Biking vs. Running

2»

Replies

  • bzgl40
    bzgl40 Posts: 69 Member
    did your HRM say that? Is it the same HRM you use for running?

    If you trust it for one, it makes sense to trust it for another.

    This is a mistake a lot of folks make. Rarely is this the case. It really depends on the HRM and how it calculates their values. Many don't even use HR in their math, or even care about the sport, they just look at duration and your age. Biking does not burn the same number of calories at the same HR for the same duration as running does.

    of course it doesn't; but she never said this was the same duration for her running. Are you saying that HRMs are inaccurate for biking? What else are they inaccurate for? If they are inaccurate, why all the hype to use them?

    I personally do not use an HRM to calculate my calories burned while cycling, I use a Watts --> METs formula, but surely her HRM is not pointless?

    I am saying that HRMs can potentially be inaccurate for both biking and running regarding calories burned. MANY of the HRMS do not even use HR in determining calories burned. You have to know what your particular HR does, but most folks assume that all of them do and in reality it is rare. There are a few different methods that the various watches use. Some are pretty accurate, some are pretty close on the run and way over on the bike.

    A HRM is for sure not useless though, but it's purpose is for you to train in a zone (and even there there is a lot of discussion on what is a zone and how to determine them).
  • Happylady123
    Happylady123 Posts: 166 Member
    I have a Garmin Forerunner 405 with GPS. I also have the cadence sensor on my bike. I would think that by measuring the actual times you are pedaling per minute, the distance, and your heartrate you could get a pretty acurate read. Are you using a cadence sensor, too?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories