Recommendation for dealing with long distance cycling in calorie counting.

Options
13»

Replies

  • JaxxieKat
    JaxxieKat Posts: 427 Member
    Options
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    Btw: awesome riding!

    MFP does not give highly accurate calorie estimates for everything.

    This ^
    Case in point - I use a stationary bike at the gym for cardio a lot of days when my legs are too fatigued to run on the treadmill or my knee is giving me fits. On my steady state cardio days, I tend to ride for about 45 minutes and will generally log about 7-8 miles in that time frame. MFP tells me I burned 407 calories doing this, whereas the machine (which calculates calories burned using my HR and weight) will tell me I burned around 215 calories. I always log that lower number. MFP also calculates my cycling calories on the high side. I rode about 2 hours yesterday, but logged it as one hour. Why? Because a cycling website has a calories burned calculator that uses the speed/intensity of your ride as well as your weight to calculate estimated calorie burn. It was about half of what MFP listed. MFP had me at around 600 calories burned, whereas the other site had me at around 367.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    kcjchang wrote: »
    I guess if one can push there 95% of 20 minutes best average power to over 60 minutes, that becomes academic.

    It's not "academic" when it is the definition. Functional Threshold Power is defined to be your highest possible power output over 60 minutes. If it isn't possible for a person to average their FTP for 60 minutes then it isn't their FTP, something lower is.

  • kcjchang
    kcjchang Posts: 709 Member
    Options

    TimothyFish wrote: »
    It's not "academic" when it is the definition. Functional Threshold Power is defined to be your highest possible power output over 60 minutes. If it isn't possible for a person to average their FTP for 60 minutes then it isn't their FTP, something lower is.

    Wrong, "ABOUT" an hour. Coggen has publicly cited it was a misprint in "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" and been correcting the misnomer for the last 7 or so years. FTP is anywhere from 40-60 minutes depending on one's fitness and ability to process/tolerate fatigue. Author's words. 60 minutes is taken from upper bounds, elite athletes, where it is roughly the time needed to complete a 40km TT on flat ground. It's a training matrix, not a physiological one.
  • KettleTO
    KettleTO Posts: 144 Member
    Options
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    I do find on my long ride/run days if I neglect to eat enough after - that the next two days are going to be horrible because it will be like I can't eat enough

    This.

    I don't force myself to consume food after a long ride if I'm not that hungry -- focus more on rehydrating. On Saturday after a long ride, I might try to eat more of the deficit at night because I don't like to eat much before riding (on Sunday am). However, I'll know I got it wrong if Monday at work I'm a bottomless pit. I know I can go over on Monday if I had a significant deficit over the weekend. I just have to watch that it doesn't continue on Tuesday.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 24,913 Member
    Options
    JaxxieKat wrote: »
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    Btw: awesome riding!

    MFP does not give highly accurate calorie estimates for everything.

    This ^
    Case in point - I use a stationary bike at the gym for cardio a lot of days when my legs are too fatigued to run on the treadmill or my knee is giving me fits. On my steady state cardio days, I tend to ride for about 45 minutes and will generally log about 7-8 miles in that time frame. MFP tells me I burned 407 calories doing this, whereas the machine (which calculates calories burned using my HR and weight) will tell me I burned around 215 calories. I always log that lower number. MFP also calculates my cycling calories on the high side. I rode about 2 hours yesterday, but logged it as one hour. Why? Because a cycling website has a calories burned calculator that uses the speed/intensity of your ride as well as your weight to calculate estimated calorie burn. It was about half of what MFP listed. MFP had me at around 600 calories burned, whereas the other site had me at around 367.

    When it comes to stationary bikes (and actually all the exercise I log in MFP), I choose the low/light/slow options ... even if I feel like I've done a really strenuous workout. I find the low/light/slow options are more accurate.

    I also tend to round down my time. So if I've walked briskly at a 5 km/h pace (according to Strava) for 64 minutes, I'll enter my exercise at a 4 km/h pace for 60 minutes.

  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    Just a quick note...The answer to get your calories in on the long distance days...beer. Lots of it.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    kcjchang wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    It's not "academic" when it is the definition. Functional Threshold Power is defined to be your highest possible power output over 60 minutes. If it isn't possible for a person to average their FTP for 60 minutes then it isn't their FTP, something lower is.

    Wrong, "ABOUT" an hour. Coggen has publicly cited it was a misprint in "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" and been correcting the misnomer for the last 7 or so years. FTP is anywhere from 40-60 minutes depending on one's fitness and ability to process/tolerate fatigue. Author's words. 60 minutes is taken from upper bounds, elite athletes, where it is roughly the time needed to complete a 40km TT on flat ground. It's a training matrix, not a physiological one.

    None of this has anything to do with the original post.

Categories