Calculating calories burned while cycling
Options
bobbywarren70
Posts: 2 Member
what is the best way to accurately calculate calories burned while cycling? I have just started cycling and have been using calories calculated from MFP but I have seen it mentioned that MFP a isn't accurate. I also keep track with map my ride and it is about 30% higher than MFP. What is the best way calculate calories burned?
0
Replies
-
I use bikecalculator.com0
-
Get a heart right monitor. To be honest it's the best way to calculate calorie burn for all exercises. Each person's burn is different and no computer algorithm is going to be able to reflect your personal body's burn rate.0
-
There is no accurate.
7 * # of minutes cycling is going to just as "accurate" as an HRM, MFP, an app, etc.0 -
There is no accurate.
7*# of minutes cycling is going to just as "accurate" as an HRM, MFP, an app, etc.
That isn't quite true. If you invest in a power meter you can get very close. Even better you can do a metabolic efficiency test, and then couple that information with the data off the power meter to get even closer still.0 -
There is no accurate.
7*# of minutes cycling is going to just as "accurate" as an HRM, MFP, an app, etc.
That isn't quite true. If you invest in a power meter you can get very close. Even better you can do a metabolic efficiency test, and then couple that information with the data off the power meter to get even closer still.
Fair enough.
For the average MFPer, there is no accurate.
7*# of minutes cycling is going to just as "accurate" as an HRM, MFP, an app, etc.0 -
Agreed. A heart rate monitor with GPS is probably going to be the best "reasonable" solution, and as long as you are mostly riding steady state (IE you aren't doing short intervals) it will be close enough.0
-
Agreed. A heart rate monitor with GPS is probably going to be the best "reasonable" solution, and as long as you are mostly riding steady state (IE you aren't doing short intervals) it will be close enough.
You mention an HRM with GPS... do the newer/better calorie burn equations factor in elevation changes (i.e. climbing vs descending)?0 -
Agreed. A heart rate monitor with GPS is probably going to be the best "reasonable" solution, and as long as you are mostly riding steady state (IE you aren't doing short intervals) it will be close enough.
You mention an HRM with GPS... do the newer/better calorie burn equations factor in elevation changes (i.e. climbing vs descending)?
I am not certain but I seem to recall some discussion over the algorithms the newer Garmins use in absence of a power meter. Has something to do with combining speed data with the HRM to get a more accurate picture. I could be thinking of something entirely different though so perhaps I am wrong here.
0 -
There is no accurate.
7*# of minutes cycling is going to just as "accurate" as an HRM, MFP, an app, etc.
That isn't quite true. If you invest in a power meter you can get very close. Even better you can do a metabolic efficiency test, and then couple that information with the data off the power meter to get even closer still.
That's interesting. Most power meters are crazy expensive, but I believe I have a bottom bracket torque/cadence sensor in a box with a bunch of other ebike parts that never ended up being used for anything. Do any of the common Garmin-style bike computers accept torque/cadence inputs, or are all the systems pretty closed?0 -
There is no accurate.
7*# of minutes cycling is going to just as "accurate" as an HRM, MFP, an app, etc.
That isn't quite true. If you invest in a power meter you can get very close. Even better you can do a metabolic efficiency test, and then couple that information with the data off the power meter to get even closer still.
That's interesting. Most power meters are crazy expensive, but I believe I have a bottom bracket torque/cadence sensor in a box with a bunch of other ebike parts that never ended up being used for anything. Do any of the common Garmin-style bike computers accept torque/cadence inputs, or are all the systems pretty closed?
Not sure what you mean by a torque sensor. That is all a power meter really is.
Garmins accept data via ANT+ from all kinds of sensors. I used a crank-spider power meter on my tri bike (a Quarq Riken), and a hub-based Powertap on my road bike. It also gets data via ANT+ from a wheel-speed and crank-arm magnet cadence sensor and the usual ANT+ heart rate monitor.0 -
Most of the better Garmin bike comps should have the ability to read a cadence sensor, as well as a HRM. They use the ANT+ standard. They give a pretty reasonable calorie burn as it takes into account the elevation too.
0 -
There is no accurate.
7*# of minutes cycling is going to just as "accurate" as an HRM, MFP, an app, etc.
That isn't quite true. If you invest in a power meter you can get very close. Even better you can do a metabolic efficiency test, and then couple that information with the data off the power meter to get even closer still.
That's interesting. Most power meters are crazy expensive, but I believe I have a bottom bracket torque/cadence sensor in a box with a bunch of other ebike parts that never ended up being used for anything. Do any of the common Garmin-style bike computers accept torque/cadence inputs, or are all the systems pretty closed?
Not a straightforward answer - Garmins and other head units don't usually do the math, it's done internally and the ANT transmitter sends the instantaneous power number to the head unit. Heck, even some cellphone apps can get them. I believe the sampling rate is 1 Hz for systems that communicate to a an ANT+ receiver, but other power meters like SRM, Polar, Powertap, etc. have different sampling rates.
Also - not all the Garmin head units are set up to "receive" power readings. The 500, 800, 1000 certainly do, but some of the multisport watches do not.
And yeah, the power meter doesn't lie, as long as it is reasonably calibrated. Still not perfectly accurate, but much better than pretty much any system for any sport.
0 -
For what it's worth... There are 4.18 joules per calorie (or 4.18kj per kcal). There is also a very happy accident that the human body is approximately 25% efficient at converting energy in the body into power into the pedals. There are only small variations in efficiency for elite cyclists and untrained (Between 24% for untrained and 27% for Tour de France level riders). Therefore there is almost exactly a one-to-one relationship between calories burned and kilojoules expended. The power meter will tell you exactly how many kilojoules it sensed you put into the crank. This just *happens* to correlate within a few % to the number of kcal burned. (IE kj/4.18 * 4 is close enough to the kj, so just go with kj)0
-
I actually find MFP's 14-16mph "guesstimate" compares quite well (for me) to both a power meter and a properly calibrated HRM.
The 16-20mph category is far too wide a spread to be useful, there's a world of difference between a 16mph and a 20mph ride (again for me, as a not very aerodynamic rider).
Garmin far too low, Strava a bit too low, Runkeeper too high.
Accuracy is overrated IMO - a bit of common sense and consistency goes a long way.0 -
There is no accurate.
7*# of minutes cycling is going to just as "accurate" as an HRM, MFP, an app, etc.
That isn't quite true. If you invest in a power meter you can get very close. Even better you can do a metabolic efficiency test, and then couple that information with the data off the power meter to get even closer still.
That's interesting. Most power meters are crazy expensive, but I believe I have a bottom bracket torque/cadence sensor in a box with a bunch of other ebike parts that never ended up being used for anything. Do any of the common Garmin-style bike computers accept torque/cadence inputs, or are all the systems pretty closed?
Not sure what you mean by a torque sensor. That is all a power meter really is.
Garmins accept data via ANT+ from all kinds of sensors. I used a crank-spider power meter on my tri bike (a Quarq Riken), and a hub-based Powertap on my road bike. It also gets data via ANT+ from a wheel-speed and crank-arm magnet cadence sensor and the usual ANT+ heart rate monitor.
You need rotational speed and torque to calculate power, torque in Nm * rotational speed in radians/sec = power in Watts. What I have is just a dumb sensor.
I checked and I did buy a Thun X-Cell RT, so hopefully it's still kicking around somewhere. It just has raw torque and speed outputs though, so it doesn't sound like it would be an easy interface.
I do have an Ant dev kit in another box though, converting it to a wireless power meter might be a fun project.0 -
The 16-20mph category is far too wide a spread to be useful, there's a world of difference between a 16mph and a 20mph ride (again for me, as a not very aerodynamic rider).
This is an odd category for MFP to group together. 16mph for me is about 140 watts on my road bike, on a flat road with no wind. 20mph is closer to 180 watts. 140 watts for an hour is 504kj (so figure 500 calories) and 180 watts for an hour is 648kj (lets just round to 650cal). That is a pretty big difference.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions