Mountain Biking vs. Bicycling

rhall9058
rhall9058 Posts: 270 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
When calculating the calories in the MFP app, there is a significant difference between moderate bicycling, and BMX/Mountain Biking for any period of time. My question to you is what you consider which?

I consider bicycling to be out on the road, in the neighborhoods, through the city's, and moving at a moderate clip of traffic.

I consider mountain biking to be anything trail based. Paved, packed gravel, dirt sand, etc. but still requiring various levels of energy expenditure and moving around people, bridges, tree roots, etc.

Where I have my problem in understanding is the level of energy needed to meet the calories that MFP is saying it's using for either of these. Just because I'm on a trail on a mountain bike and moving over hills, how is that any better than "bicycling" in a rather hill-laden community with traffic where I might be moving a bit faster but still expending the same or more energy? Yet MFP says it's a huge caloric difference in favor of BMX/Mountain Biking. So I don't know which one to use?

So again, the question is what am I truly doing? and which entry do I use?

Replies

  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Have you ever mountain biked? On rough rooty/rocky trails? Have you ever road biked? They are VERY different animals. I can totally understand why there is a significant difference.
  • rhall9058
    rhall9058 Posts: 270 Member
    Yes, I can see the differences in the "extremes," but what about right in the middle? Not rough, rooty, jumpin tree logs, but still out on some single tracks playing around in the hills with minor roots, rocks, etc.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Then the difference will be less significant. If you're that worried about it, you could create new exercises... something like - "Mountain biking, rough and hilly trails" with a high burn rate, "Mountain biking, smooth trails and rolling hills" with a lower burn rate.

    Burn rates will likely be different on a SS vs a geared bike too, but MFP doesn't (last I looked) separate out SSing.

    I guess the point here is that a little common sense goes a long way. If you think the burn for MFP's mountain biking activity is high for what you actually did, then lower it a bit. It's all just an estimate anyways, so nothing wrong with adjusting the numbers a bit.
  • rhall9058
    rhall9058 Posts: 270 Member
    Then the difference will be less significant. If you're that worried about it, you could create new exercises... something like - "Mountain biking, rough and hilly trails" with a high burn rate, "Mountain biking, smooth trails and rolling hills" with a lower burn rate.

    Burn rates will likely be different on a SS vs a geared bike too, but MFP doesn't (last I looked) separate out SSing.

    I guess the point here is that a little common sense goes a long way. If you think the burn for MFP's mountain biking activity is high for what you actually did, then lower it a bit. It's all just an estimate anyways, so nothing wrong with adjusting the numbers a bit.

    got it. Thanks for the assist. BTW, what's SS? I have a entry level mountain bike that I'm using, so not sure what SS is?
  • adam1885282
    adam1885282 Posts: 135 Member
    I know this is a little old, but "SS" means single speed. People ride bikes, road and mountain, with just one gear, no shifting.
  • theonly1iknow
    theonly1iknow Posts: 90 Member
    similarly mfp gives me the same cals for my bike commute to and from work, takes a similar amount of time... to go to work is up a few really steep hills, on the way home i can coast most of it, i wear my hrm and they're v diffferent.

Categories