Want more accurate calorie burn

dbook2
dbook2 Posts: 2 Member
edited March 6 in Fitness and Exercise
To determine my calorie burn, I’m using the standard measurement for cycling at 14-16mph. However, I’m averaging 15.7mph. My problem is that this is the same measurement someone would use when they average 14.3mph. It’s logical to presume that averaging 15.7mph burns more calories than 14.3mph. So, as I understand it, the person that travels 97minutes at 14.3 receives the same credit for calories burned as the person who averages 15.7. And that’s not very accurate. Anyone have any ideas on how to decide on a more accurate calorie burn?

Replies

  • hermann341
    hermann341 Posts: 443 Member
    Get a HRM with chest strap, then use it for all your cardio. It won't help as much for lifting though, because your heart rate is not steady during lifting workouts.
  • SonyaCele
    SonyaCele Posts: 2,841 Member
    body media armband gave me a pretty accurate burn.
  • kirkor
    kirkor Posts: 2,530 Member
    Comfort yourself this way --- the calorie info on the foods you eat will not be more accurate than the 2mph variation in that cycling speed, so no need to be overly concerned with either one.
  • chivalryder
    chivalryder Posts: 4,391 Member
    kirkor wrote: »
    Comfort yourself this way --- the calorie info on the foods you eat will not be more accurate than the 2mph variation in that cycling speed, so no need to be overly concerned with either one.

    ^THIS.

    The calories you are eating will never be 100% accurate, even if you get a food scale and measured everything you eat.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Your desire to be accurate will drive you crazy. Everything is an estimate - EVERYTHING. Get comfortable with approximations and trial and error.

    But to your question - If you're covering the same distance at a faster speed/shorter time, the calorie burn won't be significantly different. If the distance/time changes along with the speed, then yes... calorie burns will be different. How different? Hard to say, but I don't believe it would be significant enough to worry about. As kirkor said... the "accuracy" of your food logging will account for far greater error rate than will 1-2mph on the bike.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,808 Member
    If you really want accuracy then you need to measure power - so for cycling that would be a power meter. But in reality it's a waste of time and money unless you are a serious cyclist and using it as a training aid and not a calorie calculator.

    I've compared different measurements from tracking apps to three different HRMs, online calculators and they are all different. In reality your actual burns will also be different just due to factors like hills, baggy clothes, wind direction and strength, type of bike etc. etc.

    The MFP 14 - 16mph calculator came out as being reasonable (in the mid-range of all the estimates). However, the MFP 16-20 came out as ludicrously high!

    As others have stated don't get hung up on chasing accuracy when you can't even verify the result. All the people that claim "accuracy" are really guessing or making assumptions unless they have trained in a sports science lab with power meters or breath analysers as a base setting.

    A reasonable estimate and consistency is all that's needed really.



  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    What they said above:
    1. Get a HRM if you really want a personalised accurate measurement and not just an estimate.
    2. The accuracy you want will be made inaccurate by other estimates such as your food logging accuracy.
    3. You are likely to waste too much time on this and should focus on doing the exercise.
    4. The ultimate test is the tape measure, how you look, feel and the scales not what your calorie burn was.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    This is fairly accurate http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CycleMechMETs.html
    Just make sure to use the "NET" option not the "GROSS" for eat-back purposes.
  • Chieflrg
    Chieflrg Posts: 9,094 Member
    999tigger wrote: »
    What they said above:
    1. Get a HRM if you really want a personalised accurate measurement and not just an estimate.
    2. The accuracy you want will be made inaccurate by other estimates such as your food logging accuracy.
    3. You are likely to waste too much time on this and should focus on doing the exercise.
    4. The ultimate test is the tape measure, how you look, feel and the scales not what your calorie burn was.

    A HRM is an estimate also, not necessarily accurate either, more than most. Just because your heart rate is higher doesn't always equate to burning calories. I rather use a calculator like one in the link above for cycling, or the old formula BW*distance*.63 for running before a HRM.

  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    This is fairly accurate http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CycleMechMETs.html
    Just make sure to use the "NET" option not the "GROSS" for eat-back purposes.

    I apologize. I use their run/walk calculator since it includes incline. I thought this was a regular cycling calculator but it's not. Your best bet is to find a distance based calculator.
  • SweatLikeDog
    SweatLikeDog Posts: 325 Member
    dbook2 wrote: »
    It’s logical to presume that averaging 15.7mph burns more calories than 14.3mph...

    Not logical at all unless your conditions match those used to establish the average numbers. They might just be wild guesses that some clown slapped up on the internet. You need to account for body mass, weight of bike, tire pressure, gear ratios, aerodynamic effects of wind, grade of terrain, thermal effect of each macro you eat, etc.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories