read, it's not as simple as calories in/calories out. i've seen some stuff that says that, as your intake is reduced, your metabolism will slow down as well, trying to compensate. i used to believe in the calories in/calories out idea, but i just don't anymore. i'm eating less food overall, and it's not the junk food i've lived on my whole life (more veggies, chicken [which i've never eaten before]). same lifting routine i've done for a year. only one hour a day in the basement on the bike, clamped into a trainer. so i don't see any large muscle growth as the answer, either. beats me. i'm just tired of beating my head against it. i'd like to lose 10-15 pounds to help my climbing, but i guess it's just not gonna happen

-smoke
At its core, it really is as simple as calories in and calories out. Your body can slow your metabolism down, but if you're riding, you're burning calories. Also, how many hours are you putting in at one time. Because, to be honest, if you really want to see the pounds come off, it's got to be 3-4 hour rides.

If you're having trouble, you need to start counting calories. Also, keep up with the veggies and whatnot. Also something to keep in mind, is a bit of fat in the diet might not be such a bad thing. It might be that you're not taking in enough fat, and are overloading in the carbs / protein.

On a typical day, what will you eat? This might give us a clue as to what the problem is.

sunmle

02-01-07, 01:22 PM

I would try to take a closer look at what you're eating. You've cut back, but have you cut back too much? I use a program by calorie king to track everything I eat, and it shows you total calories, plus total g of protein, fat, carbs, etc. There are other programs or other websites like fitday.com to help with this also. Maybe you're not eating enough, which will cause the metabolism to slow way down because your body thinks it's starving. Make sure all your carbs are fruits/veggies and whole grains, eat lean proteins, and are you drinking enough water too?

Just some suggestions from a novice who doesn't know much...but these tips are all working for me so far. Good luck...

C Law

02-01-07, 01:30 PM

how many calories are you burning in an hour on the trainer?

250?

I would expect slow weight loss if all you are doing is an hour on the trainer each day plus lifting weights

crtreedude

02-01-07, 01:38 PM

Being a lifelong dieter, I can tell you all approaches are not created equal. And it sure isn't one approach works for everyone. You have to figure out what works for you.

I have to have protein and I have to avoid wheat. I am not talking the Atkins diet either. If I have fruit, vegetables, fat and protein and excercise - I lose weight. Add pastry and forget it, even if the calories are supposed to be the same.

I think what happens is that when I eat bread, I am starving again in about 2 to 3 hours.

Totally agree that you have to REALLY know what you are eating. You probably are eating more than you think.

bac

02-01-07, 01:41 PM

how many calories are you burning in an hour on the trainer?
250?
I would expect slow weight loss if all you are doing is an hour on the trainer each day plus lifting weights

Actually, even with a moderate effort, you will burn more than that. Check this out:

http://www.nutristrategy.com/fitness/cycling.htm

So, even with a moderate effort, you'll easily burn at least 500 calories/hour. Given that, you'll burn 3,500/week. A pound of fat is around 3,500 calories. Do the math. :)

jsigone

02-01-07, 01:49 PM

sounds like your body is used to your workout there for it's not pushing itself when you are doing your training. Try and switch up what you are doing, new things like running swimming, row machine. Spend less time lifting and more time pedaling. Hide your scale for a week and see what happens, think positive, it will happen, sometimes it just requires alot more work.

HDWound

02-01-07, 02:06 PM

Actually, even with a moderate effort, you will burn more than that. Check this out:

http://www.nutristrategy.com/fitness/cycling.htm

So, even with a moderate effort, you'll easily burn at least 500 calories/hour. Given that, you'll burn 3,500/week. A pound of fat is around 3,500 calories. Do the math. :)

Yes, but that only tells part of the story. He's never really said what his caloric intake is. Given the rest of a days activity, 500 calories from an hour on the trainer may not be near enough, and probably isn't given the OP's results. http://www.healthstatus.com/cbc.html while probably not that accurate gives you some idea of total expenditures for a day. In my case for example, I need 2+ hours on the trainer each day to lose a pound a week and my caloric intake isn't that high. The OP could be spinning his wheels without realizing it.

SSP

02-01-07, 02:16 PM

Yes, but that only tells part of the story. He's never really said what his caloric intake is. Given the rest of a days activity, 500 calories from an hour on the trainer may not be near enough, and probably isn't given the OP's results. http://www.healthstatus.com/cbc.html while probably not that accurate gives you some idea of total expenditures for a day. In my case for example, I need 2+ hours on the trainer each day to lose a pound a week and my caloric intake isn't that high. The OP could be spinning his wheels without realizing it.

Fortunately, there are 2 sides to the Weight Loss Equation - Calories In, and Calories Out. Both sides can be worked to trigger weight loss (and for most folks, it's the Calories In side that's more important).

Many folks have lost weight successfully without having to spend 2 hours per day on the trainer. If you're burning about 1000 calories in 2 hours on the trainer, you could achieve the same results by simply eating 500 less calories per day and only doing 1 hour per day on the trainer.

scot

02-01-07, 02:59 PM

I have a number of friends (and myself) who have had similar issues.

it is one of two things

1: You are underestimating your calories in and overestimating the calories out

2: havent given it enough time.

I (and many people) fall into number two. When I start trying to lose weight it takes over a month to start seeing a difference. Its a combination of the increased workouts building muscle, water weight gain, and those stupid snacks and "oh one more bite won't hurt" things. Once I get past that, I am good to go. Lost 35lbs once. Down 9 lbs from my latest attempt with another 8-9 to go.

Don't get discouraged, give it more time and keep exercising. That will keep your metabolism from dropping.

BTW: when your metabolism drops it means your habits change. If you burn 1800 calories a day doing nothing, there is no magic metabolism pill that will all of a sudden make you only burn 1000 calories a day, that isnt how it works. You might be able to drop it to 1700 or something but really what happens is you get tired easier or just dont work out as much as you should something like that. Ignore your body and keep working out/keeping busy.

Greg180

02-01-07, 03:03 PM

approaches are not created equal. And it sure isn't one approach works for everyone. You have to figure out what works for you.

I have to have protein and I have to avoid wheat. If I have fruit, vegetables, fat and protein and excercise - I lose weight. Add pastry and forget it,

Totally agree that you have to REALLY know what you are eating. You probably are eating more than you think.

My Trigger is alcohol. For what ever reason If I put 200 calories of booze in my diet I will gain weight steadily or not lose any even if I am exercising. Look at what you are eating. I use fitday to monitor my foods and calorie/fat intake. It works.

Just don't give up. Look at everything and you will find what your trigger or triggers are. I don't know about you but I never had an issue in my 20s and 30s but late forties...It's tough to get the weight off. Just stick with it.

jsigone

02-01-07, 03:26 PM

yah I have bowling every thursday night, in the winter I was drinking a pitcher per week, now that race season is coming up I have to cut back on that type of stuff. I'd admit, if it was closer to the beginning of the week, I may still drink a lil. But since it's close to the weekend where I do my long rides, I dont need/want any of that in my system.

Smoke, what's your body stats right now? And CAN you ride outside or is your winter keeping you on the trainer? You body stats can also give us an idea of how many cals you burn per hr pending intensity. For me, I burn 800-1100 cals per hour on the bike. I'm 6'2 and 200bs. 250cals/hr is kinda low on the trainer.

SportyWoman

02-01-07, 06:28 PM

Smoke,

I feel for you...I struggled last year at the races carrying unnecessary weight. Now I dropped 15 lbs...I am at the lower range of my competitive healthy weight. My approach was nutrition, changing my workouts, avoiding eating after 8PM, counting my calories (basically cutting back) and resolving a lot of the issues in my life causing me anxiety and stress helped a lot.

I think a good exercise would be to journal everything that you eat in a week. www.fitday.com (http://www.fitday.com) has a free online journal with calorie information.

I am now eating more whole foods including whole milk and cheeses...I need the nutritional value...

Cheers,

Mari

Machka

02-01-07, 06:48 PM

You haven't provided us with any detail at all ...

You say you work out on the trainer daily ... how much/how long? Are you riding the trainer for 15 minutes? And hour? 2 hours?

What other exercise do you do?

You say you've cut down on what you eat? Have you actually sat down and honestly calculate out your calorie intake?

Wait, I see you mention that you do an hour a day on the trainer and some weights ... the same routine you've done for a year. Perhaps you need to shake it up a bit! Add a different exercise, change the routine, increase the weights you are lifting, do intervals on the trainer one day a week, and spend 2 hours on the trainer 1 day a week (in addition to the rest of what you're doing). Go for walks, be more active.

The body does adapt to the same old routine. And sometimes shaking things up can have some dramatic results.

Jarery

02-01-07, 06:58 PM

When i started, it was at least a month before anything started to show, after that, it was a steady, although slight decrease in weight every week. Have a bit more patience. If youve gone 5 weeks, try 3 more.

ericgu

02-01-07, 10:02 PM

i've been at this for 5 weeks now. working out on the trainer daily, i've cut my food intake quite a bit, drastically reduced dinner, and nothing. lose a pound a week? i haven't dropped an ounce in over a month. i just can't figure this out. every bit of weight loss info out there is b.s. i'm through trying. why be hungry? i'll eat like i used to and stay the same weight

sorry, i'm in a grumpy mood. but i'm really getting frustrated with this as well.

-smoke

I agree with others that you should give it a bit more time.

Also, exactly how have you changed what you eat? If you're still eating a lot of simple sugar or carbs, you will find it hard to lose weight.

Pedal Wench

02-01-07, 10:27 PM

jsigone

02-01-07, 11:22 PM

Hmmm, I just had a thought. Normally, bigger guys burn more calories per hour on the bike than smaller folks. They're moving more mass down the road, have more wind resistance, etc. But, on the trainer, is there any difference between a 200 lb. guy and a 120 lb. person?

I believe there is about 300-400cal difference frm 150lbs to 200lb, 120lbs would burn even less at the same intesity level. Where I burn about 1000-1100 per hr on a typical ride @ 200lbs, my friend that is about 160ish burns about 800 cals. Given both our speeds are the same since we cover the same distance together. It's all about power to weight ratio, we have to push more power to sustain speeds where a smaller person can get away with 20-30% less watts needed to sustain that same effort/speed.

Machka

02-02-07, 12:19 AM

I believe there is about 300-400cal difference frm 150lbs to 200lb, 120lbs would burn even less at the same intesity level. Where I burn about 1000-1100 per hr on a typical ride @ 200lbs, my friend that is about 160ish burns about 800 cals. Given both our speeds are the same since we cover the same distance together. It's all about power to weight ratio, we have to push more power to sustain speeds where a smaller person can get away with 20-30% less watts needed to sustain that same effort/speed.

How do you know for sure that you burn that amount of calories on a ride. What is your proof?

From my experiences and observations, people burn a lot less than they think they burn. I'd put your friend down around 500 calories, and you not much above that.

mateo44

02-02-07, 07:37 AM

How do you know for sure that you burn that amount of calories on a ride. What is your proof?

From my experiences and observations, people burn a lot less than they think they burn. I'd put your friend down around 500 calories, and you not much above that.

I'd add that people grossly underestimate the calories they're consuming. It was finally giving in and counting calories (which sounds much more arduous than it is) that allowed me to finally get control over my weight. The small annoyance of counting calories is tiny compared to the frustration of not knowing why the weight isn't coming off.

mateo44

02-02-07, 07:41 AM

I believe there is about 300-400cal difference frm 150lbs to 200lb, 120lbs would burn even less at the same intesity level. Where I burn about 1000-1100 per hr on a typical ride @ 200lbs, my friend that is about 160ish burns about 800 cals. Given both our speeds are the same since we cover the same distance together. It's all about power to weight ratio, we have to push more power to sustain speeds where a smaller person can get away with 20-30% less watts needed to sustain that same effort/speed.

This sounds about right. In a typical hour ride on a pretty flat route with average effort (averaging about 16mph) I burn about 750-800 calories (I'm 210 pounds). This from my heart rate monitor (measured on several occasions). On the same ride, my wife (who weighs considerably less than me!) burns about 60% of what I burn.

This annoys her, but she gets no sympathy from me, since I've got about 20 pounds to lose, compared to her ZERO.

mateo44

02-02-07, 07:46 AM

Richard Cranium

02-02-07, 08:41 AM

I've had it; No more Diet - Thank god, now you can shut up and get on with starving to death.

I assume your "heaven" won't have any food either.

jsigone

02-02-07, 09:16 AM

How do you know for sure that you burn that amount of calories on a ride. What is your proof?

From my experiences and observations, people burn a lot less than they think they burn. I'd put your friend down around 500 calories, and you not much above that.

thats what the calucaltor on bikejournal.com tells me @ 200lbs +- 3lbs, and I borrowed my friend Polar HRM that is a cal counter and it was within 30 cals of what bikejournal said. Pretty accurate if you ask me.

I did a century last saturday 109 miles in 6h50min pedal time = around 6300cals burned or about 900cals per hr at a good pace on my SS. Ended at 16mph for the entire trip, the first half was 17.6mph then hit some hit winds.

On my lunch route, 18.5 miles I do in about 55-60 minutes (pending how many red lights I catch) or a bit over 19mph, I get about 1050-1100 cals out of it. Not all flat through. If I were to do that route at alot slower pace of lets say about 11mph(which I can't cuz its on my lunch break) I'll burn only 500-600 cals per hr.

mateo44

02-02-07, 11:32 AM

- Thank god, now you can shut up and get on with starving to death.

I assume your "heaven" won't have any food either.

Heaven has only burritos, hot wings, chocolate and beer. Didn't you get the memo?

jsigone

02-02-07, 11:43 AM

Heaven has only burritos, hot wings, chocolate and beer. Didn't you get the memo?

I need to mount that memo onto my handlebars when we climb palomar next week :D

mateo44

02-02-07, 11:54 AM

I have the feeling you won't need to be reminded :D

jsigone

02-02-07, 12:08 PM

I have the feeling you won't need to be reminded :D

I'm gonna attempt that ride on my SS, therefore I will be on the verge of dieing by the time we get to the fork. If I can survive the taco shop up to the fork, I should be OK.......I think:o I'll be looking forward to all the DH on the return trip:D

Pedal Wench

02-02-07, 02:54 PM

Yep. The bigger person still burns more calories.

But why? They're not moving a bigger mass, there is no difference in wind resistance, and the power to weight doesn't matter on a flat trainer ride?

slowandsteady

02-02-07, 03:17 PM

I have two words for you.

Weight Watchers

It works. It is all about portion control. You would be surprised at how much you are really eating. Also, you may be eating too little. The other thing with weight watchers is that heavier people get more food to eat than the thinner people. AND they(heaver people) still lose faster. Starvation diets don't work. You catabolize muscle for energy and pack on the fat with everything you eat. It is only $13 a week and you eat your own food.

smoke

02-02-07, 05:33 PM

i would like to thank you all for your inputs. some very good stuff here. and i'll try to answer all the posts and questions in this reply. so here goes:

-i'm 52 years old, 5'8", 163 pounds. i'd like to get below 150 pounds for climbing.

-my clothes fit the same as before

-i've signed up on that fitday.com as mentioned. the changes i've made since christmas; not eating late any more, no more junk food, trying to eat only low glycemic food, and i use artificial sweetener. the bad parts of today's feeding? the pizza i just had for dinner (but i only eat veggie pizza, and it's only about once a month; not a regular occurance). and the muesli is higher in calories than i realized. but i'm not giving it up; it really powers me on the bike. i eat it about an hour before a ride, and i can go 3 hours without eating. love the stuff. for today, the fitday site shows my intake today at 2016 calories, 60% carb, 20% fat, 20% protein

-i can only stand about an hour on the trainer. maybe an hour and a half once a week, but that's it. calories burned on one hour workouts for the last week (according to the powertap) - 635, 610, 810, 800, 750, 825. these are pretty much all tempo workouts; my coach is getting me into the LT workouts starting next week

thanks for everyone's help with this. i'll try some of the suggestions mentioned earlier. not that i'm hopeful, but hey, that's life

-smoke

mateo44

02-02-07, 06:09 PM

But why? They're not moving a bigger mass, there is no difference in wind resistance, and the power to weight doesn't matter on a flat trainer ride?

Not sure why, exactly. But the calories burned by my much smaller wife (as a percentage of what I burn) is the same whether we are in spin class, or riding outside.

I'm sure someone around here knows.

manual_overide

02-02-07, 06:27 PM

i need to get back on my college diet of 2-3 packs of ramen + 2 cans of tuna + as much beer as i can find/stomach/afford per day. I lost over 80 pounds doing that. That and 45 min per day 5 days a week at the gym (i should be able to sub riding a few hours per day for that)

GuitarWizard

02-02-07, 11:30 PM

I've found that adding in some longer rides (4-6 hours), that it's really helped me in the weight-loss dept (in addition to obviously eating well). My "sweetspot" seems to be 12-15 hours a week on the bike for me.

Machka

02-03-07, 12:35 AM

I'd add that people grossly underestimate the calories they're consuming. It was finally giving in and counting calories (which sounds much more arduous than it is) that allowed me to finally get control over my weight. The small annoyance of counting calories is tiny compared to the frustration of not knowing why the weight isn't coming off.

+1!!!

I got a program in my Kinesiology class (they gave them to all the students in that class) and we were required to use it keep track of absolutely EVERYTHING we ate for a week ... right down to vitamin and mineral tablets. The program then gave us a comprehensive spreadsheet telling us how we'd done with it all based on our body statistics. It was quite eye opening!

For example, the fruit juice I drank at supper ended up being nearly 300 calories/day. If I'm supposed to consume 1500 calories per day on a day where I'm not doing too much, 300 calories is 1/5th of my caloric intake! That's a pretty high percentage for a glass of juice!

Machka

02-03-07, 12:45 AM

But why? They're not moving a bigger mass, there is no difference in wind resistance, and the power to weight doesn't matter on a flat trainer ride?

I wonder the same thing as you do. It doesn't make sense to me that a bigger person will burn so many more calories than a smaller person while riding a bicycle ... especially a trainer (which is what is being discussed here) or on a flat outdoor route (which is almost the same as riding a trainer).

People quote what their heart rate monitors say, or what the read-out on the stat bike says, or whatever ... but my impression is that the information from those sources is pretty generic (i.e. doesn't take into consideration the wide variety of variables cyclists may encounter, or the variations in cyclists themselves) ... and also pretty flattering. After all you want the people who buy your product to feel like they are actually accomplishing something.

What I'd like to know is whether there is real, scientific proof that a heavier person on a trainer will burn more calories than a lighter person on a trainer. I have my doubts that proof exists.

mateo44

02-03-07, 09:34 AM

I wonder the same thing as you do. It doesn't make sense to me that a bigger person will burn so many more calories than a smaller person while riding a bicycle ... especially a trainer (which is what is being discussed here) or on a flat outdoor route (which is almost the same as riding a trainer).

People quote what their heart rate monitors say, or what the read-out on the stat bike says, or whatever ... but my impression is that the information from those sources is pretty generic (i.e. doesn't take into consideration the wide variety of variables cyclists may encounter, or the variations in cyclists themselves) ... and also pretty flattering. After all you want the people who buy your product to feel like they are actually accomplishing something.

What I'd like to know is whether there is real, scientific proof that a heavier person on a trainer will burn more calories than a lighter person on a trainer. I have my doubts that proof exists.

But my HRM often tells me I burned many fewer calories than I think I did. Is there a "flattery" setting that I'm missing?

Machka

02-03-07, 12:57 PM

But my HRM often tells me I burned many fewer calories than I think I did. Is there a "flattery" setting that I'm missing?

Perhaps your HRM is one of the more accurate ones. How does it compare with all the calorie counting sites?

For example:
http://www.caloriesperhour.com/
http://www.healthstatus.com/
http://www.nutritiondata.com/
http://www.caloriecontrol.org/
(and a whole bunch of others)

IMO, if we cannot conduct a scientific experiment to find out how much we really are burning, another option (although much more inferior to that one) is to get numbers from as many different sources as possible, and pick the lowest number. All these sources calculate calories lost in different ways, and so they come up with different numbers. They key is to be honest when you enter your data.

Also, if you want to lose weight, enter your target weight into the calculators, not your current weight. You might be burning a little bit more at a heavier weight, and if that is the case, as you start losing weight, you'll burn a bit less. But if all your calculations are based on the heavier weight, you could end up simply maintaining your weight.

Also, there is evidence that people with a higher quantity of muscle burn more calories than people with less muscle. I've been given the name of a researcher who has done a lot of research along those lines, so I'll have to see if I can dig out some information on his experiments. But just a tip for those who want to lose weight ... lift weights, build muscle! :)

mateo44

02-03-07, 01:06 PM

It's pretty well-known that calories are burned in muscle, so more muscle mass equals a higher basal (resting) metabolic rate. On that topic, the fact that different size people have different resting metabolic rates has interesting implications for the discussion of who burns more calories on a trainer.

Good advice about using mulitple sources. There's likely to be some error in each, so picking the lowest (or averaging) across them is a good idea. If it's random error (equally likely to be too high as too low), then averaging is best. If the estimates are systematically biased upwards, then picking the lowest is the best strategy. Who knows the pattern of error, though, so picking the lowest is the most conservative strategy. The good news is what my HRM shows is very close to what I get from other sources.

I'd also add that at the end of the day if my calculations are off a bit, I don't care so much. Just as I don't need to know my weight out to 5 decimal places. I figure if my training/weight loss plan is too nit-picky that way, I won't stay with it. I measure/weigh food pretty accurately (although I haven't calibrated my kitchen scale against other sources!), and if I have to estimate, I always overestimate what I'm consuming and underestimate the calories burned. For example, I play a lot of basketball. I can't wear my HRM for that, so I have to estimate. I always make an educated guess, then cut it by 10% or so.

BTW, cites that estimate how many calories burned always tell you estimate is for a person weighing X pounds (often it's 150 pounds). That's for estimates across a variety of activities -- some where you are moving your body mass, and others are for stationary activities, like riding a trainer.

For example, the site (that you mentioned):

http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc

if you enter 30 minutes on a stationary bike (moderate effort) for a person weighing 200 pounds you get 318 calories burned. And, 30 minutes for a person weighing 120 pounds is 191 calories.