dr_lha

Funny, I have the same setup (although no PowerTap, just "Virtual Power") and find that I'm slower on my Trainer for what feels like me working harder (i.e. I'm much more exhausted after an hour on the trainer, than for the same time on the road). I've never beat 17.5 mph average on my trainer in an hour, but I've done 19.5 mph on a real ride, and regularly average around 18.5 mph, on terrain that would be considered rolling to hilly.

For the record I weighed 260 lbs as of a few weeks ago.

bobotech

i'm the complete opposite. On my daily outdoor commuting style rides, my average moving speed is about 10.5 to 11.5 mph. On my trainer, I'm doing around 14-15mph on the average. And I do have my fluid trainer's resistance set high and I put my bike in the top gears (front big ring and one of the last 3 of the small cogs in the rear). I measured my cadence last night on my trainer and I am doing about 74-76 revolutions per minute sustained for like 2-3 miles. I can't go much past 3 or so miles without taking a quick break. I currently weigh about 380 pounds.

JakiChan

How do you know? You don't know, and that's my point. I have no problem with you calling HRM numbers bogus as long as you realize that ALL numbers are bogus, even yours. It's ALL RELATIVE.

When I cut the numbers from my HRM in half...I STILL DON'T LOSE WEIGHT. So there ya go. Your method works for you. No reason to believe it will work for anyone else.

I've had two Bluetooth HRMs. The Polar H7 and the Wahoo TICKR X. The H7 is "dual band" in that it speaks there really old Polar analog format that gym gear understands. It's interesting to watch, now that I've stopped using it, the equipment massively overestimate calorie burn vs what the HRM says.

One thing I've wondered: The manual says to get accurate date out of a power meter it has to know your accurate weight. Why?

Nope it doesn't say that. It means that FOR YOU the numbers work better. You know nothing about their accuracy. Unless, as I've asked, you've done lab testing

I have no problem with you calling that number bogus. What I do have a problem with is your insistence that your numbers aren't also bogus. We're debating degrees of bogosity.

JakiChan

That's fine. The only numbers I buy are those from an indirect calorimeter. No one here, as of yet, has confessed to using one. I don't even know if anyone here has had their VO2MAX or lactate threshold lab tested. Even then, all the models are designed for athletes.

Now we're getting somewhere. No way do I eat back all my exercise calories. But if I'm eating enough or correctly is still a good question.

I have my target in MFP as 1500. I know my BMR is 2160 (I had that tested recently, and have had it tested over time - ask me about how people who lose weight slow down more than expected). If I'm really hungry I allow my self to go up to 2k on "allowed" foods. (Eating 2K a day clean is really hard.) So I'm almost always below my BMR, and I exercise. So, if the science and math are to be believed, I've got a deficit. (Yes, I weigh the food.) Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. The body is an amazingly adaptive organism, and that ticker number ain't a lie. I've already lost 194lbs. It's fighting me hard on the last 50-ish.

I've never seen the numbers work out right. I sweat too much. I get back from a 4 hour ride like 5 pounds lighter than I started, having eaten nothing but maybe some shot blocks...but too much of that is water. My weight loss seems to lag at least a week behind my actions.

Another case were the numbers are a SWAG.

I've been doing that in spin class. It's a butt kicker for sure. I'm 95% sure my power meter will show a significant left/right imbalance (to go along with the 1.5cm femur length difference), so I'm trying to train that out. If I can.

Why? it's my number. No one asked what I did with it. And no one even noticed where I said I *can* hit that number in an hour. (Not that I regularly do.) Do I do that every week or every class? Nope. It's pretty rare, but it does happen. A 750 number is more likely. But if you're trying to tell me that 55 minutes of Zone 4 effort is 350 calories then I might as well give up weight loss all together. Or just get the surgery. Because exercise is then pointless for weight loss. (And some data suggests that may be the case.)

You're remembering somewhat incorrectly. My point previously was riding too hard for too long made me so hungry that it really negatively impacted things. Ever since I started actually cutting back on riding, more intensity and intervals, shorter duration, I've done better from a weight loss standpoint. Other riding buddies of mine have seen this too.

It's not a matter of the road distractions. Even if you promised me there's no cars I still wouldn't be able to push as hard. A spin bike requires no balance. If I'm on a "climb" that gets my heart rate to 179, for example (which is my age-approximated HR max), I'm unsteady enough that I'd fall over on a real bike.

achoo

Not true at all.

It's not that hard to get a pretty good estimate of power vs speed. And once we have power, calories burned is straightforward.

So, in fact, it's not "ALL RELATIVE", because you either burned the calories or you didn't.

1,000 cal/hr is just about an average power output of 300W.

Put 300 watts, your weight, and your bike specifics here:

Bike Calculator

300W, using a 200 lb cyclist weight, on a mountain bike, is 20 mph.

Do you average 20 mph on a MTB when you ride outside?

200W is still almost 17 mph. On a MTB.

Do you go even that fast?

15 mph for a 200-lb rider on a MTB is 165W, or about 500 cal/hr.

You're not running a calorie deficit then. Or you'd be losing weight.

Power meters measure power. Integrating power over time is energy. Energy is calories.

MEASURING energy MEASURES calories.

Period.

Unless physics is wrong.

JakiChan

Again, no it's not. There is a range of assumptions, between 20% and 25%, as to human efficiency. With power all you now is the power output by the body. You still are guessing as to the power input into the body to generate that output.

You're assuming that the body is non-adaptive. A common mistake.

I found this very article very interesting when my doctor and I were troubleshooting my plateau:

Adaptive thermogenesis in humans

For example:

The body does a lot of things we don't understand.

We're not talking physics. We're talking biology.

sstorkel

I know that the amount of work (in KJ) is relatively accurate because the vendor of my power meter does lab testing and specifies the level of accuracy. Additionally, I routinely calibrate the meter according to their directions. I know that the number of calories reported is at least in the ballpark, as opposed to your patently ridiculous numbers, because they agree with research on the general efficiency of the human body.

Are my calorie estimates accurate to the last calorie? Of course not! But they're definitely in the ballpark, unlike yours which have left the stadium and driven to a neighboring state... Estimating calories burned based on a lagging indicator (like HR) using a simple one-size-fits-all model (like the ones built into exercise machines and HRMs), isn't going to produce anything other than a wild guess. HR can be a terrific tool for training, but it is not a good tool for estimating how many calories you're burning with any degree of accuracy. Sorry!

JakiChan

Cool, your kJs are accurate - assuming your power meter doesn't suffer from thermal variance issues.

Now...what lab tests have you had performed? Do you know your current VO2 Max, LT, etc?

How do you know that you fit that model? I know that I certainly don't.

Once a quarter I get my BMR tested and get my body composition done. The body comp test is supposedly the "gold standard" of body fat percentage. (The closest DEXA place closed down, so dunk tank is the best I can do for now.) The dunk tank software obviously knows my height, weight, lean mass, and fat mass. And yet it overestimated my BMR by over 500. And their "advice", based on a TDEE model, was 1000 calories a day higher than the advice from the machine that measured the metabolism. They couldn't explain it. Adaptive thermogensis does. But that mean that I'm gonna take any kJ = kCal numbers with a huge grain of salt. It may be slightly more accurate. I would need a lab test to know for sure.

Are my calorie estimates accurate to the last calorie? Of course not! But they're definitely in the ballpark, unlike yours which have left the stadium and driven to a neighboring state... Estimating calories burned based on a lagging indicator (like HR) using a simple one-size-fits-all model (like the ones built into exercise machines and HRMs), isn't going to produce anything other than a wild guess.

And the exact same thing is true for power meters. They're great training tools. That's it. I'm looking forward to mine, that's for sure.

Willbird

I would never try to assign anything to a DAY, but I have weeks and months to look at, and over that time frame there is no "ap" that comes up with a "burn" that is supported by fat loss, or consumption :-).

Bill

JakiChan

Tell me about it. I love it when MFP, at the end of day, says "If every day was like today you'd way XXX.X in 5 weeks!"

"Honey, you said that 5 weeks ago. Stop lying."

Willbird

Usually that number involves an extrapolation from some 2500 calorie burn I managed somehow to achieve in 87 minutes ;-).

The 2lbs a week have been a sure thing however, and alternating weeks usually 3 to 3-1/2.

Bill

brawlo

Going back to the OP's question, the simple answer would be yes. It is because you don't get to coast at all. Simple! However, because of that, if you do a well formatted routine, you can virtually get the benefit of 2 hours or so out on the road in an hour on the trainer.

I ride the trainer a lot as part of my track training routine and also do a few other trainer routines for the road. The trick with riding on a trainer is to give yourself a goal outside of the trainer, that is a reason to get back on the thing time after time. Once you're on it, it's best to have something organised to do. I would challenge anyone who has ever ridden a trainer to not say they are boring if you just plan to 'ride along'. Check out sufferfest and various other resources for videos and workouts to do on the trainer. A simple one that I do that is aimed at improving your recover time between efforts is

4min warmup, 1min TT, 5min roll at ~80rpm, then repeat as many times as you want to 4x 15sec flat out/30sec recovery (3min total) with in between each a 4min recovery/2minTT/4min recovery.

The 4x15/30 is hard but goes by quickly. Things happen quick enough that my mind doesn't tend to wander to boredom and you get a decent workout doing it. I usually do this once a week as well as other stuff on 1-2 other days. I use music to entertain me when I'm not feeling like dying - no TV where my trainer is.

As with anything on the trainer, do as hard as you want, knowing that the harder you push, the better the benefit.

dr_lha

Here's the thing. There are too many variables. This is why in my post, I compared myself to the person who had at least the same trainer as I did. How hard a trainer is versus road biking likely is affected by:

a) What trainer you use, how much resistance it has.
b) How much you weigh and what sort of terrian you usually ride in (going up the Alps weighing 300lbs is always going to be harder than riding on a trainer)
c) How fast you go. Trainers often have what's called "progressive resistance", i.e. the faster you go, the harder it gets. So if your average speed is 10 mph, you're getting less resistance on your trainer than someone who's average speed is 18 mph.

At the end of the day, the answer "road biking is easier because you can coast" is probably as good an answer as anyone can accurately give. Personally, I ride for fitness so I tend to spin at all times, but that said, there are downhills. There are no downhills on a trainer.

Willbird

Just popped up on Facebook that Trainerroad for Ios has been released.

Less than 30 days after I bought a USB ANT dongle for my laptop, would need one for the Iphone to use it with my Garmin speed/cadence sensor. And a 30 pin to lightning adapter, still not a real good deal overall :-). Might be great if you had the Wahoo speed/cadence sensor though :-).

Bill

stephtu

Yes, it depends on what you do with that number. If you aren't actually using the number to alter your daily/weekly calorie targets, it really doesn't matter if it's accurate or not. You could estimate that you are burning 10,000 calories per hour, it wouldn't make any difference. To me, there is so much inaccuracy involved that it's not a good idea to use the MFP recommended method to "add back exercise calories" to one's daily budget, but rather use a TDEE - (desired deficit) approach, and if the results don't come, simply lower your estimate of the TDEE. This can correct for undercounting food as well which is really easy to do.

If your BMR was tested at 2160, that sounds to me totally normal for someone still looking to lose 50 something pounds, it doesn't sound to me like it is unusually low. TDEE is calculated as BMR * some activity factor depending on how much exercise you do & how active the rest of your life generally is; 1000 calories over BMR is a normalish range for a moderate amount of activity at that level of BMR (multiplier 1.46, typical multipliers from 1.2 = sedentary to 1.9 = very hard training + physical job). Diet targets are normally based on TDEE, not BMR; BMR is if you basically lie in bed all day. Or are you confusing terms & they calculated your TDEE at 2160 and your BMR a lot lower than that?


It's probably higher than 350 calories, but it's not 1000 either, and it's going to be a lot closer to 350 than 1000. I'd call exercise "relatively ineffective" for weight loss vs. intake control, but not "totally pointless". If you didn't do the 300-500 calories worth of exercise, you'd have to eat less by that amount. If the exercise does cause you to compensate and eat more than you would without the exercise, then yes it does become pointless from a weight loss perspective (but certainly not pointless from an overall health perspective). I don't see why you have to give up on weight loss if 55 min = 350 calories. You might give up on weight loss as a motivation for exercise, give up looking on exercise as a primary tool for weight loss. But both are beneficial for your health and worth pursuing just for their own sake, even if exercise doesn't really help the weight loss much. For me, being in shape fitness wise just feels better than being out of shape, and the weight loss helped with the exercise since it's so much easier not lugging the extra weight uphill.

dr_lha

Yes, I used it last night. Seems to work as expected (I'm all in with Bluetooth sensors having never owned a Garmin). It'd be nice if it worked in Landscape and was iPad native, but it seems stable (did an hour on it). I think I'll probably still stick to using my computer though, as it's nicer to see the plots on a big screen.

JakiChan

It's lower than it has been. I got to a low of about 240 before gaining some back. At 240 it was 2490. Now at 265 it's 2160. Abnormally low? Yes. It's lower than it should be based on my body composition. As the article I quoted said, when people lose a lot of weight (you see the part in the sig about the 190LB+ loss, right?) their metabolism slows down more than just the change in body composition can explain.

I'm not saying the 1000 is accurate. I'm saying it's a number that is based on real data, with some justification behind it. It's not made up - it's just based on a formula that's inaccurate. What I am objecting to is the assertion that power meters are the end-all be-all of caloric accuracy, without folks understanding that the kJ to kCal number is also an estimate. The only true way to measure is to measure oxygen consumption, and none of us has done that unless you've had your VO2 max tested.

When I had my BMR tested it was suggested I'd burn about 300 calories doing a half our of moderate exercise. That "1000 calorie" workout is 59 minutes at just about maximum intensity (dizziness and nausea)...do the math.

And that's exactly what my diet coach, doctor, and I have done. I exercise for health reasons. Unfortunately, I like exercising. If I exercised less I would be less hungry and would likely lose more weight. But I can't bring myself to do the bare minimum of low intensity cardio.

JakiChan

Bingo. Although I'm holding off a bit. DC Rainmaker seemed to suggest that dual Bluetooth/ANT+ sensors that use accelerometers similar to the new sensors that come with the Edge 1000 were on their way.

dr_lha

Wahoo already have a dual mode cadence sensor that uses accelerometers, it's called the "RPM". I would guess the speed sensor might be close behind, but then again, they only just released the new version of the BlueSC (which is now dual mode).

Willbird

There are suppose to be some devices coming soon that will act as an ANT/Bluetooth 4 crossover as well, so your HRM for example might work to convert ANT data to Bluetooth 4, and vice versa.

I just needed SOMETHING to get speed/cadence output for Trainerroad, and a Garmin head unit would be my "cash in my pocket for it" choice, so that pushed me to use ANT. Not sure if there are some fairly inexpensive Tablets out there that might work with the ANT dongle and Trainerroad.

On the exercise vs intake where weight loss is concerned, I'm fairly certain I could not have ended up -98 lbs in 202 days without adding some exercise I enjoyed, and I could not have ditched the BP meds I was on (maybe) strictly based on a controlled intake. If nothing else the exertion gives one time to focus, it may make me less hungry on a given caloric intake too. But my normal work day of 6,000+ steps and 20-30+ flights of stairs might be more of a "workout" than some people do in the gym :-). I'm pretty sure that workday was the only thing that kept me at 304 lbs more or less, not 404 or 504 with the intake level I had.

Bill

dr_lha

TrainerRoad app is iOS only for now, and from they way the Trainerroad guys are talking, don't expect Android any time soon.

Willbird

Well some of the droid stuff has been hacked to Linux type os that sometimes run windows stuff decent in Wine.

Bill

dr_lha

I think you'd be better off spending the money than trying to hack something like that!

That said, there are some very cheap Windows 8 tablets out there (like the $99 HP Stream 7), that presumably can be made to work with TrainerRoad.

achoo

And, of course, you DIDN'T bother answering how fast you normally ride.

Now WHY would that be?

Because you're delusional.

You're spinning excuse after excuse, but when you start out saying you burn 1,000 cal/hour, and to top it all off you then throw in this:

You tell us about how you've had all you numbers measured, you pontificate on how the advice you're getting from damn near everyone here can't be right because you're special. Then you throw in something about "age-approximated HR max"?!?!?! Way to toss all your claimed expertise. Do you know what the standard deviation on that number is?

Look it up. You'll learn something.

And the fact that getting your HR up makes you so unstable and unable to balance tells me you ain't all that fit. And that tells me you ain't burning anywhere near 1,000 cal/hour.

So tell us: how fast do you go, on average? 12 mph?

You keep telling everyone here we're all wrong, and you're right. Yet YOU'RE the one not losing weight.

JakiChan

They already exist, such as the Viiiiva ANT+ Bluetooth Bridge

I just needed SOMETHING to get speed/cadence output for Trainerroad, and a Garmin head unit would be my "cash in my pocket for it" choice, so that pushed me to use ANT.

A lot of the Samsung devices support ANT+ natively without a dongle. Galaxy S3 through S5 do. Not sure about their tablets, though.

I lost 165 pounds in the first year. This was not with any surgery, by the way. At the beginning I was too heavy to really do any exercise. I get many benefits from exercise, but I can't say that it was a major factor in the majority of my weight loss. And I've found out doing really heavy exercise, like really long rides on the weekend, can be counterproductive. I'd rather do 4x40 mile rides during the week rather than 2x80 mile rides on the weekend.