Bicycle riding

Options
karfay3
karfay3 Posts: 2 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I’m new here. Hello my name is Karen and I’m wondering how to record bicycle riding? Thank you

Replies

  • Djproulx
    Djproulx Posts: 3,084 Member
    Options
    In the exercise tab, there are entries for cycling. Just fill in the number of minutes and speed(10-12mph, 14,-16mph, etc.) to get the MFP calorie estimate.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Options
    Djproulx wrote: »
    In the exercise tab, there are entries for cycling. Just fill in the number of minutes and speed(10-12mph, 14,-16mph, etc.) to get the MFP calorie estimate.

    That^^^
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,932 Member
    Options
    FWIW: Bicycling is one of the things in the exercise database that does seem to me to be relatively high. I think recording that way is fine as a starting point, but keep an eye on weight results vs. expectations over 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual cycles if that applies), and adjust if necessary, especially if you do a lot of it.

    The calorie burn in real life is going to vary based on terrain (up/down hills vs. flat), air resistance (body size, wind direction), type of bike (heavy/light, more/less efficiently engineered for the type of riding being done). One speed-based estimate for all of those variables is kind of approximate. In the big picture, probably the variability won't be a big deal, but it's a thing to keep in mind if you're cycling quite a few hours a week.

    With power metering, a more accurate estimate is possible, but power meters are relatively expensive. I don't bother with one, personally.
  • pridesabtch
    pridesabtch Posts: 2,399 Member
    Options
    MFP numbers are definitely exaggerated for me personally. I use a heart rate monitor to get my actual calories and manually enter them into the calories burned section of the activity log. Power meter is more accurate, but the HRM seems to be close enough for me.

    Example: I rode for 2 hours the other day at a moderate 14mph, avg HR 118. My Garmin calculated my calories to be 575 calories. MFP said 1450 calories burned for 2 hours at 14-16mph. I was on a relatively flat course and not working that hard to average 14mph. For some people on a different course or less accustomed to riding I'm sure they would have a higher heart rate and burn more calories, but they would be unlikely (not impossible) to burn the number of calories given by MFP.

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,932 Member
    edited May 2023
    Options
    pridesabtch wrote: »
    MFP numbers are definitely exaggerated for me personally. I use a heart rate monitor to get my actual calories and manually enter them into the calories burned section of the activity log. Power meter is more accurate, but the HRM seems to be close enough for me.

    Example: I rode for 2 hours the other day at a moderate 14mph, avg HR 118. My Garmin calculated my calories to be 575 calories. MFP said 1450 calories burned for 2 hours at 14-16mph. I was on a relatively flat course and not working that hard to average 14mph. For some people on a different course or less accustomed to riding I'm sure they would have a higher heart rate and burn more calories, but they would be unlikely (not impossible) to burn the number of calories given by MFP.

    Different course that's more work, sure.

    Since it's the work (in the physics sense) that determines the calorie burn, the less-fit person's higher heart rate is not necessarily signaling a higher calorie burn. It's signaling that their heart doesn't pump as great a volume of blood (+ oxygen) per beat, so the heart has to beat more rapidly to deliver the same amount of oxygen.

    It's the oxygen consumption that correlates pretty well with calorie burn. The heart rate is a seriously imperfect proxy. As the person gets fitter, heart rate will be lower over the same course, and a calorie estimate based entirely on heart rate will decrease. If bodyweight, bike, tires, weather conditions, course are the same, the work is the same, and the true calorie burn will be pretty close. One of those estimates - the less-fit one, or the more-fit one - is incorrect . . . and maybe both.

    I'm completely on board with the MFP estimate tending to be overly high for nearly any case, and using the same estimate (based on mph) for a heavy bike with big tires vs. a speed-optimized bike, etc. . . . well, I'm not buying it. Whether that difference is a big difference in the big picture is a different question.

    For me, MFP's estimate put yesterday's 25 mile ride (hybrid bike, typical hybrid tires) at 767 calories (moving speed 10.7 mph, time 141 minutes,. Garmin estimated 517 gross, 380 net. Based on power-metered stationary biking over the Winter, and subjective RPE, I'm guessing Garmin is more realistic than MFP. A couple of hundred calories is maybe 9% of my TDEE, enough to wipe out a small calorie deficit, not enough to wipe out all of a big one.

    For me, since I don't ride every day like that, I'd still lose weight on an overall basis, even using the high estimate. That's why monitoring over multiple weeks, then adjusting, is so important for success. At the root, it's all estimates, but even some mis-estimates can work out in the big picture, as long as a person monitors and adjusts.
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    Options
    If you want easy estimates for walking, running, and riding, use an app on your phone to track them. There are probably 20 to choose from, but the "Map my Ride" is free and it works. (It's owned by Underarmor, who also owns myFitnessPal."

    (Note, I use a Garmin watch and I haven't touched any of the other phone fitness apps for years.)

Categories