How to record bicycling correctly

gerripho

When I record my bicycling, do I record the entire time? When I leave my house it is slightly downhill and I can go for blocks before ever putting effort into it. I've figured routes so there is no real uphill struggles, certainly nothing that requires a low gear. But since at least a third of my time is spent in coasting mode, do I record 20 minutes if I ride for 30? Or do I figure it does take extra effort to bike up slope and hope it all averages out?

I'm asking because today I recorded 43 minutes of walking at 2.5 mph and 23 minutes of biking at 10-12 mph. The bike ride was less time and felt much easier yet it recorded more calories burned than the walk. My bike is a 3-speed Electra, fat tires, an old-lady bike if ever there was one.

cyraelea

Bump. I've been curious about this too! My leisurely pace to the grocery store certainly doesn' t seem to burn the cals that even a conservative MFP estimate gives, even when adjusting for the typical MFP inflation. I coast for a good bit as well... along with some stops and starts cause I'm in the city. I was thinking of getting a Fitbit? Would this help?

photojunk

I took a heart rate monitor out with me on rides.
If I've had lots of downhills or coasting I tend to half the calories burned on MFP.

gerripho

I took a heart rate monitor out with me on rides.
If I've had lots of downhills or coasting I tend to half the calories burned on MFP.

Thanks! That is actually how it feels -- like half the effort.

Bigfla

Hi, I reckon a smartphone is essential to make MFP work over time, to the extent that if you haven't got one, do what it takes to get one! Don't fall for the belief that smartphones are too hard or "not for me". All it takes is patience and an understanding that the people who designed the thing aren't any smarter than the rest of us! And if you play your cards right you can probably get one free with the right deal from your phone company - won't be the cheapest there is but if weight loss using MFP (etc) is your goal, it'll be money well spent.

If you have an iPhone get the app called Nike+ but if your smartphone is an Android (eg Samsung S2 or S3) Garmin Fit does the same thing, more or less.

Both these apps use the phone's GPS and Google maps to track and record where you walk/ride/run so you can see the results when you've done. They calculate calories burned on the basis of your weight and take ground elevation into account....and they play your music at the same time while you're exercising. Nike + even offers words of encouragement when you use the same course coz it compares "now" with your best performance.

And these apps are free for the basic versions.

Cheers

Ian

Zylahe

Why do you want to log?
As in do you want to log that extra time so you can eat back more cals?
Are you trying to gauge your speed so you can log your progress?

I think it depends on why you want to log it.
If its to eat back cals i ould say be conservative ( i usually only log 1/2 the ride if its easy), if youre not pedalling, you wont be buning extra calories.
If its to measure progress maybe just log the time you are peddaling and the dist.

GrammaBonnie

I think a decent heart rate monitor would be the only way to figure it out to some degree of certainty. (Decent means it must have a chest strap.) A FitBit would probably give you some ROUGH idea of how many calories you burn, BUT, as I understand it, it is based on movement, not heart rate.

I have a Polar Active, which, to the best of my knowledge, is similar to the FitBit. Unlike the Fitbit, the Active is worn as a watch, and can go in the pool, shower, river, ocean; it does not measure stairs but, like the Fitbit, it does measure steps. Like the Fitbit, it guesses on calories. One slow day it was within 100 calories from my HR monitor. One busy day it gave a very different calorie burn than the HRM.

The Active works very well on activities that involve moving my hand, such as walking when I can swing my hand. If I go walking with my honey, holding his hand, I don't swing it, and it gyps me! And going on a stationary bike? Forget it! It thinks I'm just sitting there.

Apps are good for tracking some things, but, like the machines in the gym, they figure calories on what a "normal" person your age and weight would burn. I don't know about you, but I know I'm definitely not "average!" (My HRM tells me I burn almost half of the calories that the bike or treadmill tells me I'm using.) I love MapMyRide to track my distance, route and pace. (I love MapMyWalk, too!)


If you need motivation to get moving, the Fitbit or Active, or several other similar products, work well. If you are looking for a fairly accurate calorie counter, you need to invest in a heart rate monitor.

One other thought: When I re-learned how to ride a bike, I worked with a friend who was very active in the local bike club. He told me that I should have one speed that my feet/legs would go, and I shouldn't deviate from that speed. Any changes, based on the terrain, should be done with my gears. In other words, no coasting!!! It worked well for me when I did the NYC 5 Borough ride -- 42 miles in one day! And, when we were done, I was ready to bike back from one end of Manhattan to the other! (Boy, was that weekend a WONDERFUL experience!)

Good luck!

gerripho

Thanks to everyone for all the input. My goal is to NOT record too many calories burned because I don't want to eat back something that was never used. I can compute my rate for walking and biking by using Google Maps. I note an address near the place where I'm furthest from home, let Google Maps tell me the distance, double it for the return trip, and compute my mph. It's primative but it works for me.

