Cycling
theedgecoach521
Posts: 10 Member
Looking for other cyclists all levels. Been teaching and riding since 85. I also coach but I'm just looking for like minded folks, that are on here and want to train and get fit together. Group would be great, to keep each other held accountable, strava would be a Hugh plus
0
Replies
-
There are several groups and challenges going. Just search the groups.0
-
I am just curious what does the "starvation" in your sentence "Group would be great, to keep each other held accountable, starvation would be a Hugh plus mean?
Not a cyclist, but just saw it and was wondering... LOL0 -
I am just curious what does the "starvation" in your sentence "Group would be great, to keep each other held accountable, starvation would be a Hugh plus mean?
Not a cyclist, but just saw it and was wondering... LOL
Was a joke, cyclists after a ride of long distance like I do burn 3-5 thousand calories, Just in one ride. In a normal ride for myself of 4 hours with some climbing, I burn 4k. It's after words that you feel like your starving, even during said ride that's when you crave everything.0 -
Ty for pointing that out, doing of my phone while planning it this afternoons ride of 40.theedgecoach521 wrote: »I am just curious what does the "starvation" in your sentence "Group would be great, to keep each other held accountable, starvation would be a Hugh plus mean?
Not a cyclist, but just saw it and was wondering... LOL
Was a joke, cyclists after a ride of long distance like I do burn 3-5 thousand calories, Just in one ride. In a normal ride for myself of 4 hours with some climbing, I burn 4k. It's after words that you feel like your starving, even during said ride that's when you crave everything.
My auto correct didn't recognize the word I really wanted also, which was supposed to be strava a cycling app.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »There are several groups and challenges going. Just search the groups.
I looked ty finally found a few, moat came up with the word cycling as in rotation of , not the actual sport. Ty though think it worked0 -
0
-
theedgecoach521 wrote: »I am just curious what does the "starvation" in your sentence "Group would be great, to keep each other held accountable, starvation would be a Hugh plus mean?
Not a cyclist, but just saw it and was wondering... LOL
Was a joke, cyclists after a ride of long distance like I do burn 3-5 thousand calories, Just in one ride. In a normal ride for myself of 4 hours with some climbing, I burn 4k. It's after words that you feel like your starving, even during said ride that's when you crave everything.
4000 calories in 4 hours. That would mean you are putting out an average power of 277 watts for 4 whole hours. Consider me highly skeptical. You are talking about power levels that pro tour riders maintain for that amount of time.0 -
I ride sometimes (road, mtb, cruising around the neighborhood).
My Strava
https://www.strava.com/athletes/3937713
0 -
I'm a cyclist, and have been since ... oh ... about 1973.
0 -
If you're interested, you might join the Bicycle Challenge (Challenges Forum)
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10305026/january-2016-bike-bicycle-cycling-challenge#latest0 -
theedgecoach521 wrote: »I am just curious what does the "starvation" in your sentence "Group would be great, to keep each other held accountable, starvation would be a Hugh plus mean?
Not a cyclist, but just saw it and was wondering... LOL
Was a joke, cyclists after a ride of long distance like I do burn 3-5 thousand calories, Just in one ride. In a normal ride for myself of 4 hours with some climbing, I burn 4k. It's after words that you feel like your starving, even during said ride that's when you crave everything.
4000 calories in 4 hours. That would mean you are putting out an average power of 277 watts for 4 whole hours. Consider me highly skeptical. You are talking about power levels that pro tour riders maintain for that amount of time.
Glen obviously you seem to know what your talking about, but there are many factors your not considering. Having worked with multiple pros and semi pros and consulted many on the burning of calories you are are correct about some of it, Please note: I have not coached these people that I talked to, they are friends and over the years I have tried to learn as much as possible. I also have the book "Training and racing with a Power Meter" so I am familiar with what your stating. Please know that I do agree with you but here are some areas that your missing, As you know there are multi stages of activities that you run thru while training. During these stages one burns different rates of calories, now know that during this there are factors of weight, in shape, out of shape, vo2, diet, how you work out.
Like you spoke of how you train can be via a power meter which I do have and do use but do not train by at least not during the dieting preseason.
But for weight loss I use and get vo2 tested every six months and have my Garmin's adjusted to rate my different phases of Cardio training. IE: Normal rate, Aerobic, metabolic, and anaerobic thresholds. Well as you prob know that each level of HR training provides the most at a certain level. and a MTH, is where I train during my preseason this is when and the level of HR that I stay between to burn the most calories.
IE:
Normal rate is 63 to 77
aerobic- IE warming up 78 to 119
Meta- 119 to 143-
AT- obviously above 143.
Now know though my levels change as the better in shape I get.
This can be proven via numbers I have on Strava and Garmin. When I am riding I almost always average over long distance a HR of 154, Though when I am climbing ( which is my worst ) I average about 166. During this time I can monitor and see my a calories click off via Garmin-(910 along with a G-500), Because I am going metabolic I keep my HR between 140 to 150 during this time my calories burned are higher. Now for some reason when I elevate my HR above 155 my Calories burned slow down, From what I am told is because now I am going into Cardio training. Now I am not a scientist I am only going off what I have learned been taught and thru some culinary background. I have spoken to several nutritionists, Via Training Peaks, Generation Ucan, and The main Coach For Ironman- Lifetime- Troy Jacobson. Please know I am not saying right or wrong only what I have seen thru clients and other athletes that train by HR.
I have been told it basically boils down to everybody burns differently, I also know this that, when I go back thru my Strava and Garmin accounts I average almost a 1k calories burned and hour when I keep my HR in my meta burning phase. I do not need to have massive amounts of power as you state to burn this.
Think this way as most trainers state the elevation of the heart rate above normal for 20 minutes burns more calories over that period of time then most people burn all day that remain in a non-elevated state. I hope this cleared some up. I do apologize if confusing but also know I know you are correct but that you understand where I am coming from also. TY for you input0 -
I ride0
-
Odd, why are you using HR when you have a power meter? It measures the work done and it's basic physics (definition of the unit of measurement) on the conversion. An average of 277 watts is roughly 1,000 Calories at 25% efficiency. 25% efficiency is also the upper range and reflect conditioning of elite athletes. HR doesn't hold up especially when you are talking about 4+ hours of activity (drift). It's indirect at ideal conditions. HR has some use but for determining work done and hence energy expended, it's garbage when one has a power meter. You can use it for... I ditched mine after a week of picking up a PM. I'm sentimental that way. So...
Now how the body produces that 1,000 Calories is another matter. But while cycling 1,000 Calories per hour is roughly 277 watts @ 25% efficiency. Four hours at that intensity is pretty impressive. Actually very.0 -
I estimate my calorie burn at 100 calories for every 5 kilometres. That seems to work well for me in my calculations of how much fuel I need to get through a long ride. 0
-
theedgecoach521 wrote: »theedgecoach521 wrote: »I am just curious what does the "starvation" in your sentence "Group would be great, to keep each other held accountable, starvation would be a Hugh plus mean?
Not a cyclist, but just saw it and was wondering... LOL
Was a joke, cyclists after a ride of long distance like I do burn 3-5 thousand calories, Just in one ride. In a normal ride for myself of 4 hours with some climbing, I burn 4k. It's after words that you feel like your starving, even during said ride that's when you crave everything.
4000 calories in 4 hours. That would mean you are putting out an average power of 277 watts for 4 whole hours. Consider me highly skeptical. You are talking about power levels that pro tour riders maintain for that amount of time.
Glen obviously you seem to know what your talking about, but there are many factors your not considering. Having worked with multiple pros and semi pros and consulted many on the burning of calories you are are correct about some of it, Please note: I have not coached these people that I talked to, they are friends and over the years I have tried to learn as much as possible. I also have the book "Training and racing with a Power Meter" so I am familiar with what your stating. Please know that I do agree with you but here are some areas that your missing, As you know there are multi stages of activities that you run thru while training. During these stages one burns different rates of calories, now know that during this there are factors of weight, in shape, out of shape, vo2, diet, how you work out.
Like you spoke of how you train can be via a power meter which I do have and do use but do not train by at least not during the dieting preseason.
But for weight loss I use and get vo2 tested every six months and have my Garmin's adjusted to rate my different phases of Cardio training. IE: Normal rate, Aerobic, metabolic, and anaerobic thresholds. Well as you prob know that each level of HR training provides the most at a certain level. and a MTH, is where I train during my preseason this is when and the level of HR that I stay between to burn the most calories.
IE:
Normal rate is 63 to 77
aerobic- IE warming up 78 to 119
Meta- 119 to 143-
AT- obviously above 143.
Now know though my levels change as the better in shape I get.
This can be proven via numbers I have on Strava and Garmin. When I am riding I almost always average over long distance a HR of 154, Though when I am climbing ( which is my worst ) I average about 166. During this time I can monitor and see my a calories click off via Garmin-(910 along with a G-500), Because I am going metabolic I keep my HR between 140 to 150 during this time my calories burned are higher. Now for some reason when I elevate my HR above 155 my Calories burned slow down, From what I am told is because now I am going into Cardio training. Now I am not a scientist I am only going off what I have learned been taught and thru some culinary background. I have spoken to several nutritionists, Via Training Peaks, Generation Ucan, and The main Coach For Ironman- Lifetime- Troy Jacobson. Please know I am not saying right or wrong only what I have seen thru clients and other athletes that train by HR.
I have been told it basically boils down to everybody burns differently, I also know this that, when I go back thru my Strava and Garmin accounts I average almost a 1k calories burned and hour when I keep my HR in my meta burning phase. I do not need to have massive amounts of power as you state to burn this.
Think this way as most trainers state the elevation of the heart rate above normal for 20 minutes burns more calories over that period of time then most people burn all day that remain in a non-elevated state. I hope this cleared some up. I do apologize if confusing but also know I know you are correct but that you understand where I am coming from also. TY for you input
You are forgetting the simple physics of it. 4k calories in 4 hours is 277 watts sustained for 4 hours. It doesn't make any difference what your heart rate is, what "zone" you are in, what hills you climb, etc.
Your heart rate can only approximate caloric expenditure. Your power meter is ABSOLUTE. You are claiming to put down pro-tour-rider power levels. Now, honestly it doesn't make a bit of difference to me, but if you are attempting to lose weight by generating a caloric deficit on the bike, a difference of 20% can make or break any deficit.
Strava, Garmin, Training Peaks, etc are only guessing if you are using heart rate. You can go through all the testing you want, but it is still an approximation. What you cannot argue, though, is power applied to the pedals is a direct translation of metabolic expenditure.0 -
Odd, why are you using HR when you have a power meter? It measures the work done and it's basic physics (definition of the unit of measurement) on the conversion. An average of 277 watts is roughly 1,000 Calories at 25% efficiency. 25% efficiency is also the upper range and reflect conditioning of elite athletes. HR doesn't hold up especially when you are talking about 4+ hours of activity (drift). It's indirect at ideal conditions. HR has some use but for determining work done and hence energy expended, it's garbage when one has a power meter. You can use it for... I ditched mine after a week of picking up a PM. I'm sentimental that way. So...
Now how the body produces that 1,000 Calories is another matter. But while cycling 1,000 Calories per hour is roughly 277 watts @ 25% efficiency. Four hours at that intensity is pretty impressive. Actually very.
This^0 -
Odd, why are you using HR when you have a power meter? It measures the work done and it's basic physics (definition of the unit of measurement) on the conversion. An average of 277 watts is roughly 1,000 Calories at 25% efficiency. 25% efficiency is also the upper range and reflect conditioning of elite athletes. HR doesn't hold up especially when you are talking about 4+ hours of activity (drift). It's indirect at ideal conditions. HR has some use but for determining work done and hence energy expended, it's garbage when one has a power meter. You can use it for... I ditched mine after a week of picking up a PM. I'm sentimental that way. So...
Now how the body produces that 1,000 Calories is another matter. But while cycling 1,000 Calories per hour is roughly 277 watts @ 25% efficiency. Four hours at that intensity is pretty impressive. Actually very.
Yup. I still wear my HRM for all cycling and running. I never use it for pacing, or even look at it during a session. It is more for post-activity analysis to determine how I am feeling based on perceived effort (feel, HR) vs actual effort (power).
Just for reference I do my Ironman rides at ~200 watts, which usually nets me a 20-21mph average over 112 miles (so around 5-5.5 hrs). My measured Lactate Threshold is 280 watts. (I guess I should add that I am a fairly small guy at 5'7" 147lbs). If I didn't have to run a marathon after the ride (just doing a 112 mi time trial), I would probably attempt to sustain a little closer to my subLT range around 240 watts. It has taken me YEARS to build up to this level of ability.0 -
Nice. I still keep track of my resting HR but PM for everything else. Haven't tested since last September but I think my FTP is at 260ish. Screw up the zero reset the last century on the 9th so it a stab; rest of the time been indoors. The best from last year was an average of 162w, 202w NP, & IF of 0.812 over 120.3 miles with FTP at 250 and s#@&ing a lot of wheels. The four rest breaks, one hour total duration, helped a lot. Hate running and sink like a rock.
