Peloton becoming another Weight Watchers, only much faster. McKinsey hired for restructuring.

YersiniaPestis wrote:

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/01/peloton-bike-ads-twitter-thread

still pretty funny

It's amusing that Mayhem is mocking Peloton:

If you like to ride outside, you should use Zwift or a similar program on your actual bike with a smart trainer

Swoosh!! wrote:

I bought the Peloton bike for my wife after a nasty outdoor biking accident.

She loved the bike and I was sure I'd dislike it as the guys I rode outdoors with always made fun of Peloton riders.

I hopped on expecting an easy ride and was sure I'd hate it.

Well I liked it as it improved my fitness, lost weight and and rode inside on days when I couldnt ride outside.

Then I bought the treadmill, I've gotten much fitter and am running outdoors.

I'll be racing again and Peloton gets lots of the credit.

Sure, some of the instructors are corny but you find your people.

The product works.

Bring the hate on!!!!

Agree with your first couple sentences until you tried to claim that Keiser makes better equipment than Peloton. That's a joke.

If you ride for 45 minutes at a steady 300 watts, that is close to 800 calories burned. If you run 7 miles in 45 minutes you'd burn about 800 calories. The difference is you can do long (1+ hours) efforts everyday biking. If you're goal is to burn calories, biking is better than running.

Trainerroad user wrote:

You don’t burn a lot of calories in 30-45 minutes on a bike. The perceived effort is high, because you can get a good sweat going in that time.

jecht wrote:

Boston Consulting Group wrote:

If you need to hire McKinsey, it's a downhill ride from there.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2022-01-18/peloton-reviews-cost-structure-with-mckinsey-may-cut-jobs-cnbc

Not as bad as Accidenture.

The above post brought to you by someone with an axe to grind (or works for McKinsey).

I have a Peloton and I love it.

Fluid G wrote:

If you ride for 45 minutes at a steady 300 watts, that is close to 800 calories burned. If you run 7 miles in 45 minutes you'd burn about 800 calories. The difference is you can do long (1+ hours) efforts everyday biking. If you're goal is to burn calories, biking is better than running.

Trainerroad user wrote:

You don’t burn a lot of calories in 30-45 minutes on a bike. The perceived effort is high, because you can get a good sweat going in that time.

What normal person rides steady at 300watts? You don’t burn as many calories on a 45min ride as you do running. You burn a lot of calories cycling because you can spend a lot of time cycling without getting injured.

exercise toys wrote:

Fluid G wrote:

If you ride for 45 minutes at a steady 300 watts, that is close to 800 calories burned. If you run 7 miles in 45 minutes you'd burn about 800 calories. The difference is you can do long (1+ hours) efforts everyday biking. If you're goal is to burn calories, biking is better than running.

What normal person rides steady at 300watts? You don’t burn as many calories on a 45min ride as you do running. You burn a lot of calories cycling because you can spend a lot of time cycling without getting injured.

Exercise toys is dead wrong here.

I ride Zwift on my Peloton (using Garmin power pedals), and at my running and cycling ability, the calories/hour burn rate is basically identical. If I do a steady Zwift ride for an hour, I'll burn around 750 calories, and if I ran for an hour at a similar intensity, I'd run about 7.5 miles. So pretty close. At higher intensities, it's also very close (around 1000 cal/hour).

The biggest difference between cycling and running is that I can cycle about 3 times as long as I can run, if not more.

Fluid G wrote:

If you ride for 45 minutes at a steady 300 watts, that is close to 800 calories burned. If you run 7 miles in 45 minutes you'd burn about 800 calories. The difference is you can do long (1+ hours) efforts everyday biking. If you're goal is to burn calories, biking is better than running.

Trainerroad user wrote:

You don’t burn a lot of calories in 30-45 minutes on a bike. The perceived effort is high, because you can get a good sweat going in that time.

300 watts for 45 minutes is quite the effort.

yeah this 300 watts person is drunk, high, or both. i have a wahoo kickr and a steady 150 watts is basically an easy run effort (in terms of heart rate at least...the calorie burn is definitely less). 300 would be insane.

