Cycling calories
Options
naomi9271
Posts: 127 Member
How do you guys enter cycling calories outdoors into MFP?
I used the Harvard study for typical calorie burn at different speeds outside, but riding on Zwift with a power meter gives me approximately half the calorie burn. Gotta think the Watts-based calculation is more accurate, and I don't work twice as hard outside as I do inside, even considering headwinds, small dogs with long leashes, and etc.
What do you use as approximate calorie burn with outdoor riding? Super frustrated because I’ve been gaining weight if I eat my exercise calories despite my “conservative” use of Harvard study data vs Garmin heart rate related data, which is far more generous with calorie burn rate.
If it helps, I’m slow. Avg 13 mph outdoors due to lots of traffic lights and pedestrians.
I used the Harvard study for typical calorie burn at different speeds outside, but riding on Zwift with a power meter gives me approximately half the calorie burn. Gotta think the Watts-based calculation is more accurate, and I don't work twice as hard outside as I do inside, even considering headwinds, small dogs with long leashes, and etc.
What do you use as approximate calorie burn with outdoor riding? Super frustrated because I’ve been gaining weight if I eat my exercise calories despite my “conservative” use of Harvard study data vs Garmin heart rate related data, which is far more generous with calorie burn rate.
If it helps, I’m slow. Avg 13 mph outdoors due to lots of traffic lights and pedestrians.
0
Replies
-
Go with what the power based one would give you for the time.
I can't help, I use a PM outdoors so I just take the kJs it gives me.1 -
Watts is more accurate than Harvard study or HR calculations.
When logging it into MFP you really do want the calories above and beyond base metabolism, which is what Watts gives you.
avgWatts x 3.6 x hours = calories (hopefully that is close to the Zwift calorie burn)
About 1/2 the calorie burn sounds about right many times, many others are inflated when you take dehydrated or stressed inflating the HR, or length of time.
I just did an hour and temps not that bad unless standing in sun at stoplight - one of the few times the HR calculated actually was very close to watts calorie burn. But Garmin on it's own estimate using speed & weight was 100 over.
I'll mention the Strava estimated kJ based on inclines and speed and weight was 100 under. (some just take kJ=calories)
ETA:
You'll likely start seeing some HR=watts=calorie burn associations from Zwift that you can use when logging outside riding.
That would be more accurate than Garmin using HR (if that type of device) or by calculation.
If you setup Garmin Connect to show avgHR as a column viewing the biking activities - you can scan through the Swift rides, find a matching one, and use those calories.3 -
Using speed ranges for cycling estimates is fraught with massive variations.
Type of bike, terrain, road surface, wind direction, stop/starts vs steady pace.
15mph on my heavy, knobbly tyred, MTB on road is very different to 15mph on my light, slick tyred road bike.
(Is the Harvard estimate gross or the net calories you want when logging exercise?)
MFP speed categorie estimates I find to be extremely inflated, not double but roughly 150% of accurate PM numbers.
Using heart rate is fraught with massive variations unless you are lucky to be somewhat average in terms of exercise HR, also tends to be gross calorie options. It's also further compromised by things such as getting hot or interval type rides with big hills, even the stress of heavy traffic.
I use a power meter indoors and the vast majority of my road rides but for the minority I either take my Strava KJ estimate as a reasonable calorie estimate or an element of "feels like" when that seems a bit high relative to comparative effort.
Before power meter I used Strava or Garmin calorie estimates but manually roughly converted from gross to net estimates by taking 100cals/hour off.
PS - Most but not all cycling software takes average power and uses the formula above from Heybales but worth checking your numbers against the Zwift numbers.
3 -
After lots of debate about converting power-meter-derived calorie burn estimates (and many other estimates) with the people on this thread, my advice is to use whatever is available. No calorie estimate for exercise is perfect, so if you are intent on controlling weight, eat back the calories as conservatively as possible, leaving a few on the table (or in the refrigerator, so to speak).
On Zwift, use their estimate, particularly if you have a power meter. Outdoors, use a power-meter-based estimate, if available. (I don't have one and I don't think it's worth buying one just to estimate calories.) If you don't have that, use an estimate provided by one of many apps, including RideWithGPS, for example. MFPs estimate (based on average speed, time, and your weight), is pretty crude, as are all estimates based on a tabulated formula.
