Calorie burn with hybrid vs road bike?
Robertus
Posts: 558 Member
Hi, all.
I'm getting into biking while I recover from a swimming elbow overuse injury and intend to stay with it long-term to complement my swimming with a better leg work-out.
I have an old Trek hybrid. It's a full-size bike, but with bigger knobby tires, and rather heavy.
Should I adjust the calorie burn because I'm riding such a hybrid vs a true road bike?
I'm already in my ideal weight range, and will be starting maintenance soon so I want to try and get an accurate estimate of my calories and be able to make comparisons with my long-distance swimming. But mostly I just want to wow people with (well deserved) high calorie burn work-outs. Did 15 miles on Saturday and it was a lot of work, much more than I thought it would be. I am in very good cardiovascular condition (eg, swimming 5 miles continuous), but my legs need a lot of work.
Feel free to add me as a friend. I need to learn about biking and it never hurts to have good friends!
I'm getting into biking while I recover from a swimming elbow overuse injury and intend to stay with it long-term to complement my swimming with a better leg work-out.
I have an old Trek hybrid. It's a full-size bike, but with bigger knobby tires, and rather heavy.
Should I adjust the calorie burn because I'm riding such a hybrid vs a true road bike?
I'm already in my ideal weight range, and will be starting maintenance soon so I want to try and get an accurate estimate of my calories and be able to make comparisons with my long-distance swimming. But mostly I just want to wow people with (well deserved) high calorie burn work-outs. Did 15 miles on Saturday and it was a lot of work, much more than I thought it would be. I am in very good cardiovascular condition (eg, swimming 5 miles continuous), but my legs need a lot of work.
Feel free to add me as a friend. I need to learn about biking and it never hurts to have good friends!
0
Replies
-
How are you measuring the calorie burn at the moment? - via the nearly useless MFP time-based guesses, or via an estimate from something like the Strava App, or something slightly more accurate like a heart rate monitor linked Garmin, or (and I seriously doubt this step will be the one) the only reasonably accurate way... via a powermeter.
0 -
Right now I'm using the MapMyRide, which is pretty close to the useless MFP time-based guesses. MMR also tracks elevation changes, but I don't know if it takes that into account when calculating calories. Do the MFP calculations factor in your weight or is it the same for everyone?How are you measuring the calorie burn at the moment? - via the nearly useless MFP time-based guesses, or via an estimate from something like the Strava App, or something slightly more accurate like a heart rate monitor linked Garmin, or (and I seriously doubt this step will be the one) the only reasonably accurate way... via a powermeter.
0 -
couldn't say - but compared to the figures from my Power Meter they come in at around double the measured figure on a ride at around 12mph, and nearer 2.5 times at 15mph average...
If you're using a smartphone app for logging, I'd suggest getting the Strava App, and picking up a cheap bluetooth smart HR chestband that'll pair with the phone to go with it. Use Strava to record the ride, and it'll take your weight/HR effort into account, along with speed and the gradients you're riding, and come up with a calorie burn that's probably within 10-15% accurate depending on your general body weight.
Strava will also back-link into MFP, so you don't have to double-post things in MFP as well.
0 -
Wow, double! Thanks.couldn't say - but compared to the figures from my Power Meter they come in at around double the measured figure on a ride at around 12mph, and nearer 2.5 times at 15mph average...
If you're using a smartphone app for logging, I'd suggest getting the Strava App, and picking up a cheap bluetooth smart HR chestband that'll pair with the phone to go with it. Use Strava to record the ride, and it'll take your weight/HR effort into account, along with speed and the gradients you're riding, and come up with a calorie burn that's probably within 10-15% accurate depending on your general body weight.
Strava will also back-link into MFP, so you don't have to double-post things in MFP as well.
I've been waiting on the next generation of writs-HRM watches to meet all my various needs. I would like one that has a wrist HRM built in and will also automatically count laps in the pool and in open water. Something like the TomTom Multi-Sport Cardio, but more reliable than the current reviews indicate. Maybe the next generation Garmin Swim Watch, Forerunner 910XT, etc, will incorporate a built-in wrist HRM. I would also like something stylish for everday wear and incorporates Andoid functionality, such as the Moto 360.
But rather than wait (forever) for the latest and greatest or buy 3 watches, perhaps I will look for a cheap bluetooth wrist HRM that will integrate with Strava.
0 -
as an example... take this ride - https://www.strava.com/activities/314635349
19.6km @ 22.1kph average - 424kcals...
here's a screenshot from MFP's (really rather poor) guesses...
918kcals.
Now, my figure of 424kcal is from a bike with a "real" powermeter fitted, which measures the actual force I've put into riding around in a little circle...
Gives you some idea how bad the MFP guess is, doesn't it...
And, consider this was a short ride... extrapolate that to a typical 6 hour sunday morning ride and MFP could be overstating by something like 3,000kcals - imagine if someone "eats back" that calorie defecit - they've basically killed half a weeks dieting on a 1 kilo a week defecit...
0 -
If you ride a hybrid and a road bike on the road, I highly doubt there is a significant difference in the calorie burn. I believe this to be true because there is little difference in rolling resistance between the hybrid and road bike.
There are even recent studies that indicate wider tires have less rolling resistance than thin tires up to a point.
Now if you compare riding on the road and riding on a mountain bike trail, there would be a difference.
velonews.competitor.com/2012/03/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/tech-faq-seriously-wider-tires-have-lower-rolling-resistance-than-their-narrower-brethren_209268
schwalbetires.com/tech_info/rolling_resistance0 -
If you go by how long you ride for, then I can't imagine the calorie burn will be much different, if there is any difference at all. That being said, you *might* be a *bit* slower on the hybrid bike than the road bike because of one factor:
Body position.
You will be sitting more upright with your hands further apart on the hybrid than on the road. This will increase wind resistance and it will lower your pedaling efficiency. The latter may be negligible, unless you're really putting the hammer down.
However, unless you ride the same distance, and therefore ride for a longer time on the hybrid than you do on the road bike, the calorie burn should be similar. Remember: total calorie burn is dependent on how much you exert yourself over a period of time. If you ride equally hard on both bikes for an hour, the burn will be the same. If you ride equally hard on either, but go the same distance (taking longer on the hybrid) the burn will be higher on the hybrid.
Oh, and yeah, MFP and other "calculators" are going to have horribly inaccurate estimates. Don't use any of them. The most accurate tool will be a well calibrated power meter with all of your physical measurements kept up to date (age, weight, VO2 max, etc.). The next most accurate, for a steady ride, is a heart rate monitor. All of the basic calculators on your phone, or online, are so laughably inaccurate, you're better off not using them at all.0 -
Wow, double! Thanks.couldn't say - but compared to the figures from my Power Meter they come in at around double the measured figure on a ride at around 12mph, and nearer 2.5 times at 15mph average...
If you're using a smartphone app for logging, I'd suggest getting the Strava App, and picking up a cheap bluetooth smart HR chestband that'll pair with the phone to go with it. Use Strava to record the ride, and it'll take your weight/HR effort into account, along with speed and the gradients you're riding, and come up with a calorie burn that's probably within 10-15% accurate depending on your general body weight.
Strava will also back-link into MFP, so you don't have to double-post things in MFP as well.
I've been waiting on the next generation of writs-HRM watches to meet all my various needs. I would like one that has a wrist HRM built in and will also automatically count laps in the pool and in open water. Something like the TomTom Multi-Sport Cardio, but more reliable than the current reviews indicate. Maybe the next generation Garmin Swim Watch, Forerunner 910XT, etc, will incorporate a built-in wrist HRM. I would also like something stylish for everday wear and incorporates Andoid functionality, such as the Moto 360.
But rather than wait (forever) for the latest and greatest or buy 3 watches, perhaps I will look for a cheap bluetooth wrist HRM that will integrate with Strava.
Can't swim with it, but it's a wrist HRM for running/cycling:
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into-sports/running/forerunner-225/prod512478.html
0 -
Unless things have changed, Strava doesn't factor HR data into calorie counts. They use power (whether from a meter or their own estimated power calculations. Garmin Connect does use HR data.
See:
https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/34307080-Different-Calorie-calculations-for-Garmin-vs-Strava-
0 -
There's a big difference in effort/speed between my fast hybrid (Boardman) and my not ultra fast road bike (Specialized Roubaix) even though they have similar tyres.
Works out roughly 1.5mph difference in speed for the same effort on a not very hilly course. No real difference in calorie burns per hour - you just travel less distance for the same effort! Where the extra effort is really noticeable is hill climbs with the hybrid losing speed far faster and also high speed downhills where I hit an aerodynamic wall about 30mph on the hybrid.
Been training a lot on the hybrid recently as a car wiped out the Roubaix. 90 miles on the hybrid at 16mph easily felt like a century!
I'm using a HRM calibrated with my VO2 max and tested max HR by the way.
I find Strava and Garmin numbers to be way off (low) whereas the HRM agrees with a power meter equipped trainer.0 -
Thanks for all the input. Most of my biking will be to work and back (preferred scenic route 14 miles) and the hybrid is definitely slower so it does seem like there will be a bigger calorie burn, but I won't pay much attention to the estimates here or on MMR. Instead, I will watch the scale and get a sense over time of how much impact the biking is having on longer term weight loss/maintenance. I usually do not eat back many of my calories and sometimes not at all so I will probably just ignore the estimates until I see what the scale is doing.
I'm glad to see that Garmin is already starting to use wrist-based HRMs. I figured they would be eventually. I noticed today that the Moto 360 (fashionable Android watch, not sports watch, but does have a wrist HRM) is now discounted $100 so maybe an upgraded version of that will be coming out in the near future.0 -
I use MMR for recording rides. I ignore the cal burn as it's usually higher than MFP is. And MFP is very high. I weigh 270+ right now and it says per 65 min ride I burn about 1600 cals, Based on my limited time with a chest strap HRM, I suspect it's closer to 1100 so in general when logging, I cut my cals back 500 per session.
In fear of rain, I commuted today using my steel 29lb MTB and it was so slow. I did average 16.7 mph on a 7 mile commute and while it was a harder workout, I don't suspect the difference between MTB & RB is all that much, really.0 -
Unless things have changed, Strava doesn't factor HR data into calorie counts. They use power (whether from a meter or their own estimated power calculations. Garmin Connect does use HR data.
See:
https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/34307080-Different-Calorie-calculations-for-Garmin-vs-Strava-
I agree with this. Strava's calorie calcs are based entirely upon power. If your bike doesn't have a power meter then Strava bases calorie burn on their "estimated power" number. My experience has been that Estimated Power can be in the general vicinity of the truth if you're riding a road bike on tarmac in relatively calm winds. Anything else and it goes right out into the crapper. Their estimated power seems to be based on rider weight, bike weight, and elevation changes, with the assumption that you're riding something similar to a road bike and on a smooth, paved surface. Any unaccounted-for variable, like wind or surfaces that greatly increase rolling resistance, i.e. grass, mud, etc., and their estimates stop being estimates and become guesses.
I'm not sure other company's estimates, even ones based on heart rate, are much better, but at least they are more consistent. If I do a 30 minute ride with a given heart rate profile without a power meter, Garmin (for instance) is going to give me a certain calorie burn number. It doesn't matter if that ride was road, mountain, 'cyclocross racing on deep grass, sand, and mud, whatever. With strava, unless I have a power meter, a grandma-paced 14mph, 30 minute road ride will result in a far greater calorie burn estimation than a 30 minute cyclocross race through mud, sand, and grass, where almost the entire time is at or above threshold but the average speed was only 10mph.0 -
Unless things have changed, Strava doesn't factor HR data into calorie counts. They use power (whether from a meter or their own estimated power calculations. Garmin Connect does use HR data.
See:
https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/34307080-Different-Calorie-calculations-for-Garmin-vs-Strava-
Apologies - i'd completely forgotten that bit... Probably because as a HR belt I use the Cycleops Powercal belt (at least I do on the bikes that don't have a proper power meter on them...) I've even gone to the trouble of actually calibrating the Powercal to my personal power profile (and option that was originally touted by Powercal, but they decided it was too much bother to actually promote/explicitly support as it involved doing a fairly structured ramp test on a indoor trainer that had some form of measuring actual power. I grabbed the original data before the launch and kept it safe, and basically with a Ant+ USB adaptor on the PC, and a copy of Cycleops's PowerAgent software you can fine tune the power parameters to your personal profile... it's generally not needed, but for "outliers" on the size/weight customer profile, or for people who are generally just "low beaters" on Heart Rate it can improve accuracy quite considerably... This is probably not the place to start going into it, but if anyones interested, they can drop me a PM and i'll try and explain the protocols and hardware involved etc. - It certainly improved the figures (ok, not any figures in the sub 3 second accuracy ranges, but it put the NP, IF and TSS figures MUCH closer to my real powermeter figures (yep, I had 2 Garmin Head Units, recording in parallel, one wired to the Stages, one to the Powercal for Power figures, both sharing the Powercal's HR output. Bit of a DC Rainmaker moment if I'm being honest))
But Yeah, to the OP, forget the BT heartbelt unless you WANT to record that data (it is often interesting to see your average HR improve over a similar ride, at similar speed over a period of time, but not vital (or indeed used) for Calorie calculations.
0 -
Thanks for the clarification. Less of a rush to get a HRM.0
-
I'll add that while Strava doesn't care, using an HRM with Garmin does seem to improve (significantly deflates) my calorie numbers to reasonable estimates, so their algorithm might be useful. That said, my HRM is an absolute finicky P.I.T.A. on rides with wind, so I've recently stopped using it for outdoor work and just use it on the indoor trainer. I want to use the HR data more inside anyway, since it is a way to track effort and keep that kind of exercise a little less boring.0
-
You can try this calculator http://bikecalculator.com/
Depending on speed, Cd is primary factor on flats; not based on but anything but I would guess greater than 15mph, the additional drag from the tire would be inconsequential. On incline, it's your total weight that matters. Virtual power (VP) works adequately with no wind and smooth pavement so long you have a handle on the coefficients. It's ok on climbs if your device has a altimeter.
It looks to me that MFP is using a modified Compendium of Physical Activities to account for weight. Short of a power meter, I would trust VP (which is based on physics) rather than the Compendium (extrapolated from a few studies and I am not where near the studies' participants) and Compendium over HRM unless the ride is primarily within 70-90% of LTHR (good weather, short duration, no caffeine, and absent of other stress factors - ha ha). For me Strava is on the high side. It robs me of mileage and is highly inaccurately for elevation gains. I only use it to compare other rider's effort and the social thing.
FYI - wrist mounted HRM are more or less garbage unless you are standing still. Until they work out getting rid of the noise (due to physical activity), don't waste your money. And the noise is not caused by aberrant light (as manufacturers tried to mislead everyone), it is primarily due to tracking or the lack of. (Shine a light on your CD/DVD play, does it skip? Now rock the player, does it skip? Try nudging on a first or second generation CD player verse today's units, any difference? Same thing is happening on the wrist mount HRM.) The more sensors, the better the unit but they still have to workout the algorithm. I refuse to paying top dollar to be their guinea pig.0 -
Read this thread with interest. OP, it really could boil down to comfort on the bike you are commuting with. If your roadbike isn't as comfy, you're not going to want to ride it. I have a bike that is very comfortable; a hybrid. When I tried the sleek, ultralight road bikes, they felt exact opposite. Seems like I was hurting all over.
Just something to consider.0 -
Wow, this thread morphed into something quite different than its title. But the subject matter is truly interesting. I've yet to consider a Power Meter measurement.0
-
allaboutthecake wrote: »Read this thread with interest. OP, it really could boil down to comfort on the bike you are commuting with. If your roadbike isn't as comfy, you're not going to want to ride it. I have a bike that is very comfortable; a hybrid. When I tried the sleek, ultralight road bikes, they felt exact opposite. Seems like I was hurting all over.
Just something to consider.
I must agree somewhat with this poster as I have a stable of four bikes from which to choose, and for quick trips to the market and other local errands, my go-to bike is my Fitness bike (essentially a hybrid with 700c x 32 mm all weather tires) with full-wrap fenders and platform pedals. It's not the fastest or the most fun to ride, but it's the bike I ride most often because it's versatile, convenient, efficient, and effective transportation. My other bikes are more focused for their intended purpose so I have to proactively engage in a particular kind of activity and kit up to reap the greatest benefit from each of them.
Unfortunately, my Fitness bike was the last bike I chose to add a speed and cadence sensor to because it just didn't seem relevant for running errands and a random commute here and there. But in the end, I realized that a $40 investment in a speed and cadence sensor for my everyday go-to bike added a crap-ton of value to every ride, whether it was a very short hop or a more challenging 12-mile ride. I was able to see progressive improvement in average speed during a repetitive errand ride; I was able to watch my average cadence frequency increase over just a couple of weeks, and I was able to better determine exactly when to shift based upon both speed and cadence, increasing my average trip speed for each errand run. And my mixed terrain sprinting acceleration increased as well because I could see where to shift and when to stand to power up an incline. In conjunction with an Ant+ or BLE heart rate monitor, you'll have all the data you need to track your progress, including your comparative calorie burn. Who knew that one could learn so much from a quick trip out for a coffee or to the market? Sooo... sometimes it's those little things that count the most.
By the way, I wear the Scosche Rythm+ HRM on my forearm or bicep (no hassle to wear) and it transmits to my bike computer, my Garmin Vivoactive watch, and my iPod Touch simultaneously, as does my speed and cadence sensor. I can collect a lot of data, which is analyzed in several different ways depending on the App and / or the computer processing it. Is the data right? I'm not absolutely sure. Is each report interesting and fun to review? You bet!0 -
Calorie calculations based on power data are the most accurate. Additionally, calorie burn estimates based on power expenditure has the added benefit of only being the extra calories you burned riding your bike, separate from your normal metabolic processes. It's minor, but it's something when you're trying to lose weight.Wow, this thread morphed into something quite different than its title. But the subject matter is truly interesting. I've yet to consider a Power Meter measurement.
Here is a good write up on the various calorie burn estimation/calculation methodologies used by cyclists if anyone is interested.0 -
Here is a good write up on the various calorie burn estimation/calculation methodologies used by cyclists if anyone is interested.
Just to add your efficiency plays a factor in the calculation and it is inversely related. The conversion formula is
Work = (Calories * efficiency) * 4.184
where Work is expressed in kilojoules and Calories is the "food calorie", "large calorie" or kilocalorie (kcal or Cal), which is equal to 4.184 kilojoules
The rule of thumb is to use 25% but that corresponds to an elite athletes (e.g. GC contender in TdF) but a poor fit for most (not to mention a very lazy conversion). Efficiency range for the general population is between 20 - 25% (with a few measured as high as 27%) and that 5% differential translates to a 25% decrease in calories expenditure (800kj @ 20% => 956 vs 800kj @ 25% => 765). Also your efficiency is different for different sports (e.g. running, swimming, etc). Your genetics plays a huge factor on the max and it takes years to get there. One often cited study with erroneous conclusion is that Lance Armstrong increased his efficiency 1% a year from age 21 to 28 but reevaluation of the data shows he gain less than 1% or no improvement over the seven year period (see http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/4/1628). One should expect great improvements in efficiency from slough to very active but only dream of 25%.
FYI - Closeout sale on DA 7900 Stages. It is cross compatible with all Hollowtech II road models, from Tiagra to DA 9000. Just ordered mine and hope it doesn't look to funny with my 6800.0
This discussion has been closed.