For the future I think I'll record only half my bicycle time just because coasting isn't really exercise.

@ GrammaBonnie: "He told me that I should have one speed that my feet/legs would go, and I shouldn't deviate from that speed. Any changes, based on the terrain, should be done with my gears. In other words, no coasting!!!" That's not possible here. Even in my top gear, and I have only three, I can't peddle as fast as the bike goes down the slope! A lot of the down slope is me using the breaks so I don't go shooting across traffic and end up flying instead of riding.

Bigfla

Hi,
I can't quite see how a heart rate monitor does anything another than measure your heart rate. Tells you something about aerobic performance but not anything worth knowing about energy dissipated. And it's energy dissipation and efficiency we're interested in here coz that's the principle that MFP is based on.

To clarify the point here, a "calorie" is defined for dietary use is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one kg of water by 1 degree Celsius. One calorie is 4.2 kilojoules under the Systeme Internationale that the world uses but Americans avoid. One joule is 1 watt of heat for 1 second.

Re the hilly cyclists, note that if you start and come back to the same point you will use the same amount of energy that you save on the downhill as you exert getting back up again. That's because energy can't be lost or destroyed. So don't worry about modifying the distance you travel.

Re the comment about machines over-reporting energy dissipated, I've struggled a bit with this too which is why I stick to the smartphone apps. Note that smartphones not only use GPS tracking of distance and elevation they also have an accelerometer built in. I have an Android app called Trackmaster that I use for my race car that does a very good job of measuring engine power on the basis of acceleration measurements. I suspect the reality these days is that the technology available in smartphones is about as good as it gets unless you want to buy full blown professional measuring equipment with megabuck price tags.

Re the comment about not being average, none of us are! Exactly half us are above average and the other half are below. Having said that, without the full nine yards of professional measuring gear, we all have to live with averaged results calibrated for the population average. There's nothing wrong with that so long as you seek consistency....which why I like the smartphone options.

At the end of the day, the real issue is finding a system that suits you best and not changing it...

Hope this helps, and god luck...

Cheers :drinker:

Bob314159

Bump. I've been curious about this too! My leisurely pace to the grocery store certainly doesn' t seem to burn the cals that even a conservative MFP estimate gives, even when adjusting for the typical MFP inflation. I coast for a good bit as well... along with some stops and starts cause I'm in the city. I was thinking of getting a Fitbit? Would this help?

Fitbits do not do cycling - only use them reliably for walking/running/treadmil

heybales

Hi,
I can't quite see how a heart rate monitor does anything another than measure your heart rate. Tells you something about aerobic performance but not anything worth knowing about energy dissipated. And it's energy dissipation and efficiency we're interested in here coz that's the principle that MFP is based on.

Because while it is indeed far from perfect, it is the best indicator outside gas masks being worn tied to heavy equipment to estimate calorie burn.

Decent correlation between HR and calories in the aerobic zone.

Polar funded study found in link here. Which also shows knowing your VO2max is big part of equation too.

And for biking, it's a whole lot better than speed estimates, which tell nothing of hills, headwind, weight of bike, ect.
Only if you did an out and back course, uphills being matched with downhills (though that is far from perfect balance when overweight), headwind being matched with tailwind (and here bike type and position could make the balance very unfair), and used the weight of the bike plus your own weight, would those other estimators have a decent chance. Too many variables.

http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

Bigfla

Mmmm, OK, but I think you might be confusing cardiac conversion, or even overall bio mechanical efficiency with total energy dissipated, so you are complicating the issue. Both these conversion efficiencies must relate to a whole raft of physiological parameters.

The laws of thermodynamics make it pretty clear that energy in always equals energy out so setting off potential energy in food consumed against dissipated energy from overall movement + an at rest component is all you need under the KISS principle.

Good debate, thanks.

Cheers :drinker:

cccorlew

As a "serious" cyclist I use two cycle tracking programs. Strava, making use of speed and recording elevation gains, gives me the lowest calorie burn numbers. MyFitnessPal reports almost double what Strava does.

It's hard though, because how heavy your bike is, and the rolling resistance of your tires make a huge difference in how much energy you burn.

I've compromised by choosing a lower speed in the pop-up box than I actually ride, and hope it works out closely enough.

Off topic, the numbers for tennis seem amazingly high as well.

lcedmond

My experience comparing the MFP numbers with my power meter shows the MFP to be wildly higher than actual for cycling.

For those interested, there are several power meters available for cycling. Many are quite expensive, at least from my perspective. I use one from www.ibikesports.com. They claim very good accuracy and are much less expensive than other more well-known meters. No, I don't work for them and no I do not get anything for mentioning them. I just could not justify the cost of the more well-known devices.

BIGFLA should have fun looking into them since they are based entirely on Newton's Law.