Best of luck!2 -
Sounds like you all agree that the power meter is the way to go from the data I have. I have a smart trainer indoors, but no independent power meter for my bikes when used outdoors. I can’t imagine there’s a gigantic difference, so I’ll use the indoor burn rate (~250/hr) for now and look into getting a power meter for outside. It’d be helpful for pacing myself outdoors, especially on hilly rides, in addition to the calorie info.
Thank you for your input and advice!!! I figured there’s some experts in this forum and I was not disappointed (And here’s to the FTP classes increasing my burn rate and my skills) I didn’t realize Strava gives you kJ info….need to check that out. I’d just been using apps to log my rides and make sure I don’t get lost, LOL.2 -
Sounds like you all agree that the power meter is the way to go from the data I have. I have a smart trainer indoors, but no independent power meter for my bikes when used outdoors. I can’t imagine there’s a gigantic difference, so I’ll use the indoor burn rate (~250/hr) for now and look into getting a power meter for outside. It’d be helpful for pacing myself outdoors, especially on hilly rides, in addition to the calorie info.
Thank you for your input and advice!!! I figured there’s some experts in this forum and I was not disappointed (And here’s to the FTP classes increasing my burn rate and my skills) I didn’t realize Strava gives you kJ info….need to check that out. I’d just been using apps to log my rides and make sure I don’t get lost, LOL.
Here's the problem with perception though, it may feel easier or harder to hit the same watts outside as you got inside to get the same calorie burn rate. I'm going to say harder to hit the same, you'll be doing less work outside.
250/hr may be close but you have no idea if nothing to compare to.
You likely have some different HR averages on the Swift (maybe not, maybe each session is as intense as possible), and outside you'll likely discover some major differences in avgHR.
But at least if you can find an avgHR matching from an outside ride, to a Swift ride - you'll be closer.
Coincidently it could be close, but very easily it could be very different.1 -
Sounds like you all agree that the power meter is the way to go from the data I have. I have a smart trainer indoors, but no independent power meter for my bikes when used outdoors. I can’t imagine there’s a gigantic difference, so I’ll use the indoor burn rate (~250/hr) for now and look into getting a power meter for outside. It’d be helpful for pacing myself outdoors, especially on hilly rides, in addition to the calorie info.
Thank you for your input and advice!!! I figured there’s some experts in this forum and I was not disappointed (And here’s to the FTP classes increasing my burn rate and my skills) I didn’t realize Strava gives you kJ info….need to check that out. I’d just been using apps to log my rides and make sure I don’t get lost, LOL.
Circa 250 cals/hr would be an average watts of around 70 (70 x 3.6 = 252) if you can check back on some Zwift rides.
With that number just the difference between gross and net calories is a very significant variable (power related numbers are net cals).
The big benefit of power meters is indeed as a training aid, takes away a lot of the "feelings" and replaces it with hard data. I thought that I tried just as hard on slight declines as I do on the flat but the PM revealed very clearly that I don't. Got some "free speed" from correcting that.
For indoor training in particular I find the first half an hour of fast steady state indoors will feel a lot easier to me as I will be over-heating after that and an hour of steady state at 150w will feel easy but an hour of intervals at 100/200w will feel harder but not burn more calories.
Do keep in mind that unless you do crazy numbers of hours of exercise reasonable is plenty good enough for estimates to be usable for the purpose of weight management.
PS - I also got some easy FTP improvements from just getting my cadence up, I can sustain my power much better at 85-95rpm than at my natural slow cadence.2 -
@sijomial Yeah….you’re dead on with the 70W. That’s from an erg’d Zone 1 ride. Figured I work at least that hard outdoors on average.
I’m also a naturally slow cadence rider… around 75 or 80 rpm by preference. I’ve been doing the FTP training classes and the higher cadences still kill me (working on it, though). That and the standing up…ouch. Been a seated grinder up hills for a long time
It’s impressive how much you learn from just the training sections, especially for me as an untrained weekend warrior, LOL.
I only ride about 6 hours/week or so outside. Not crazy amounts, especially with the heat right now. But if you’re waaaaaay off in your calculations (I think mine has been somewhere around double reality) that’s still an extra 1000-2000 calories/week you think you have that you don’t.0 -
Strava's kJ come from model physics, those numbers are go o it entertainment only. I would go with your indoor burn rate since you're able to actually measure that. (I think most people put more power out outdoors because of better cooling and because they're more motivated, things like hills keep you honest.)
I would, if possible, try to determine your FTP outside of erg mode.
A power meter is the best thing I've ever bought to improve my cycling. It's been great for my fitness, improved my speed, it's a wonderful pacing tool.0 -
I thought that I tried just as hard on slight declines as I do on the flat but the PM revealed very clearly that I don't. Got some "free speed" from correcting that.
Same here. I never look at my average speeds, what this meant to me is that if I ride for 90 minutes after work, 15 or 20 of those might be soft pedaling. (Cadence sensor can't tell you that.) So: I can either go home 20 minutes early, and get the same workout, or ride the same amount of time for 20 more minutes of work and improve my fitness. And then my endurance improved from not resting every time I went down a hill. 🙂1 -
@sijomial Yeah….you’re dead on with the 70W. That’s from an erg’d Zone 1 ride. Figured I work at least that hard outdoors on average.
I’m also a naturally slow cadence rider… around 75 or 80 rpm by preference. I’ve been doing the FTP training classes and the higher cadences still kill me (working on it, though). That and the standing up…ouch. Been a seated grinder up hills for a long time It’s impressive how much you learn from just the training sections, especially for me as an untrained weekend warrior, LOL.
I only ride about 6 hours/week or so outside. Not crazy amounts, especially with the heat right now. But if you’re waaaaaay off in your calculations (I think mine has been somewhere around double reality) that’s still an extra 1000-2000 calories/week you think you have that you don’t.
Are you shifting to get the higher cadences?
It's interesting how I can be slightly grinding away at 80 up a hill at XXX watts, downshift and be at 95 but now XXX+10 watts and it feels easier.
The idea for improving cadence isn't to increase the cadence and keep resistance the same (unless doing intervals for that purpose) because that is just increased power required, but increase cadence at same power output.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I thought that I tried just as hard on slight declines as I do on the flat but the PM revealed very clearly that I don't. Got some "free speed" from correcting that.
Same here. I never look at my average speeds, what this meant to me is that if I ride for 90 minutes after work, 15 or 20 of those might be soft pedaling. (Cadence sensor can't tell you that.) So: I can either go home 20 minutes early, and get the same workout, or ride the same amount of time for 20 more minutes of work and improve my fitness. And then my endurance improved from not resting every time I went down a hill. 🙂
I remember some of those pic's going up - I can't imagine even having the gearing to push on the way down.
I'm guessing that's not always the type of hills?1 -
@NorthCascades Best thing? Wow, that’s a strong endorsement. I’d been eying them anyway….
I started the FTP ramp test, but shamefully wimped out, as I wasn’t mentally prepared or anticipating the degree of torture Got a result of 130 from what I did do. But now I know what to expect, I should do it again. It’s such a useful piece of info that the torture is worth it. 0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I thought that I tried just as hard on slight declines as I do on the flat but the PM revealed very clearly that I don't. Got some "free speed" from correcting that.
Same here. I never look at my average speeds, what this meant to me is that if I ride for 90 minutes after work, 15 or 20 of those might be soft pedaling. (Cadence sensor can't tell you that.) So: I can either go home 20 minutes early, and get the same workout, or ride the same amount of time for 20 more minutes of work and improve my fitness. And then my endurance improved from not resting every time I went down a hill. 🙂
I remember some of those pic's going up - I can't imagine even having the gearing to push on the way down.
I'm guessing that's not always the type of hills?
I guess I was clear as mud. 🙂 I was trying to talk about how I noticed the same thing as @sijomial and saw another benefit from it without wanting to talk about myself too much.
Sometimes I'll drive my bike somewhere really scenic to ride. I don't think of it as training or anything, it's pure recreation. Sometimes it'll be over a mountain pass or whatever. I'm not going to pedal down that the way I would if I'm out for a workout. Partly because of gearing like you said, partly because I can get going as fast as I'm comfortable with coasting in an aero tuck. But this is ... I might drive several hours, sometimes even get a hotel to be able to do this thing I love, cycling, in a pretty place.