One inch taller, 15 pounds heavier, and bad Cd = ~220-230w at 20-21 mph (one hour max). Was off the bike for 23 years but raced during college. Was a bit surprised reaching this level after only one year back on but expects a long slog ahead to regain my racing fitness (just don't want to be dropped on every group ride and per chance inflict some pain ). 0 -
theedgecoach521 wrote: »I am just curious what does the "starvation" in your sentence "Group would be great, to keep each other held accountable, starvation would be a Hugh plus mean?
Not a cyclist, but just saw it and was wondering... LOL
Was a joke, cyclists after a ride of long distance like I do burn 3-5 thousand calories, Just in one ride. In a normal ride for myself of 4 hours with some climbing, I burn 4k. It's after words that you feel like your starving, even during said ride that's when you crave everything.
4000 calories in 4 hours. That would mean you are putting out an average power of 277 watts for 4 whole hours. Consider me highly skeptical. You are talking about power levels that pro tour riders maintain for that amount of time.
If you use strava's estimation of efficiency, and take 4 hours to be "somewhere in the 4 hour range", that could easily be a 200-240w average ride, which is very reasonable. 280w for 4 hours would be pretty damn good under most circumstances, but for all we know the guy could be 6'8" and 100kg, making that a pretty ordinary output.
Now if he is using HR to get his calorie data...well obviously that can be ALL over the map. Probably not even that much better than trying to calculate calories burned from average speed over a duration (unless it's all a decently sheltered climb, then it works okay to use speed)0 -
Done 5 hours controlled at 220w without much trouble, pushing it probably would be somewhere between 240-260w, so 4k calories in 4 hours would be possible but only in a idealized steady state, extremely taxing ride. A mountainous ride would actually decrease my odds of doing this, as you just lose too much to zero watt coasting to make back up climbing.
In my case FTP right now is somewhere between 295-300w, pretty happy with that as a fairly small guy (5'8" 65kg, looking for 60kg) at 7000' that's been riding for about a year and a half now.
0 -
As far as strava stuff goes there is actually a MFP Strava Group out there.
Individually feel free to add me: https://strava.com/athletes/41818360 -
theedgecoach521 wrote: »I am just curious what does the "starvation" in your sentence "Group would be great, to keep each other held accountable, starvation would be a Hugh plus mean?
Not a cyclist, but just saw it and was wondering... LOL
Was a joke, cyclists after a ride of long distance like I do burn 3-5 thousand calories, Just in one ride. In a normal ride for myself of 4 hours with some climbing, I burn 4k. It's after words that you feel like your starving, even during said ride that's when you crave everything.
4000 calories in 4 hours. That would mean you are putting out an average power of 277 watts for 4 whole hours. Consider me highly skeptical. You are talking about power levels that pro tour riders maintain for that amount of time.
If you use strava's estimation of efficiency, and take 4 hours to be "somewhere in the 4 hour range", that could easily be a 200-240w average ride, which is very reasonable. 280w for 4 hours would be pretty damn good under most circumstances, but for all we know the guy could be 6'8" and 100kg, making that a pretty ordinary output.
Now if he is using HR to get his calorie data...well obviously that can be ALL over the map. Probably not even that much better than trying to calculate calories burned from average speed over a duration (unless it's all a decently sheltered climb, then it works okay to use speed)
Some good points to be had there. I would also imagine that efficiency is somewhat impacted by cadence, as gearsets and load would affect what types of muscle groups you are using more. Wattage through a meter is a great measure, but also not the entire picture IMO.
As for the size and equipment factors, huge impacts on calorie burn. Looking at one of my recent Strava rides, I set a PB for a segment on that route. I output wattage greater than all but the guy the owns the KOM, even though there are dozens of riders faster than me. I also looked at the ride of the guy that has the KOM on that segment. I burned more calories in my 19 mile ride than he did in his 31+ mile ride at a higher speed. Mass and aero efficiency have a great impact.
I'd like to have some better equipment and meters, but really for someone like me it's not a wise investment. I can improve my riding performance using an app, even if the app is flawed with calorie burns. And even though I don't usually ride more than 20-25 miles at a time, I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours. There is a point where it's probably actually easier for a larger person of the right build to do it, vs a smaller and very efficient rider.
As for heart rate, personally on the bike I don't get it much weight, other than using it to figure out where I was wasting energy better suited for use elsewhere. Being around a lot of traffic lights and slowdowns with few places to really spin steady state for more than a couple miles at a time, I found I was wasting a lot of energy with acceleration events. That could raise my heart rate more than slower acceleration events and then just upping pace when I had the space and lack of traffic to do that.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »And even though I don't usually ride more than 20-25 miles at a time, I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
LOL
If you're not using a power meter, you have no idea how many calories you're burning. Strava estimates are going to be way off, except for the case of a long, steady climb.0 -
I figured out my burn by the good ol' trial and error method, and found that if I increase my caloric intake (usually in the form of beer, breakfast burritos and pizza on my longer rides) by about 45 calories per mile ridden, I continue to maintain.0
-
robertw486 wrote: »And even though I don't usually ride more than 20-25 miles at a time, I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
LOL
If you're not using a power meter, you have no idea how many calories you're burning. Strava estimates are going to be way off, except for the case of a long, steady climb.
@jkoch6599
You might try debating something I've actually stated. And understanding that a power meter isn't even close to being the only way to understand calorie burn, especially in the context of my post. Mass and aero drag are huge factors, and the comparison to the posts of wattage output was clear for those that actually read.
But then again, some will assume that basics of understanding require technology.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »And even though I don't usually ride more than 20-25 miles at a time, I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
LOL
If you're not using a power meter, you have no idea how many calories you're burning. Strava estimates are going to be way off, except for the case of a long, steady climb.
@jkoch6599
You might try debating something I've actually stated. And understanding that a power meter isn't even close to being the only way to understand calorie burn, especially in the context of my post. Mass and aero drag are huge factors, and the comparison to the posts of wattage output was clear for those that actually read.
But then again, some will assume that basics of understanding require technology.
What you don't seem to understand is that measuring your power is the only practical way to account for differences in wind resistance, rolling resistance, etc. A bigger, less aero guy burns more calories precisely because he produces more power.
Strava does a very poor job at estimating power output, and therefore calories burned, except for long, steady climbs like I already mentioned. It's almost always overestimated. A Garmin with a HRM will give a better estimate for an average cyclist.
Anway, the only reason I replied is because I find it funny that you have no idea how many calories you're burning, don't ride for more than an hour or two, but you "think" you can burn 4000 in 4 hours despite a bunch of people pointing out that 277 watts average even for a big guy is a very high level cyclist.0 -
The law of conservation of energy states that the change in total internal energy of a system equals the added heat, minus the work performed by the system, where the symbol "d" indicates that heat (Q) and work (W) are inexact differentials.
dE (energy) = dQ - dW
Work is a displacement of the point of application in the direction of the force (net).
W = Fs = (Force x Distance) / Time
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)).
F = Mass x Acceleration
Force is any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object. That is force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force).
Watt is a derived unit of power to express the rate of energy conversion or transfer with respect to time. Joules and calories are two measurements for energy. The SI unit of work is the joule and is defined as the work expended by a force of one newton through a distance of one meter. The calories (small "c") is a measurement for heat or energy content and is amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere. We typically uses the big "C" when talking about Calories and it is 1,000 little c.
In a nutshell, if you apply a force to your cranks and spin them one revolution, it requires power and you’re doing work. The force is your torque input into the pedals, and the time is the single pedal stroke. A Power meter measure this work. To determine how much total energy is generated to do this work, you need to add heat (Q). This gives you the total measure of energy conversion.
Back to that PB on Strava and the work definition. The only variable that is the same is the distance. The force your generated over the duration of the effort is different, thus the work is different (and hence the total energy or Calories).- What would cause work to be different? Fatigue, wind drag (aero), friction, enthusiasm, temperature, weight, you name it.
- Does that change the definition of work? No.
- Can you control all variable? Yes.
- Is it cost effective? No for most and unlikely possible outdoors.
- Is it necessary to measure all the variables when you can measure the work directly? No.
- But how accurate is it? 1-3%.
- How accurately does it measure the energy demand? That depends. As noted we humans are 20-25% efficient (net) at converting potential energy (fats, carbs, proteins, etc) to kinetic energy (work). The rest, 75-80%, is mostly heat. Does all of the work goes to propel you on that bike? Yes, if the measurement is from a power meter. What about the rest? Get your efficiency measured and it's as close as you can get without taking you apart.
When comparing, watts by itself is kind of meaningless in cycling. It needs to be normalized in order to have significance. Dividing by weight, w/kg, is the true measure used.
