BodyMedia Fit

Join

cycling with the BM

Options
fearthisfish42
fearthisfish42 Posts: 26 Member
in Social Groups
Does anyone else in here do cycling with the BM?

Replies

  • JRadd14
    JRadd14 Posts: 206 Member
    Options
    I occassionally ride my indoor recumbent bike. I find the BMF doesn't register well on my arm, so about 5-10 min before I'm going to do this activity I move it to my outer upper left calf (about and inch or so below my knee). I don't register quite as high of burn as the machine, but I find the machines often calculate too high of a reading anyway. When I'm done I then move it back to my arm.
  • SJCon
    SJCon Posts: 224
    Options
    I occassionally ride my indoor recumbent bike. I find the BMF doesn't register well on my arm, so about 5-10 min before I'm going to do this activity I move it to my outer upper left calf (about and inch or so below my knee). I don't register quite as high of burn as the machine, but I find the machines often calculate too high of a reading anyway. When I'm done I then move it back to my arm.

    While BM does not do well with step count during cycling, steps do NOT contribute to your HR/calorie burn count at all. Steps goal is stand alone and does often not reflect effort or work which why BM is so much better than the Fitbit or others that focus on steps and base all calculations off of them.
  • JRadd14
    JRadd14 Posts: 206 Member
    Options
    I occassionally ride my indoor recumbent bike. I find the BMF doesn't register well on my arm, so about 5-10 min before I'm going to do this activity I move it to my outer upper left calf (about and inch or so below my knee). I don't register quite as high of burn as the machine, but I find the machines often calculate too high of a reading anyway. When I'm done I then move it back to my arm.

    While BM does not do well with step count during cycling, steps do NOT contribute to your HR/calorie burn count at all. Steps goal is stand alone and does often not reflect effort or work which why BM is so much better than the Fitbit or others that focus on steps and base all calculations off of them.

    I personally am not looking at the steps but the overall calorie burn. The BMF uses various data points to determine calorie burn. I found if I wore it on my arm I used hardly any calories as I was stationary and my arms barely move. When I move it to my leg (and I only do this for the stationary recumbent bike) my calorie burn shows slightly less than what the machine states I burned.

    Here is the info for the BodyMedia site... It does use an accelerometer. This is one of the data points that contributes to overall calorie burn. There are very few excercises where you are not moving,,, stationary cyclling is one of them...

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
    How Does BodyMedia FIT Count Calories?

    Everything starts with the multi-sensor Armband from BodyMedia.The Armband takes a broad 24/7 view of your life by "reading" your body from five different perspectives.

    1.The armband contains an "accelerometer", a device that we use to measure many aspects of motion. Your car air-bag system uses an accelerometer to know when you have been in an accident and deploy the air-bag, your Nintendo Wii game controller contains an accelerometer to measure how you move the controller to play the games.


    2.We counts your steps, using the distinctive walking and running motions measured by the accelerometer.


    3.We measure your "Galvanic Skin Response". The two stainless steel pads on the back of your armband are the GSR sensor that determine how much you are sweating.


    4.We measure your skin temperature using an electronic thermometer inside the armband.


    5.We measure the rate at which heat is being dissipated from your body, this is your "heat flux". Exercise physiologists are interested in the heat energy produced by the body, your muscles are fairly inefficient and we all produce a lot of heat energy when we perform physical work.

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
  • SJCon
    SJCon Posts: 224
    Options
    Did not say or mean to imply that it did not contain or use an accelerometer to count steps. From my experience steps recorded do not really seem to influence calories burnt on the BM and the other sensors do. I have found my BM is most "accurate" for "Full Body" cardio for me, but that is my subjective opinion. I feel people put to much emphasis on the numbers of calories in or out..Just as they look up a "Chicken Tender" and act if they are all the same size they tend feel certain calorie counts are more true than others. Use what works for you.
  • JRadd14
    JRadd14 Posts: 206 Member
    Options
    Did not say or mean to imply that it did not contain or use an accelerometer to count steps. From my experience steps recorded do not really seem to influence calories burnt on the BM and the other sensors do. I have found my BM is most "accurate" for "Full Body" cardio for me, but that is my subjective opinion. I feel people put to much emphasis on the numbers of calories in or out..Just as they look up a "Chicken Tender" and act if they are all the same size they tend feel certain calorie counts are more true than others. Use what works for you.

    Since the BMF takes more factors into consideration I too notice that extra steps do not automatically result in a higher calorie burn, but then depending on my Mets, unless the other data points are also showing that I'm burning more calories, I wouldn't expect it too... basically meaning if I take a leisurely stroll I'm not going to show a much higher calorie burn as if I'm speed walking and sweating.

    I agree some go crazy over the numbers.... but it's best to keep it in perspective considering calorie counts on foods can be off up to 20% and the BMF also has room for error. I do feel though that the BMF and MFP are great tools and can contribute to overall success - but they are not the only factors.
  • SJCon
    SJCon Posts: 224
    Options
    Since the BMF takes more factors into consideration I too notice that extra steps do not automatically result in a higher calorie burn, but then depending on my Mets, unless the other data points are also showing that I'm burning more calories, I wouldn't expect it too... basically meaning if I take a leisurely stroll I'm not going to show a much higher calorie burn as if I'm speed walking and sweating.

    Actually they don't say that the accelerometer is used in the calorie calculation just that it is a data point. When wearing a HRM and the BM on my elliptical I get very similar calorie burns which also are close to the elliptical's readings. Since the BM step count is often less than a hundred, depending where I have my hands, I have to conclude that it is not used in the BM calorie calculation at all. I have also noticed that the BM calorie count lags the HRM a little bit and linger a little longer as well which leads me to believe that the skin temperature is a primary factor. This is also supported by results seen when working out with a fan or not. I suspect this is why you see higher results on your calf which is doing more work than your upper body when on the recumbent. Since calorie burn becomes more "accurate" as it approaches the way it was statistically established which was with oxygen uptake measurements on a treadmill. You may want to be more conservative when not doing exercise that is as close to whole body as that. This is why they say you cannot use a HRM to get calorie burn when weight lifting and I take my BM off during that time for that reason as well.

    JMO based on my own observations, I do not work for the company and have not seen anything as to how calories burned is calculated but you have to wonder how you burn calories while sleeping if steps is a factor. I doubt that the device is so sophisticated as to change its calculations based on the accelerometers intermittent input..

    BTW the 20% variance allowance you refer to is on packaging. The calories of a potato and other foods do not vary that much and have a fixed caloric factor which is multiplied by weight to get the total calories for an item. The variance is when people judge if it is a large potato or a medium one. I see Chicken breast but never big chicken, small chicken etc. The government established that allowance for the packages stated calories due to manufacturing realities. If you weigh your food the variance is eliminated. Of course if you weighed everything you would defiantly lose weight since you would have no time left to eat between the weighing and washing the weighing dishes, LOL.
  • MaverickNH
    MaverickNH Posts: 4
    Options
    Published scientific studies show the BodyMedia unit underestimates hard and very hard exercise while slightly overestimating easy and moderate exercise. So a good way to accurately track calorie burn when cycling (indoor/outdoor) is wearing a Garmin Heart Rate Monitor (HRM). See here for information http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html

    For resistance training, the BodyMedia unit seems pretty good, slightly underestimating calorie burn http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24120404
  • SJCon
    SJCon Posts: 224
    Options
    Published scientific studies show the BodyMedia unit underestimates hard and very hard exercise while slightly overestimating easy and moderate exercise. So a good way to accurately track calorie burn when cycling (indoor/outdoor) is wearing a Garmin Heart Rate Monitor (HRM). See here for information http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html

    For resistance training, the BodyMedia unit seems pretty good, slightly underestimating calorie burn http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24120404

    Thanks for the info MaverickMH, I had not heard of the portable metabolic testing unit in the study linked. It does say that the BM compared favorably to it in the resistance exercises so maybe I do not have to be as conservative as I have been and take mine off. I had read several reports on why a HRM should not be used to estimate calories for Resistance /weight training and this tends to make me think BM is ok for this but I found this article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15139160 which says that the portable unit reads higher VO2 than the lab units.
    Thanks again for the info.
  • verdemujer
    verdemujer Posts: 1,397 Member
    Options
    In answer to the original post, yes, I wear my BM ALL the time (except things that invovle water) and I'm an avid cyclist. I don't tend to move it down to a lower position on my arm when on my road bike but I have moved it lower down my arm when in spin class. It seems to register most of my burn and I'm not too concerned if I'm missing some calories burned. I also use Strava when riding outside. It records a calorie burn based on my age/weight and the speed/grade of the route I've ridden during the ride. My Strava calorie burn and my calorie burn from my BM data are very close - ususally within 20 calories of each other so I just my BM calories when recording a ride here on MFP. I am considering a HM gadget though for using when I ride my bike on a trainner inside since that data is all over the place. I haven't made up my mind yet on that. Having spent bucks on my BM band even though I've had it for a year and a half now, I'm reluctant to fork out money for a Garmin which is equal in price but doesn't give me 24/7 data since it wasn't designed for that.
  • JRadd14
    JRadd14 Posts: 206 Member
    Options
    Published scientific studies show the BodyMedia unit underestimates hard and very hard exercise while slightly overestimating easy and moderate exercise. So a good way to accurately track calorie burn when cycling (indoor/outdoor) is wearing a Garmin Heart Rate Monitor (HRM). See here for information http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html

    For resistance training, the BodyMedia unit seems pretty good, slightly underestimating calorie burn http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24120404

    Thanks for sharing.... I personally found this to definately be true for easy excercise (such as walking), and raised my Mets on what is considered Moderate and what is considered Vigorous activity.
  • fearthisfish42
    fearthisfish42 Posts: 26 Member
    Options
    Thank you all for thoughts. When i ride my road bike on my indoor trainer I use a garmin HRM that is hooked up to mapmyride its telling me that i burn 1200 calories for 1hr or so ride and BMF tells me i burn like 300. That is what i was asking about
  • verdemujer
    verdemujer Posts: 1,397 Member
    Options
    You don't say which Garmin you have so I don't know if it does calores or not but I know mapmyride is notrious for over estimating calories burned on a ride. Its why I use Strava. Strava will let you upload rides from a Garmin.
  • verdemujer
    verdemujer Posts: 1,397 Member
    Options
    Oh - and you can adjust your mets in BM which might give you a better calorie burn for the trainer rides.
  • thinagain2014
    thinagain2014 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    Spinning is one of my primary exercises so I have found that wearing my BM on my left calf produces the same calorie burn as my HRM. Wearing it on my arm during spinning does not accurately count my burned calories.

Categories