CarlyRaeJepsensMalort wrote:

yeah this 300 watts person is drunk, high, or both. i have a wahoo kickr and a steady 150 watts is basically an easy run effort (in terms of heart rate at least...the calorie burn is definitely less). 300 would be insane.

This is insane -- 150 watts is soft pedaling for any decent runner. It's way easier than an easy run.

I'm 48 years old, 160 lbs., with very little prior cycling experience, and my FTP is almost 300 watts, which means I can hold 300w for about an hour.

well i never said i was some elite runner. i could maybe do 18:00 for a 5K right now. when i'm on the kickr (it's been a few weeks since i'm finally healthy enough to run every day again), i like to shoot for a cadence around 90 and keep it in a fairly easy gear (5th or 6th on back, middle one in front). this puts my HR in the 140s after about 10 minutes. in "erg" mode that's usually around 150 watts, and i have no desire to go harder than that. so maybe 300 isn't as hard as i think, but i don't really have any other frame of reference and don't care enough about cycling to find out.

Raysism wrote:

CarlyRaeJepsensMalort wrote:

yeah this 300 watts person is drunk, high, or both. i have a wahoo kickr and a steady 150 watts is basically an easy run effort (in terms of heart rate at least...the calorie burn is definitely less). 300 would be insane.

This is insane -- 150 watts is soft pedaling for any decent runner. It's way easier than an easy run.

I'm 48 years old, 160 lbs., with very little prior cycling experience, and my FTP is almost 300 watts, which means I can hold 300w for about an hour.

Yes but that's a max effort. It's like going out an running your half marathon pace for 10 miles. Not a standard training run.

48 years old, untrained cyclist with a power-to-weight ratio over 4 is quite impressive.

Raysism wrote:

CarlyRaeJepsensMalort wrote:

yeah this 300 watts person is drunk, high, or both. i have a wahoo kickr and a steady 150 watts is basically an easy run effort (in terms of heart rate at least...the calorie burn is definitely less). 300 would be insane.

This is insane -- 150 watts is soft pedaling for any decent runner. It's way easier than an easy run.

I'm 48 years old, 160 lbs., with very little prior cycling experience, and my FTP is almost 300 watts, which means I can hold 300w for about an hour.

Peloton=Palm Pilot

Harambe wrote:

Raysism wrote:

This is insane -- 150 watts is soft pedaling for any decent runner. It's way easier than an easy run.

I'm 48 years old, 160 lbs., with very little prior cycling experience, and my FTP is almost 300 watts, which means I can hold 300w for about an hour.

Yes but that's a max effort. It's like going out an running your half marathon pace for 10 miles. Not a standard training run.

I totally agree, but running 7.5 miles in 45 minutes wouldn't be a standard training run either.

As I said above, I've done the math, and most of my rides and runs are roughly equivalent in calorie burn. This would of course not be the case if you get on the Peloton and only ride at 150 watts, or if you could easily hold 6:00 pace or faster on steady daily runs -- but if you're able to easily run 7:30 to 8:00 pace, and easily hold 225 watts or so, there's not going to be some big difference in calorie burn between the two. And you'll be able to burn way more calories over the course of a week (or even in a single session) on the bike.

False, Keiser is the best.

Raysism wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Yes but that's a max effort. It's like going out an running your half marathon pace for 10 miles. Not a standard training run.

I totally agree, but running 7.5 miles in 45 minutes wouldn't be a standard training run either.

As I said above, I've done the math, and most of my rides and runs are roughly equivalent in calorie burn. This would of course not be the case if you get on the Peloton and only ride at 150 watts, or if you could easily hold 6:00 pace or faster on steady daily runs -- but if you're able to easily run 7:30 to 8:00 pace, and easily hold 225 watts or so, there's not going to be some big difference in calorie burn between the two. And you'll be able to burn way more calories over the course of a week (or even in a single session) on the bike.

Agreed

It's a solid product that will continue to have millions of subscribers. But they will also have competition, and I bet they lose a lot of money on the equipment sales. (They actually slashed prices in mid 2021, and the parts have probably gotten more expensive.) The drop in stock price just means they didn't live up to the speculation 12 months ago, it doesn't mean they're going out of business.