Cycling and calories burned...?

Options
nerdieprofessor
nerdieprofessor Posts: 512 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Some issues with the calories burned measurements on MFP for cycling.

----> Flat v. Hills

I'm a bit chuffed with the choices for recording my bike rides. Yes, I sometimes average under 10mph (easy/leisurely according to MFP) when riding hard in the neighborhood (short hill after hill after hill). If I do an hour at 10mph on the flat, that's one thing, but on the hills? Hello? I'm burning some major calories clawing my way up the hills, surely?

----> Weight of Rider

And, then there's the idea that these calories in MFP are calculated for some average person. So, husband and I go on a bike ride. We ride 1.5 hours and average 13 mph. Did we burn the same calories? No way. Husband is a bike racer and weighs under 150 so 13 mph is practically snoozing. I'm very short and weigh over 220 so 13mph is near my top ability.

How to reconcile these differences when recording activity? Any ideas?

Thanks in advance!

Octo

Replies

  • MrsSki
    MrsSki Posts: 196
    Options
    The only thing I can recommend is to buy a heart rate monitor. Every other tool will just be a guess.
  • nerdieprofessor
    nerdieprofessor Posts: 512 Member
    Options
    I actually have a heart rate monitor that I never use. It doesn't transmit well... I think my breasts are too big for it. :o)
  • nerdieprofessor
    nerdieprofessor Posts: 512 Member
    Options
    For example, this evening I rode 63 minutes in the neighborhood, doing loops up and down the hills. 200 feet of climbing. MFP says I burned 426 calories. MapMyRide (used on the iPhone while riding) says 1005. The truth is probably some where in between.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Outdoor cycling is difficult to estimate because of differences in terrain, wind resistance, and pedaling vs coasting ratio. HRMs are helpful in this case to at least get you in the ballpark. The pros use HRMs in conjunction with power meters that measure the actual amount of work performed.

    I would not trust ANY calculated method or table, on MFP or anywhere else. Even in my ex phys class in graduate school, we were given a formula, but the prof said it was little better than a guess.
  • bstamps12
    bstamps12 Posts: 1,184
    Options
    I would not go with the Map My Ride. I use that only for mapping my ride...the calories burned, etc. are all way off in my opinion. I wore my HRM on my bike ride today with lots of hills and logged it as 12-14 mph even though my avg was a little less than that because I still put out "moderate effort." I go by the effort level instead of the mph when logging on MFP. It was within 50 cals of what my HRM said. Cycling is just super hard to estimate! =(
  • FitCoachJen
    FitCoachJen Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    Personally I use a HRM (Polar FT60) & a cyclometer mounted to the bike. I'm not terribly concerned with the distance covered (I'm primarily a mountain biker), but it's nice to know. I agree that there's a huge discrepancy between types of cycling, the grade, the terrain, etc...but it would be nearly impossible to track all of those things with a calculator. I've had problems with transmissions with cheaper HRM's, no issues with the Polar.
  • novatri
    novatri Posts: 262 Member
    Options
    If it really bothers you I'd suggest a power meter. They go by different names, but basically a thing that measures torque at the crank. Very accurate in most conditions. Downside is they can cost as much as your bike.

    I'd personally go with a good quality HRM. Your calories burned wont be as accurate. But staying in the right zones can train your body to use fat as the primary fuel source instead of carbs. This ultimately will give you more endurance.

Categories