Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Senior Member Rich Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    My Bikes
    Trek FX 7.6, 2013 Fuji Rubaix 1.0
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question about Bontrager Node 1.1 computer readings

    I'm using it to track my rides and have noticed a consistent difference between when riding on the trails and on my trainer. For example I'll ride 22 miles and show right around 1250 calories with an average 115 bpm heart rate at an average cadence of 72. When on the trainer riding 20 miles with an average 120 bpm and cadence of 80 and it shows around 700 calories. Am I missing something?

    Rich
    ..life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes. ― Andy Rooney ...enjoy what's left!

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,528
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Gibson View Post
    I'm using it to track my rides and have noticed a consistent difference between when riding on the trails and on my trainer. For example I'll ride 22 miles and show right around 1250 calories with an average 115 bpm heart rate at an average cadence of 72. When on the trainer riding 20 miles with an average 120 bpm and cadence of 80 and it shows around 700 calories. Am I missing something?

    Rich
    One thing that is missing is your average speed (the time you spent exercising).

    Also, it's possible that the calorie calculation is based on how much time you spend in the various HR zones (which could be quite different for the two rides).

    (The calories burned estimation isn't worth much.)
    Last edited by njkayaker; 09-13-13 at 11:46 AM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Rich Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    My Bikes
    Trek FX 7.6, 2013 Fuji Rubaix 1.0
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When on the trail speed averages 11 mph; on the trainer it's 16 mph. On what do you base the remark about calories burned not being worthwhile.
    ..life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes. ― Andy Rooney ...enjoy what's left!

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,528
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Gibson View Post
    When on the trail speed averages 11 mph; on the trainer it's 16 mph.
    I'd guess that the difference is mostly due to a difference in the time spent in the various HR zones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Gibson View Post
    On what do you base the remark about calories burned not being worthwhile.
    As far as I've read, it's not very accurate. Except for the ones based on power measurements. (The ones based on HR should be better than without HR.)

    Here's some info on how the Garmins do it (the Nodes aren't likely to be as sophisticated):

    http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/h...on-garmin.html
    Last edited by njkayaker; 09-13-13 at 12:30 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Looigi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7,340
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Miles don't matter. What matters is duration and intensity. If doing the same intensity (as measured by HR in this case), for the same duration, the device optimally would show the same calories.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Rich Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    My Bikes
    Trek FX 7.6, 2013 Fuji Rubaix 1.0
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    I'd guess that the difference is mostly due to a difference in the time spent in the various HR zones.


    As far as I've read, it's not very accurate. Except for the ones based on power measurements. (The ones based on HR should be better than without HR.)

    Here's some info on how the Garmins do it (the Nodes aren't likely to be as sophisticated):

    http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/h...on-garmin.html
    Thanks, that link explains a lot. Riding the bike on the road yields approximately twice as much calories as doing it on the trainer; this corresponds to how the effort seemed to me. The Nodes must use more than just speed and distance. A quote from the article:

    Their calculation uses user inputted variables including gender, height, weight and fitness class. It then combines this data with heart rate information from the ANT+ heart rate strap. Specifically, it evaluates the time between heart beats (beat to beat) to determine estimated MET (Metabolic Equivalent), which in turn is used determine actual work expenditure.


    These are the factors, plus gender, you enter into the node (which is ANT+ compliant). One of the many outputs are the times spent in each zone.

    Rich
    Last edited by Rich Gibson; 09-13-13 at 03:22 PM.
    ..life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes. ― Andy Rooney ...enjoy what's left!

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,528
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Gibson View Post
    The Nodes must use more than just speed and distance. A quote from the article:



    These are the factors, plus gender, you enter into the node (which is ANT+ compliant). One of the many outputs are the times spent in each zone.

    Their calculation uses user inputted variables including gender, height, weight and fitness class. It then combines this data with heart rate information from the ANT+ heart rate strap. Specifically, it evaluates the time between heart beats (beat to beat) to determine estimated MET (Metabolic Equivalent), which in turn is used determine actual work expenditure.
    Rich
    The Nodes should be using the HR and the time spent in the HR zones in the calorie estimation.

    What I was suggesting in post 2 is that the amount of time you spent in the HR zones is different and that is one reason for the difference in calories.
    Last edited by njkayaker; 09-13-13 at 04:07 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Rich Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    My Bikes
    Trek FX 7.6, 2013 Fuji Rubaix 1.0
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I came across a search in the archives here http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/in.../t-236011.html Using the formula the numbers are fairly close, calculating the reported (from the Node 1.1) total for 35 day yields 1002 calories per day; with the formula 987 calories per day, a difference of one whole cashew nut....close enough!
    Last edited by Rich Gibson; 09-13-13 at 04:27 PM.
    ..life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes. ― Andy Rooney ...enjoy what's left!

  9. #9
    Senior Member Rich Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    My Bikes
    Trek FX 7.6, 2013 Fuji Rubaix 1.0
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    The Nodes should be using the HR and the time spent in the HR zones in the calorie estimation.

    What I was suggesting in post 2 is that the amount of time you spent in the HR zones is different and that is one reason for the difference in calories.
    Makes sense because you can't change the nature of the zones, only one's MHR. This all is very useful. While it's clear there is considerable conjecture it helps me establish just where I want to draw the line for getting a reliable figure.

    Rich
    ..life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes. ― Andy Rooney ...enjoy what's left!

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,528
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Gibson View Post
    I came across a search in the archives here http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/in.../t-236011.html Using the formula the numbers are fairly close, calculating the reported (from the Node 1.1) total for 35 day yields 1002 calories per day; with the formula 987 calories per day, a difference of one whole cashew nut....close enough!
    It's still hard to know whether the number is close to the real value (I'm somewhat sceptical).

  11. #11
    Senior Member Rich Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    My Bikes
    Trek FX 7.6, 2013 Fuji Rubaix 1.0
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
    It's still hard to know whether the number is close to the real value (I'm somewhat sceptical).
    As am I. I'm looking for a consistent and equivalent way of measuring my daily level of effort. I'd like to shoot for and maintain approximately 1200 calories per day exercising to maintain my fitness. The formula in the above link shows a weighting of .63 for AHR, .2 for weight and .2 for age (they add up to more than 1 I realize, but that's the formula). If I did my math correctly decreasing the AHR between 120 and 110 adds 1.8 minutes to a ride for each bpm decrease in AVG BPM, and conversely.

    I found out one thing, spinning is the most mind numbing of the three.

    Rich
    Last edited by Rich Gibson; 09-13-13 at 06:53 PM.
    ..life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes. ― Andy Rooney ...enjoy what's left!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •