Accuracy of Fast Cycling Estimates

Options
todddmason
todddmason Posts: 2 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi.
I typically ride between 18.5-20 mph for about 70 minutes at a time. I have a Tri bike with a carbon fiber front fork but have a small bag as well as a bluetooth speaker, light and a couple other accessories mounted so it's not the lightest rig ever. Also I use cages instead of clips.
I am 6'1" and weigh about 208 lbs.
When I enter my ride on MyFitnessPal app (70 minutes at 16-20 MPH - Fast Cycling) it typically says that I've burned around 1300 calories. That seems high to me.
What is the criteria used for estimating that 16-20 mph would burn that many calories?
Thanks!

Replies

  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,249 Member
    Options
    I'm going to guess that if you have a tri/tt bike and are able to sustain 20mph for over an hour you're a somewhat serious cyclist. If you're really interested in accurancy as sjomial suggested a power meter is the way to go, they're not as expensive as they were a couple of years ago and, IMO, are a worthwhile investent if you're serious about your riding.
  • goatg
    goatg Posts: 1,399 Member
    Options
    Yeah, estimates here are super high. Just use HRM.

    Also....why don’t you use clips? I’ve never seen a carbon Tri without clips
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    Options
    goatg wrote: »
    Yeah, estimates here are super high. Just use HRM.

    Also....why don’t you use clips? I’ve never seen a carbon Tri without clips

    .. Or without a Garmin/Wahoo/etc on it.

    Your best bet for a decent estimate without spending any money on anything would probably be to record the ride with Strava app (after entering your weight and bike stats).
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    Options
    todddmason wrote: »
    Hi.
    I typically ride between 18.5-20 mph for about 70 minutes at a time... I am 6'1" and weigh about 208 lbs.
    When I enter my ride on MyFitnessPal app (70 minutes at 16-20 MPH - Fast Cycling) it typically says that I've burned around 1300 calories. That seems high to me.

    My Garmin tends to give me an estimate (may or may not be accurate) in the neighborhood of 30-something calories/mile, so 1300 might not be too far off for you at 208 lb (if mine isn't) . (and the increase in energy expenditure for the added weight will be significantly more than the usual linear relationship if hilly terrain)

    19 mph × 70 min ÷ 60 min/hr ~ 22 mi
    × 30 cal × 208 lb ÷110 lb ~ 1250 cal
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    goatg wrote: »
    Yeah, estimates here are super high. Just use HRM.

    Also....why don’t you use clips? I’ve never seen a carbon Tri without clips

    Get through transitions faster.
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    goatg wrote: »
    Yeah, estimates here are super high. Just use HRM.

    Also....why don’t you use clips? I’ve never seen a carbon Tri without clips

    Get through transitions faster.

    Sure, but I know you know you can transfer more power to the pedal through clipless 😁

    But don't say clips. Clips are toe clips to be used with straps. People stopped using them in the 80s when Look invented clipless pedals.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    For me, clipless road pedals absolutely do make me faster, but that's because mine are power meters. :)
  • helen_goldthorpe
    helen_goldthorpe Posts: 340 Member
    Options
    I just did a test. I did a ride this morning - 130 minutes at 17mph. Calorie burn around 1200 calculated using a power meter. I just added the same exercise manually to see what it came up as - over 1800. That's quite a difference!
  • Djproulx
    Djproulx Posts: 3,084 Member
    Options
    helen_goldthorpe wrote: »
    I just did a test. I did a ride this morning - 130 minutes at 17mph. Calorie burn around 1200 calculated using a power meter. I just added the same exercise manually to see what it came up as - over 1800. That's quite a difference!

    This piqued my curiousity, so I went back and looked at a recent ride to compare MFP to my power meter. I found a similar variance. The ride I picked was 117 minutes at 16.9mph for a 1069 calorie burn according to my power meter. MFP estimate was 1911 calories.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited May 2020
    Options
    scorpio516 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    goatg wrote: »
    Yeah, estimates here are super high. Just use HRM.

    Also....why don’t you use clips? I’ve never seen a carbon Tri without clips

    Get through transitions faster.

    Sure, but I know you know you can transfer more power to the pedal through clipless 😁

    But don't say clips. Clips are toe clips to be used with straps. People stopped using them in the 80s when Look invented clipless pedals.

    Always thought clipless sounded wrong though since I hear a click when they engage. Since people stopped using clipless in the 80's and not in normal terminology usage now - perhaps clips is better to use now for the current system.
    Was never sure why one would use a term referring to NOT using a system that wasn't used anymore anyway, and took explanation of to non-cyclists.

    Perhaps cleated would be better.

    Same way I'm calling it a derailer. Because I'm not French.
    https://www.sheldonbrown.com/derailer.html

    Some cleats used on a Tri bike would help though and can be pretty fast transition.

  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    Cyclists call them "clipless" to distinguish from the "clips" used ~40 years ago. Cyclists - especially road - are extremely resistant to change. Disc brakes are only catching on now, and people still complain they're "too complicated." (You pull the lever, the bike slows down - pretty simple.) Clipless may come to be known as something else, but it'll take 300 years.

Categories