For the lunch or after work ride I do several times a week, I'm still limited sometimes by traffic and whatnot, but the hills are generally shorter and less steep so I'm able to pedal down most of them if I make a conscious choice about it. 🙂0 -
Are you shifting to get the higher cadences?
It's interesting how I can be slightly grinding away at 80 up a hill at XXX watts, downshift and be at 95 but now XXX+10 watts and it feels easier.
The idea for improving cadence isn't to increase the cadence and keep resistance the same (unless doing intervals for that purpose) because that is just increased power required, but increase cadence at same power output.
I’ve been using ERG mode for the increased cadence intervals to keep my power the same. That is very hard for me to do…it is so tempting to shift I have to keep my hands on the flat bars so I don’t do it without thinking.
Well, to be honest a lot of the motivation for getting better at high cadences is that I’ve been limited by granny gear on a lot of the hills I’ve done. Standing on the pedals in granny gear, LOL using body weight to help them move. But you know how that is…if you can manage to keep the cadence up, you’re less likely to find yourself in that spot….or at least find yourself in it a bit later.0 -
@NorthCascades Best thing? Wow, that’s a strong endorsement. I’d been eying them anyway….
I started the FTP ramp test, but shamefully wimped out, as I wasn’t mentally prepared or anticipating the degree of torture Got a result of 130 from what I did do. But now I know what to expect, I should do it again. It’s such a useful piece of info that the torture is worth it.
I really love cycling, and have been doing it most of my life, so I saved my pennies for years and got some really fancy bike stuff that the power meter is competing against to be the best thing. Really nice race wheels change the way the bike feels, but the knowledge a PM gives you and the ways you can act on it feel more important.
FTP tests are miserable. There's a skill to taking one, pacing for it. Usually people get closer to the truth the more they take the test. Don't do it too often because it sucks, also because it depletes you and the next day isn't so hot.1 -
@sijomial Yeah….you’re dead on with the 70W. That’s from an erg’d Zone 1 ride. Figured I work at least that hard outdoors on average.
I’m also a naturally slow cadence rider… around 75 or 80 rpm by preference. I’ve been doing the FTP training classes and the higher cadences still kill me (working on it, though). That and the standing up…ouch. Been a seated grinder up hills for a long time It’s impressive how much you learn from just the training sections, especially for me as an untrained weekend warrior, LOL.
I only ride about 6 hours/week or so outside. Not crazy amounts, especially with the heat right now. But if you’re waaaaaay off in your calculations (I think mine has been somewhere around double reality) that’s still an extra 1000-2000 calories/week you think you have that you don’t.
Are you shifting to get the higher cadences?
It's interesting how I can be slightly grinding away at 80 up a hill at XXX watts, downshift and be at 95 but now XXX+10 watts and it feels easier.
The idea for improving cadence isn't to increase the cadence and keep resistance the same (unless doing intervals for that purpose) because that is just increased power required, but increase cadence at same power output.
I'm shifting to keep in a cadence range that doesn't fatigue me, maximum power at a sustainable and repeatable intensity level, leaning on my CV system rather than muscling up the hills.
As I've been riding some very silly hills recently, I've just changed the cassette on one bike to allow me to spin up the moderate parts of the hills for longer rather than be forced to grind up at low cadence and wear out my muscles. For example, this hill averages 7% but you really want to arrive at the final 18% part with something left in the tank.
https://cyclinguphill.com/100-climbs/combe-lane/2 -
How do you guys enter cycling calories outdoors into MFP?
I used the Harvard study for typical calorie burn at different speeds outside, but riding on Zwift with a power meter gives me approximately half the calorie burn. Gotta think the Watts-based calculation is more accurate, and I don't work twice as hard outside as I do inside, even considering headwinds, small dogs with long leashes, and etc.
What do you use as approximate calorie burn with outdoor riding? Super frustrated because I’ve been gaining weight if I eat my exercise calories despite my “conservative” use of Harvard study data vs Garmin heart rate related data, which is far more generous with calorie burn rate.
If it helps, I’m slow. Avg 13 mph outdoors due to lots of traffic lights and pedestrians.
This:
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions