Calorie Count
Options
Slainte831
Posts: 125 Member
Today, my Garmin and MFP said I burned 660ish calories riding for a bit under an hour (12 miles).
Does this calorie count seem right? To me, it seems really high. When I run for 30 min, I feel very sweaty and tired, like I really worked hard, and I get a burn of 350 or so calories. With biking, it never seems quite that intense. I guess because (a) I'm sitting on the bike and (b) there are lots of times when I'm not doing anything (ie coasting, going downhill, stopping to cross a street....).
What have been your experiences with biking calorie burns?
Would an HRM be more accurate?
Thanks!
Does this calorie count seem right? To me, it seems really high. When I run for 30 min, I feel very sweaty and tired, like I really worked hard, and I get a burn of 350 or so calories. With biking, it never seems quite that intense. I guess because (a) I'm sitting on the bike and (b) there are lots of times when I'm not doing anything (ie coasting, going downhill, stopping to cross a street....).
What have been your experiences with biking calorie burns?
Would an HRM be more accurate?
Thanks!
0
Replies
-
can you not link a HRM band to the Garmin ? Because, yes, it would definitely be closer to what you burned.
MFP's estimates are stratospheric compared to my measured figures (from a powermeter) - giving around 850 calories for a ride of similar duration and speed to what you mention above - whereas the powermeter comes in at nearer 370kj (which is as near as dammit 370 calories) - should say, that's for a road-bike, on decent tarmac, with a 125kg 1.85m rider onboard - so I'm not small or skinny by any means. For the same ride duration on a cyclocross bike, on mixed tarmac and gravel the powermeter comes in with nearer 450kj - still nearly HALF the MFP guestimate.
0 -
Garmin calculations are much more realistic when coupled with HRM. Since I stopped using my HRM, I basically divide what they give me by two, when trying to figure how much to eat back and such. Like you have seen, and what TBY said, without HRM or power data, it is like double the burn that is recorded.
Strava is also not so great when you don't have a power meter, but better than Gamin, since they try to calculate everything using virtual power based on terrain and your weight + bike weight. BUT Strava doesn't factor in HRM data at all into calorie burn. So if you have is a HRM, go with Garmin's site to record and push that data to MFP & Strava.0 -
Strava is also not so great when you don't have a power meter, but better than Gamin, since they try to calculate everything using virtual power based on terrain and your weight + bike weight. BUT Strava doesn't factor in HRM data at all into calorie burn. So if you have is a HRM, go with Garmin's site to record and push that data to MFP & Strava.
It should be said that Strava may be better than Garmin, but only on a road bike, on a day with little or no wind, and on decent tarmac unless you have an actual power meter for them to get real numbers from. Strava hinges everything on Power, either real or estimated. If you don't have a powermeter they use estimated power so once you introduce a variable they can't know about, i.e. wind, surfaces other than tarmac, or tires with more rolling resistance than standard road tires, Strava's calculations go right into the crapper. As an (admittedly kind of extreme) example, during one wet, muddy cyclocross race I did last year, I spent 32 minutes at or beyond my limit. Strava guesstimated my average power at 82 watts, and 178 calories burned. Based on my tested threshold power at the time, I can guarantee the actual average power for that ride was more in the 220 watt range, and the actual kilojoules (and thus, calories) somewhere north of 400.
Personally, while I love Strava for certain things, they take far too many liberties with data in my opinion.
Anyway, back on topic, 660 calories for an hour of riding, for me at least, would be very possible but it would take me spending the hour at an average effort level that was approaching race pace. People are different, but unless you were really working it's probably too high. But, as @Archon2 and @TheBigYin said, that's pretty common unless you have something that's more accurately measuring the numers. MFP calorie estimations are astronomical, Garmin's alone are high, Garmin with HRM is high but closer, powermeter is the best.
0 -
Thanks, everyone! Yes, I can get a HRM to pair up with my Garmin, so that will be next on my list of purchases. I have the Vivoactive without the HRM, but can buy the HRM strap and sensor separately.
It's interesting, as I think the Garmin calorie estimates are correct for running -- around 100 cal/mile. So I assumed they would be accurate for biking as well. I did link to Strava, and it gave me astronomical readings, basically doubling everything I got from Garmin. I deleted the Strava app. Halving the Garmin calorie burn does seem more reasonable, based on the level of intensity that I currently can do.
