Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets (http://www.bikeforums.net/electronics-lighting-gadgets/)
-   -   Cyclocomputer or Online Calorie Counters? (http://www.bikeforums.net/electronics-lighting-gadgets/515508-cyclocomputer-online-calorie-counters.html)

munski1968 02-28-09 02:34 AM

Cyclocomputer or Online Calorie Counters?
 
I bought a cheap Wally World special Bell Cyclocomputer last week (wired). The mileage, MPH average, time, etc. all seem to be accurate. The calories burned though seem to be very different from the online "Calories Burned" calculators I use. I'm 40 years old, and weigh about 330 lbs. For a 30 mile ride averaging 12-15 mph, my cyclocomputer says I only burn about 1500 calories. I've checked on about 5 calories burned sites, and they all seem to total about 2500 calories. Anyone else notice this big of a difference?? Which one do you think is more reliable? If everything else seems to be accurate, anyone think I might need to reprogram the calories burned on the computer? Seems like a pretty big difference to me.

munski1968 02-28-09 03:25 AM

Damn system! I just posted this not even an hour ago, and they dropped it off already. Grrrrr

munski1968 02-28-09 05:24 AM

wtf???

munski1968 02-28-09 04:09 PM

anyone?

Unknown Cyclist 02-28-09 04:30 PM

This might not be much help, but does it actually matter ?

(there, other people can see your post)

;)

However many calories you burn off, you burn off, does the number matter ?

You might do the same trip twice, once into a headwind with soft tyres and another day with a tailwind and pumped up tyres - you could use twice as many calories on one.

Sorry I can't be more help.

If it's to do with your waistline, measure it, if it doesn't get smaller eat less pies and do more cycling.

:thumb:

CaptCarrot 02-28-09 06:37 PM

Got to say what UU has said is pretty much spot on.

The online sites will determine Calories by using formulas.

The computer should be more accurate, as it is actually measuring what you do (although it may need tweaking). The thing is, it is not the length of your journey that matters, but how much effort you put into it. Spin on the flat and grind up hills - or keep a steady cadence. Headwinds, terrain, tyres, weight of your bike (you and your clothing and accessories), aerodynamics. It all adds up. I am not even sure a formula 1 team would be able to calculate calories burned correctly, although they would get a damn site closer.

Also your first line does some it up some what...
Quote:

Originally Posted by munski1968 (Post 8442237)
I bought a cheap Wally World special Bell Cyclocomputer

You get what you pay for.

munski1968 02-28-09 09:16 PM

Thanks for the replies guys. I know what you're saying about all the external factors. I guess I'm just really starting to buckle down now, and trying to get healthy, by tracking my calorie intake, along with fat, carb., and protein percentages on a daily basis. It would be good to get an accurate idea of how many calories I burn.

Unknown Cyclist 03-01-09 05:59 AM

I wasn't kidding, it's likely that your waistline is the most accurate yardstick for your calorie use - especially if you are monitoring intake as carefully as you say.

:)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:34 AM.