Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Training & Nutrition
Reload this Page >

Calories burned = confusion

Notices
Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

Calories burned = confusion

Old 10-07-14, 11:34 AM
  #51  
Senior Member
 
Spld cyclist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Springfield, MA
Posts: 1,060

Bikes: 2012 Motobecane Fantom CXX, 2012 Motobecane Fantom CX, 1997 Bianchi Nyala, 200? Burley Rock 'n Roll

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Null66
A very comforting myth. Ever so pleasing we see it bandied about...

Building muscle is harder then you think.
Most people confuse tonus with muscle.

Almost impossible to add significant muscle under a calorie deficit.
Rather difficult even while your biochemistry is uh, enhanced, AND your are on a program to build muscle.

And your certainly not going to add more muscle than fat loss, as it takes a heck of a lot of energy to make muscle..
I've seen studies where subjects who start out untrained and significantly overweight can burn fat and build muscle simultaneously. I think that's true only for the first few pounds of muscle gain. Then it becomes a lot more difficult, and at some point very unlikely, to build more muscle without a calorie surplus.
Spld cyclist is offline  
Old 10-07-14, 11:37 AM
  #52  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 456

Bikes: Trek 4900, Cannondale Cx-4

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Spld cyclist
I've seen studies where subjects who start out untrained and significantly overweight can burn fat and build muscle simultaneously. I think that's true only for the first few pounds of muscle gain. Then it becomes a lot more difficult, and at some point very unlikely, to build more muscle without a calorie surplus.
Not easy....but doable.
Mvcrash is offline  
Old 10-07-14, 01:14 PM
  #53  
Senior Member
 
Null66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Garner, NC 27529
Posts: 2,110

Bikes: Built up DT, 2007 Fuji tourer (donor bike, RIP), 1995 1220 Trek

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Mvcrash
So, unless you are a physician, exercise physiologist, physical trainer, I'll go with what they tell me. If you are one of the former, I'd appreciate any scientific works you can provide that disprove the myth that muscle is more dense than fat and you can't build muscle while slimming down.
The myth is that you are not loosing weight, while in a calorie deficit because you are gaining muscle...

If you are in calorie deficit you will lose,
If you are gaining muscle, that takes quite a bit of energy... If also in calorie deficit you will lose even more weight.


You can delude yourself all you want.
Choose false comfort if you prefer that to results....
Null66 is offline  
Old 10-07-14, 01:17 PM
  #54  
Senior Member
 
Null66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Garner, NC 27529
Posts: 2,110

Bikes: Built up DT, 2007 Fuji tourer (donor bike, RIP), 1995 1220 Trek

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Mvcrash
Not easy....but doable.
Wasn't that you can't build muscle...

It's that claiming to build muscle while in a calorie deficit and NOT LOSE WEIGHT!

See the difference?

claimed CALORIE DEFICIT AND NO WEIGHT LOSS...
And feel good excuse, well "putting on muscle"

You might be putting on muscle, but you're not in calorie deficit...
Null66 is offline  
Old 10-07-14, 02:58 PM
  #55  
Senior Member
 
Null66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Garner, NC 27529
Posts: 2,110

Bikes: Built up DT, 2007 Fuji tourer (donor bike, RIP), 1995 1220 Trek

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Spld cyclist
I've seen studies where subjects who start out untrained and significantly overweight can burn fat and build muscle simultaneously. I think that's true only for the first few pounds of muscle gain. Then it becomes a lot more difficult, and at some point very unlikely, to build more muscle without a calorie surplus.
Would love to see those links...
If you don't have them can you think of key words that would aid to find it?

Did they test body comp? If so how?
To show above, it would have to be imaging...
Else too many co-variables would register as muscle growth. Just reducing glycogen stores can seemingly show body comp improvements in all but imaging...

Initial strength gains in newbs is neurological adaptation... Learning to fire the existing muscles more effectively and in concert...

3 assertions.

Calorie deficit
not lose weight
builds muscle

Doing the work to build muscle, muscle growth itself takes calories...

Think likelihood.

No workout logs
No food diary
Didn't weigh food
no body comp measures let alone reliable and accurate ones.
NOT augmented...

So it must be the most comforting thought.
Must have depressed metabolism so much that they offset calorie deficit and both work required to build muscle and the calorie composition of muscle itself, yet expended enough energy to both do the work, and calorie required by the tissue itself. But depressed metabolism works by impairing hormones such as Test increases cortisol...



-------------------OR-------------------------

He ate more than he intended...
Like what 270 million other modern Americans....

----------------OR----------------------------
Long shot but does happen.
If all above are actually true a more likely explanation
One explanation is edema...
Working out far more than prepared for...
Causing significant swelling and water retention...

But unless you were bed ridden for quite a while you'd have to hit it really hard, damn hard... that is a symptom of rhabdomyolsis...
Large sodium intakes could offset a couple pounds...


Yeah, I'll take the comforting excuse for 10 lbs...
Null66 is offline  
Old 10-07-14, 05:53 PM
  #56  
Senior Member
 
Spld cyclist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Springfield, MA
Posts: 1,060

Bikes: 2012 Motobecane Fantom CXX, 2012 Motobecane Fantom CX, 1997 Bianchi Nyala, 200? Burley Rock 'n Roll

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sorry Null, don't have links or details, but I'm sure I've read some abstracts over the years where there was simultaneous muscle growth and fat loss. They may have said "lean mass gained" but it was clear from context that they meant muscle growth. These effects didn't necessarily cancel each other out (i.e. fat loss didn't equal muscle gained). They always seem to involve overweight subjects that were out of shape (perhaps totally untrained) before the study began.

I didn't bother to try to read the full papers because they weren't what I was looking for. Yes, there are potential confounding factors and measurement errors. No, I don't know if/how they tried to control for those factors.
Spld cyclist is offline  
Old 10-07-14, 06:40 PM
  #57  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It takes excess calories to build muscle, but muscle is much slower than fat to come and go. The cards are simply stacked against you, the slightest error will result in fat gain. Bodybuilders do it in phases by leveraging the fact that muscle is slower to change. They go through a building phase and use a combination of intense cardio, calorie restriction and high protein intake to reduce body fat. You will loose some muscle, but the fat loss is much quicker than the muscle loss. The only way I know of to do both is by eating twice as much while working out four times as hard. This might turn out fine for a 22 year old, but the majority of people would just end up over-trained and loose both fat and muscle.
sprince is offline  
Old 10-07-14, 08:20 PM
  #58  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
IME it's hard to make a hard rule around the subject of fat loss and muscle gain. 2 years ago, I lost 10 lbs. over a period of 9 months. I took inches off my waist, but didn't change my thigh measurement. So what does that mean? I was working out consistently at the time. My weight and thighs have stayed about the same since then, but I've put on waist fat and probably lost muscle off my upper body. Now that event season is over, starting this month I'm back on a consistent bike and gym program. I want to lose a little weight, put 1/2" on my thighs, keep my arms the same, but get stronger, both legs and upper body. We'll see how that goes. I'm a very slow gainer. Today: thighs 21", waist 35.5", arms 12.5", 153 lbs.

I don't count calories in or out. Waste of valuable working-out time IMO. I go by the scale and the tape. I also have one of those fancy body comp scales which seems to be good about comparative measurements.
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 10-08-14, 05:28 AM
  #59  
Senior Member
 
Null66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Garner, NC 27529
Posts: 2,110

Bikes: Built up DT, 2007 Fuji tourer (donor bike, RIP), 1995 1220 Trek

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Spld cyclist
Sorry Null, don't have links or details, but I'm sure I've read some abstracts over the years where there was simultaneous muscle growth and fat loss. They may have said "lean mass gained" but it was clear from context that they meant muscle growth. These effects didn't necessarily cancel each other out (i.e. fat loss didn't equal muscle gained). They always seem to involve overweight subjects that were out of shape (perhaps totally untrained) before the study began.

I didn't bother to try to read the full papers because they weren't what I was looking for. Yes, there are potential confounding factors and measurement errors. No, I don't know if/how they tried to control for those factors.
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a good start to help me find these.

I am trying to lose fat but maintain my strength...
Every hint might help I'm an outlier, formerly insulin resistant and well, several other metabolic/hormonal challenges. Oh and I'm 48...

But it's easy to burn muscle, far to easy.



Originally Posted by sprince
It takes excess calories to build muscle, but muscle is much slower than fat to come and go. The cards are simply stacked against you, the slightest error will result in fat gain. Bodybuilders do it in phases by leveraging the fact that muscle is slower to change. They go through a building phase and use a combination of intense cardio, calorie restriction and high protein intake to reduce body fat. You will loose some muscle, but the fat loss is much quicker than the muscle loss. The only way I know of to do both is by eating twice as much while working out four times as hard. This might turn out fine for a 22 year old, but the majority of people would just end up over-trained and loose both fat and muscle.
Augmentation helps... A lot. And certain modifications help more than others...

Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
IME it's hard to make a hard rule around the subject of fat loss and muscle gain. 2 years ago, I lost 10 lbs. over a period of 9 months. I took inches off my waist, but didn't change my thigh measurement. So what does that mean? I was working out consistently at the time. My weight and thighs have stayed about the same since then, but I've put on waist fat and probably lost muscle off my upper body. Now that event season is over, starting this month I'm back on a consistent bike and gym program. I want to lose a little weight, put 1/2" on my thighs, keep my arms the same, but get stronger, both legs and upper body. We'll see how that goes. I'm a very slow gainer. Today: thighs 21", waist 35.5", arms 12.5", 153 lbs.

I don't count calories in or out. Waste of valuable working-out time IMO. I go by the scale and the tape. I also have one of those fancy body comp scales which seems to be good about comparative measurements.
I'm down ~30lbs from 285 to 253, I've improved body comp a bit... But lost a ton of strength. I
Max Dead lift is down from 575 to a bit over 500 (haven't tested recently, but can do a couple of doubles at 500)... Don't think I can pull 550.
Max machine squat (Hammer Strength) is down from 819 to where 700 feels heavy...
Used to do 5x5 at 450 on decline (hammer Strength) now down to 3x5 and 2x360 and it's harder...
But riding is better... Which was a goal... Perversely Blood pressure is up, way up...

In the lifting world, slow gainers are known as poor eaters.
But that's not really true, Ectomorphs don't gain size easy but they can be incredibly strong for their size! Phenomenally strong.
The abdominal fat is actually a good asset towards the goal you state...
Weight you can lose and calories you can use towards strength.
Do you know what sort of patterns your body responds best to?

such as for me:
5x5 and 5/3/1 upper/lower oppositional, works very well for me strength.
German Volume Method, 10x10 with splits works great for size, but my injuries flare up really bad after a couple weeks.

Starting Strength has been successful in putting on significant strength, particularly lower body, back, and core and might be something that works for you with your goals...

5/3/1 focusing on Squats and Deads would be something to try after a few months... Gotta get form down cold...

About the electrical resistance...
Very sensitive to other variables. I can and do see a 10% swing between days... Which is not possible...
Calipers are more reliable and accurate.
Null66 is offline  
Old 10-08-14, 10:27 AM
  #60  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by Null66
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a good start to help me find these.

I am trying to lose fat but maintain my strength...
Every hint might help I'm an outlier, formerly insulin resistant and well, several other metabolic/hormonal challenges. Oh and I'm 48...

But it's easy to burn muscle, far to easy.





Augmentation helps... A lot. And certain modifications help more than others...



I'm down ~30lbs from 285 to 253, I've improved body comp a bit... But lost a ton of strength. I
Max Dead lift is down from 575 to a bit over 500 (haven't tested recently, but can do a couple of doubles at 500)... Don't think I can pull 550.
Max machine squat (Hammer Strength) is down from 819 to where 700 feels heavy...
Used to do 5x5 at 450 on decline (hammer Strength) now down to 3x5 and 2x360 and it's harder...
But riding is better... Which was a goal... Perversely Blood pressure is up, way up...

In the lifting world, slow gainers are known as poor eaters.
But that's not really true, Ectomorphs don't gain size easy but they can be incredibly strong for their size! Phenomenally strong.
The abdominal fat is actually a good asset towards the goal you state...
Weight you can lose and calories you can use towards strength.
Do you know what sort of patterns your body responds best to?

such as for me:
5x5 and 5/3/1 upper/lower oppositional, works very well for me strength.
German Volume Method, 10x10 with splits works great for size, but my injuries flare up really bad after a couple weeks.

Starting Strength has been successful in putting on significant strength, particularly lower body, back, and core and might be something that works for you with your goals...

5/3/1 focusing on Squats and Deads would be something to try after a few months... Gotta get form down cold...

About the electrical resistance...
Very sensitive to other variables. I can and do see a 10% swing between days... Which is not possible...
Calipers are more reliable and accurate.
I think this muscle/fat discussion has gone a bit off from answering the OP's question. I tend to focus on the cycling aspects of training and nutrition, since this is BF. Similarly to how I don't count calories, I also focus on results on the bike and try to shape my training to produce results, though within limits as I don't want the whole thing to take over my life, either. When the TdF commentator says "The strongest rider will win," they don't mean the guy who can squat the most. Au contraire. Remember that Lance had to lose 7 kilos of protein for his comeback.

Road cycling is really about climbing. That's kind of all that matters. It's impossible to make back on the flats what you lose on the climbs, since power required on the flat increases as the cube of the speed. So it's climbing. The best climbers I've ridden with have BMIs in the low 20s or less, so a 6' rider might weigh 145. My BMI tends to hang just under 25, so I'm not a great climber but I can sprint well.

So what you want to look at, beyond weight, size, muscle mass, etc., is VAM (vertical ascent in meters per hour). Increases in that number are what you're looking for. Strava will show that result for many climbing segments. Or you can figure it in feet/hour, doesn't matter. The low end for being a fairly strong male is 2,000'/hr. Pros can climb at 6000'/hr, or at least they used to back in the days of the Pirate. At 134 y.o. and being overweight, my tandem team climbs at ~500 VAM on a good day. So that's pitiful, but at least we get the job done and finish middle of the pack on centuries, etc.

So what works for increasing VAM? #1 is losing weight. #2 is increasing watts at lactate threshold. Increasing watts at threshold is best done through cycling intervals, from 20' LT intervals to 45" all-out sprints. They're what best increase "strength." I think the gym can help some, but not a heck of a lot compared to intervals. Studies show that what helps the most in the gym is stuff like plyometrics or other high-speed lifting. What helps the least is any kind of conventional weightlifting. My problem with plyometrics, etc., is that I can't get injured. One injury ruins a whole season and there really aren't that many of them.

Over many years of trying stuff out, I've had my best success from doing circuits of 3 sets of 30, same weight for each set so that the last set is to failure. About 10 weeks of this, then conventional hypertrophy and then strength sets for maybe 8 weeks, then down to 1 set of 30, now at a much higher weight, until the start of interval season, say mid February.

This year, I'm going to concentrate a little less on cycling because I want to do some mountaineering again next summer and ski a lot this winter. So I'll do more conventional weight training. I'll try out several different routines and see what works best for me. I'm interested in trying sets starting at 50, then dropping 10 reps each set, down to 1 rep, all the same weight, but I have to get in better shape before even trying that. I've only been to the gym 3 times since last February. As you can see, I'm much more into muscular endurance than 1 RM. Road cycling is an endurance sport.

Results, results, results. Get good results on the bike and then come back and tell us how you got them.

Today I'm going to the gym to just do 55' of steady-state zone 3 on the StepMill. That's going to really hurt.

Last edited by Carbonfiberboy; 10-08-14 at 10:39 AM.
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 10-08-14, 11:38 AM
  #61  
Senior Member
 
Jarrett2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,126

Bikes: Steel 1x's

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by cleansheet
I am very late to this, but I find the Garmin to be fairly accurate when used with the heart rate monitor and cadence counter. I weigh around 170 and ride similar rides to what you describe. Anywhere from 14-18 MPH, depending on climbing. I never exceed 600 calories in an hour when I use the HRM. If I am missing either(or both) the estimated calorie burn is far greater.

The Garmin numbers with everything come close to Strava estimates and well below Ride with GPS estimates.
I've found my Edge 1000 with cadence, speed and HRM sensors to provide more conservative calorie estimates on my rides than any external calculator has in the past.

For example, the LoseIt calorie counter app counts last night's club ride at 1500+ calories, while the Edge 1000 with all sensors in play called it 1104

Ride stats:
Rider Weight: 258 lbs.
Distance: 21.25 mi
Avg Speed: 15.4 mph
Ride Time: 1:22:43
Climb: 692 ft
Calories: 1,104 C

I also dig that the Edge 1000 auto uploads my ride as soon as I hit save ride to Garmin Connect, Strava and MyFitnessPal so that my exercise is plugged in to my calorie counter.
Jarrett2 is offline  
Old 10-08-14, 12:19 PM
  #62  
Senior Member
 
Null66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Garner, NC 27529
Posts: 2,110

Bikes: Built up DT, 2007 Fuji tourer (donor bike, RIP), 1995 1220 Trek

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by jarrett2
i've found my edge 1000 with cadence, speed and hrm sensors to provide more conservative calorie estimates on my rides than any external calculator has in the past.

For example, the loseit calorie counter app counts last night's club ride at 1500+ calories, while the edge 1000 with all sensors in play called it 1104

ride stats:
Rider weight: 258 lbs.
Distance: 21.25 mi
avg speed: 15.4 mph
ride time: 1:22:43
climb: 692 ft
calories: 1,104 c

i also dig that the edge 1000 auto uploads my ride as soon as i hit save ride to garmin connect, strava and myfitnesspal so that my exercise is plugged in to my calorie counter.

nice!
Null66 is offline  
Old 10-08-14, 01:04 PM
  #63  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
^but unlikely. Jarrett2 would have had to average 224 watts on that ride to burn those calories. At 15.4 mph with that amount of climbing it does seem unlikely. Thus I don't count calories, having no good way to find either input or output.

Last edited by Carbonfiberboy; 10-08-14 at 01:16 PM.
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 10-08-14, 02:22 PM
  #64  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
The above discussion brings up a point germane to the OP. If you use a Garmin with a wheel sensor and upload to Strava, even if you don't use a PM it is possible to get a reasonable estimate of calories burned. Strava provides an average watts number for your rides and total kJ. It uses the equations of motion to calculate these numbers: nothing to do with your HRM. I think it's usually close for loop rides, as it can't take wind into account, but the more wind, the less accurate.

So weigh your bike in ready-to-ride trim, water bottles half full. Weigh yourself in your average kit. Enter these into Strava. Enter a ride. Note the kJ figure.

As previous posts indicate, kJ is approximately equal to calories burned.

Last edited by Carbonfiberboy; 10-08-14 at 03:56 PM. Reason: Error: I changed "Garmin" to "Strava"
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 10-08-14, 03:39 PM
  #65  
Senior Member
 
Jarrett2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,126

Bikes: Steel 1x's

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Jarrett2
Ride stats:
Rider Weight: 258 lbs.
Distance: 21.25 mi
Avg Speed: 15.4 mph
Ride Time: 1:22:43
Climb: 692 ft
Calories: 1,104 C
Here are the Strava numbers from the same ride:

Distance 21.2mi
Ride Time 1:23:03
Climb 692ft
Estimated Average Power: 161W
Energy Output: 804kJ

[TABLE="class: unstyled"]
[TR]
[TH][/TH]
[TH]Avg[/TH]
[TH]Max[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Speed[/TH]
[TD]15.3mi/h[/TD]
[TD]31.3mi/h[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Heart Rate[/TH]
[TD]140bpm[/TD]
[TD]178bpm[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Cadence[/TH]
[TD]83[/TD]
[TD] 123 [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Calories[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2"]896[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Temperature[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2"]79℉[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH] Elapsed Time [/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2"] 1:31:40 [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Just noticed some of the numbers are off on Strava. Avg speed was 15.42 and max was 33.8. Wonder why Strava got it wrong?
Jarrett2 is offline  
Old 10-08-14, 03:54 PM
  #66  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by Jarrett2
Here are the Strava numbers from the same ride:

Distance 21.2mi
Ride Time 1:23:03
Climb 692ft
Estimated Average Power: 161W
Energy Output: 804kJ

[TABLE="class: unstyled"]
[TR]
[TH][/TH]
[TH]Avg[/TH]
[TH]Max[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Speed[/TH]
[TD]15.3mi/h[/TD]
[TD]31.3mi/h[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Heart Rate[/TH]
[TD]140bpm[/TD]
[TD]178bpm[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Cadence[/TH]
[TD]83[/TD]
[TD] 123[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Calories[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2"]896[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Temperature[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2"]79℉[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH] Elapsed Time[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2"] 1:31:40[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Just noticed some of the numbers are off on Strava. Avg speed was 15.42 and max was 33.8. Wonder why Strava got it wrong?
I notice that different instruments and different websites will give slightly different results. Strava thought your ride time was slightly greater - probably a different interpretation of when "stopped" and "started" is. There's a setting in your Garmin for that. I think they ship with less than 2 mph counting as stopped. I set mine so that "stopped" is stopped. But that's probably different with different units.

161 watt average seems more probable, and therefore 804 calories. Still an impressive burn for that time period.
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Flordia ride
Training & Nutrition
11
05-06-14 01:07 PM
umazuki
Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg)
4
07-08-12 06:49 PM
Yen
Training & Nutrition
7
06-07-12 12:13 PM
jppe
Fifty Plus (50+)
9
07-04-11 04:44 AM
jjaneski94
Training & Nutrition
9
07-31-10 10:04 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.