What's a power meter?0 -
power meter...
it's a very expensive way to get the data you're looking at.
basically it measures the physical power you're putting in to move the bike forward. Either by strain gauges in the pedals, or in the crankset, or in the rear hub. Ferociously expensive (starting around $500 and upwards to $3000 or more) they're really the province of people who are doing seriously structured training, and are prepared to spend nearly as long on the computer after a ride analysing their ride as they do on the bike (or who pay a trainer to do the analysis for them)
more details here - http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2009/08/power-primer-cycling-with-power-101.html
0 -
I've used various monitors and such to calculate my burns. I don't really bother anymore. I can get a rough estimate based on my level of exertion. This is what it equates to for me... I have never had a measured burn greater than 12cal/min. I am on the small side, 5'2" (115-125), so your numbers may be slightly higher.
11-12 cal/min: I am going all out, like racing (HR 80-90% Max). Max time I can sustain this is less than an hour. On the bike for me it is TT racing or cadence rides in a higher gear.
8-10 cal/min: A hard workout where I push but don't stay maxed out. Ex: tempo run, intervals or hilly rides (65-75% max HR). I can do this for 2-3 hours on the bike with proper nutrition., but there is no slacking and it's rough.
5-7 cal/min: Moderate workout. Weight training, long slow run, easy spin (50- 60% max). I'm working to stay in a lower cardio zone. I can do this for 6 hours on the bike as long as I keep nutrition up.
Anything less than that I don't count... Sometimes lawn mowing & house cleaning fit in the last category!0 -
Oh, I just enter them manually... If I rode for 3+hours, I let MFP calculate it for fun because I could never eat back what I burned anyway...0
-
I have a "hard" chest strap for my Garmin. Its comfy to wear & gives pretty accurate data. you will appreciate that data especially with headwinds and hill efforts and those ferocious all out sprints thru intersections, too.0
-
I have a Polar H7 BLE HRM, a Garmin hard strap HRM for my Edge Touring, and the Scosche Rythm+ dual BLE / ANT+ HRM. I'm not a fan of chest straps, so the Scosche Rythm+ worn on my forearm or on my bicep under my jersey sleeve is my favorite HRM solution of the three. I can't say enough positive things about the Scosche Rythm+ as it works well with my iOS Apps and all my Garmin devices (Vivofit, Vivoactive, and Edge), and it is unobtrusive and quick to recharge. The only negative is I don't care too much for having to carry multiple proprietary charging accessories like the Rythm+ and the Vivoactive use. But, I don't purposely eat back my activity calories as I'm still trying to drop a good bit of weight. Due to my maximum heart rate of 165, I have yet to bonk due to insufficient nutrition, and I have never been accused of having an eating disorder either.... lol.0
-
Thanks, everyone! I really appreciate your support and input! It's great to keep learning about new tech.
@rides4sanity, I love this breakdown and have screen-shotted your post. I'm definitely still in the moderate category, as I be just gotten back on my bike after a loooonng hiatus.
@allaboutthecake , that Garmin chest strap is what I was planning on getting. I'm glad to know you like it and find it comfortable.
@mikeyrs -- I've not heard of the Rythm -- sounds intriguing! I will google/Amazon it. I wonder what the cost is compared with the Garmin chest strap ... Especially as I'm in Canada and our dollar is in free fall. But it is my birthday next week!
Happy riding, everyone!0 -
The Scosche Rythm+ retails for USD $79.99 and here is a detailed review of this HRM. http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/05/scosche-antbluetooth-optical.html0
-
@mikeyrs -- thanks for the review! I have checked at MEC (the Canadian REI) and I could get the Schosche for $90. Is it worth double the price of the strap kind? This is probably TMI, but as a woman I wear a sport bra anyway and thus am wearing a strap around my chest. If the arm band is the biggest reason to get the Schosche, it may not matter as much to me. Or are there other features that make it worth the extra cost?0
-
FWIW - I think there are women's sports bras that have a HRM transmitter built into them...I remember several years ago some of the pro women testing them out.0
