Guys I need an answer ASAP!! :( :(

2»

Replies

  • wolfchild59
    wolfchild59 Posts: 2,608 Member
    Wait, I'm still confused how it can be uphill the entire way without you living on MC Escher island?

    Say your house is at 100ft above sea level, and maybe you climb to 1000ft above sea level during the ride, in order to get back to your house, you have to ride downhill enough to get back to 100ft above sea level.

    You can't start at point A, go uphill, and return to point A without ever going back downhill.

    Not trolling, seriously confused about the statement made.

    You can with a TARDIS.

    tumblr_mpdje9CBxr1rj3ulbo1_500.gif

    I accept this answer. It was clearly a wibbly-wobbly bike ride.
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    779 is way too high for a 6 mi bike ride. It will be less than half of that.
  • Otterluv
    Otterluv Posts: 9,083 Member

    I'm just going to stick to my 1200 cals today. My HRM is never that far off from runkeeper, and I don't want to go over accidentally having no idea what I burned.

    And it wasn't a down and back haha. I live on an island and went all the way around. All uphill, all the way. :D

    (The :D is complete sarcasm. I freaking hate riding a bike, and uphill is just that much worse.)


    Wait, wut? While 1500 calories is high, 0 calories is way way low. Just eat half, 750. Or, if you are still nervous, eat 500 of them (that's a burn of 250 an hour, which to me seems low for an uphill ride).
  • ellebrosseau
    ellebrosseau Posts: 103 Member
    Wait, I'm still confused how it can be uphill the entire way without you living on MC Escher island?

    Say your house is at 100ft above sea level, and maybe you climb to 1000ft above sea level during the ride, in order to get back to your house, you have to ride downhill enough to get back to 100ft above sea level.

    You can't start at point A, go uphill, and return to point A without ever going back downhill.

    Not trolling, seriously confused about the statement made.

    It's obviously not ALL uphill but I live at the lowest point, and the downhill stretch is steep & nowhere near as long as the uphill ride.
  • pastryari
    pastryari Posts: 8,646 Member

    I'm just going to stick to my 1200 cals today. My HRM is never that far off from runkeeper, and I don't want to go over accidentally having no idea what I burned.

    And it wasn't a down and back haha. I live on an island and went all the way around. All uphill, all the way. :D

    (The :D is complete sarcasm. I freaking hate riding a bike, and uphill is just that much worse.)


    Wait, wut? While 1500 calories is high, 0 calories is way way low. Just eat half, 750. Or, if you are still nervous, eat 500 of them (that's a burn of 250 an hour, which to me seems low for an uphill ride).

    ^ This.
  • wolfchild59
    wolfchild59 Posts: 2,608 Member
    Ooh, wait! You said that you used RunKeeper for the ride. Post a link to the workout and it might help people guesstimate your calories. It will show the details of the path you took, along with average speed and stuff like that. That info would be really helpful in trying to help you figure out what you burned!
  • pastryari
    pastryari Posts: 8,646 Member
    Ooh, wait! You said that you used RunKeeper for the ride. Post a link to the workout and it might help people guesstimate your calories. It will show the details of the path you took, along with average speed and stuff like that. That info would be really helpful in trying to help you figure out what you burned!

    Bwahahahaha

    tumblr_lzjr6vrkAF1qfzv7ao1_500.gif
  • wolfchild59
    wolfchild59 Posts: 2,608 Member
    Ooh, wait! You said that you used RunKeeper for the ride. Post a link to the workout and it might help people guesstimate your calories. It will show the details of the path you took, along with average speed and stuff like that. That info would be really helpful in trying to help you figure out what you burned!

    Bwahahahaha

    tumblr_lzjr6vrkAF1qfzv7ao1_500.gif

    shh.gif
  • dondimitri
    dondimitri Posts: 245 Member
    There is no way on God's green earth that a casual cyclist burns 779 calories during a 6.5 mile ride.

    Without knowing your weight and speed I can only guess that about 50 calories/mile would be in the ballpark and even that is probably high for most.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    There is no way on God's green earth that a casual cyclist burns 779 calories during a 6.5 mile ride.

    BUT HER HRM SAID SO
  • dondimitri
    dondimitri Posts: 245 Member
    Trust your HRM. It is accurate if you have your stats entered into it correctly....

    That's funny.
  • ellebrosseau
    ellebrosseau Posts: 103 Member
    Can someone explain why some of you are so against HRMs o.o I thought they were good?!
  • ssaraj43
    ssaraj43 Posts: 575 Member
    wait, so you guys are telling her that she should eat back 1500 calories after riding a bike for less than 14 miles? is this what the "trust your HRM" crowd is selling these days?

    Come on Dave, we all know HRMs are infallible.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories?page=1

    ^^ links were provide for you:-)
  • dondimitri
    dondimitri Posts: 245 Member
    Can someone explain why some of you are so against HRMs o.o I thought they were good?!

    HRMs are very good for monitoring your heart rate, in fact they are quite accurate. That in an of itself is very valuable feedback.

    However there are a number of reasons (check the links in earlier replies) that a HRM is less successful at estimating calorie burn.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Can someone explain why some of you are so against HRMs o.o I thought they were good?!

    HRMs are very good for monitoring your heart rate, in fact they are quite accurate. That in an of itself is very valuable feedback.

    However there are a number of reasons (check the links in earlier replies) that a HRM is less successful at estimating calorie burn.

    This.

    I am not against HRMs at all. I even use one. I am against misformation. Many many people here put a lot of faith behind HRMs but actually know very little about their limitations or how they even work. People here assume they area accurate. I really dislike when people are encouraged to buy one as if it is the only answer, especially when the price may be an issue for some.

    As noted, HRMs are designed to monitor heart rate. They also provide a calorie estimate. People assume that heart rate and calories burned are directly related by that is not the case. The formula used is based on a known relationship between Vo2 max and HR during moderate intensity steady state cardio activity. On here, HRMs are often used outside of that parameter which affect accuracy along with any number of other factors.

    Yes, they are a good tool, when used correctly with an understanding of their limitations.
    The links above a great. I would also suggest browsing Azdaks blog, he has written a few more relevant ones that are full of helpful info.
  • ellebrosseau
    ellebrosseau Posts: 103 Member
    Well I know why no one understands the accuracy of HRMs. The articles are confusing. ._.
    Or maybe I'm just really overtired. Either way... normal people explanation please?!
    I literally know nothing about my body. More calories out than in is how you lose weight, but beyond that.. I'm a dummy.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    in a nutshell, they aren't that accurate for calorie counting. close enough, generally, but not the Absolute Gospel of Calories Burned that many people on this site would have you believe.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Well I know why no one understands the accuracy of HRMs. The articles are confusing. ._.
    Or maybe I'm just really overtired. Either way... normal people explanation please?!
    I literally know nothing about my body. More calories out than in is how you lose weight, but beyond that.. I'm a dummy.

    Basically, the HRM measures heart rate. When it estimates calories burned, it assumes the elevate heart rate is due to moderate intensity cardio exercise and estimates how many calories would be burned if that were the case.
    The problem is, there are any number of factors that can affect HR but not calories burned. for example, heat. Working out in higher heat/humidity will give you a higher calorie burn for the same effort. You do not burn more but the HRM esitmates higher.

    Also, a lot of HRMs estimate VO2 max on average formulas. If you fall outside of these, it will be off. If i recall correctly, the more fit you are can affect the reading. one of the articles has a link farther down that shows you how to adjust for a more accurate estimate on some models of HRMs.

    Basically, it's a great guideline but take it with a grain of salt. I believe they suggest it can be up to 20% off even when used correctly. So for cases like this where you get a huge burn, you may want to eat a portion of those calories back, not all.
  • Danimal718
    Danimal718 Posts: 90 Member
    If you're looking for fat burn you're HR is too high. I'm 42 and mine is supposed to be between 130-150. I rode 24.5 miles today for an avg of 17mph and my Garmin said I burned 2600 calories in 1:25. My avg HR was 148 today.

    ETA...I really try not to eat any of my exercise calories back...If I do it's a very small portion.

    Ok I just went into the actual Garmin software and it only show 1200 for that ride while MapMyRide imported the info and put it at the 2600k number. I totally trust the Garmin numbers over the MMR.

Categories