Hope this helps.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »And even though I don't usually ride more than 20-25 miles at a time, I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
LOL
If you're not using a power meter, you have no idea how many calories you're burning. Strava estimates are going to be way off, except for the case of a long, steady climb.
@jkoch6599
You might try debating something I've actually stated. And understanding that a power meter isn't even close to being the only way to understand calorie burn, especially in the context of my post. Mass and aero drag are huge factors, and the comparison to the posts of wattage output was clear for those that actually read.
But then again, some will assume that basics of understanding require technology.
What you don't seem to understand is that measuring your power is the only practical way to account for differences in wind resistance, rolling resistance, etc. A bigger, less aero guy burns more calories precisely because he produces more power.
Strava does a very poor job at estimating power output, and therefore calories burned, except for long, steady climbs like I already mentioned. It's almost always overestimated. A Garmin with a HRM will give a better estimate for an average cyclist.
Anway, the only reason I replied is because I find it funny that you have no idea how many calories you're burning, don't ride for more than an hour or two, but you "think" you can burn 4000 in 4 hours despite a bunch of people pointing out that 277 watts average even for a big guy is a very high level cyclist.
You'll have to quote where I didn't understand anything. I'm well aware of variances that Strava or any other app would allow and not be able to factor for. But then again, I'm also aware of the limits of strain gauges for use in estimating power as well, and why they have been rejected for quite some time in other applications that aren't space limited and desire higher accuracy.
As for Strava, I've made no claim it is the end all app by any means. But the flaws it uses in estimating remain the same for all riders at all times. And it's not rocket science to know that if I'm 40 pounds heavier, with less aero efficiency, on a bike that is both, that I could easily burn more calories going slower than a lighter more efficient rider would. Then again, that basic principle is so stable that it even applies to things such as walking, as mass and velocity as the primary driving factors.
And if you make assumptions, it might be easy for you to find it funny. I have limited time to ride, but I also own a machine with a true power measure considered by many to be superior to most power meters on bikes. I also have the advantage of knowing my cardio base, how often I train, and my weights and such. You're attempting to play expert, when in reality you have no idea of my fitness level. I really DO find that funny. And once again, if you actually read what I posted rather than immediately question it, I didn't even claim I could hit 4000 in 4 hours, I said I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
Now if you want to play expert, you'll have to break out all of my lab test results, showing the efficiency levels, the calorimetry, the available glycogen stores, muscle mass in my legs, etc. Surely you already know the percentage of my fat allows more energy stores than a real trim efficient rider, so you'll have to let everyone know what that contributes as well. I'll await your technical analysis.
But then again, a person can have a power meter and have a great unit of measure, but have no clue about their efficiency or specifics of their actual calorimetry, since they rely on estimates usually.[*] But how accurate is it? 1-3%.
This was the only question I had in regards to your input. Are you stating the meters are accurate to a 1-3% margin? If so, do you have any links comparing them?When comparing, watts by itself is kind of meaningless in cycling. It needs to be normalized in order to have significance. Dividing by weight, w/kg, is the true measure used.
Hope this helps.
Though I didn't need any help with understanding any of it, my point was that of your last sentence above. Wattage alone means crap. As a larger less efficient rider wattage is my only saving grace. For me to hit 1000 calories per hour actually requires a less physical effort than that of a lighter rider. Power is absolute and in that sense a larger rider has an advantage. Though in any contest of speed the smaller rider (physical characteristics otherwise being the same) would have a great advantage, in a contest of calorie burn that advantage disappears fairly quickly.
It would be similar to comparing VO2max absolute rates without the body weight factor involved. What might seem like a great number could readily suck if attached to a large person0 -
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-comparison-calculator?type=power-meter#select and that's my understanding regarding "claimed error".
Cannot remember which meter(s) had >2% claimed error rate but think it might have been iBike and/or PowerCal, both are not really true power meters in the traditional sense.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »
Though I didn't need any help with understanding any of it, my point was that of your last sentence above. Wattage alone means crap. As a larger less efficient rider wattage is my only saving grace. For me to hit 1000 calories per hour actually requires a less physical effort than that of a lighter rider. Power is absolute and in that sense a larger rider has an advantage. Though in any contest of speed the smaller rider (physical characteristics otherwise being the same) would have a great advantage, in a contest of calorie burn that advantage disappears fairly quickly.
It would be similar to comparing VO2max absolute rates without the body weight factor involved. What might seem like a great number could readily suck if attached to a large person
You should market your ability to break the laws of physics. You would be rich beyond your wildest dreams.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions