login
great workout
-
No new posts
 2015-07-15 1:33 AM |
 57 |  Subject: great workout38 mile ride with 1500ft of climbs. Not much for most, but pretty good for me. The best part was the 2000 calories burned. Made the beer afterwards taste great! Edited by amerimanyo 2015-07-15 1:57 AM |
| 2015-07-15 9:29 AM in reply to: amerimanyo |
1660   | Subject: RE: great workout Congrats on the great workout! Not to be a debbie downer here, but the calories burned does seem a bit high for 38miles & 1500ft climbing - are you sure you're getting those cal burns correct? (I say this as I get my cal count from a powermeter, and 2000 calories burned takes me close to 50mi + 5000ft climbing.) |
| 2015-07-16 9:49 AM in reply to: yazmaster |
409 Durham, North Carolina | Subject: RE: great workout Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? |
| 2015-07-16 1:10 PM in reply to: Lupy |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. (calorie burn low.JPG) (calorie burn high.JPG) Attachments ---------------- calorie burn low.JPG (43KB - 9 downloads) calorie burn high.JPG (43KB - 19 downloads) |
| 2015-07-16 1:12 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: great workout |
| 2015-07-16 1:22 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. One would have you riding at ~179 watts and the other at ~377 watts. |
| 2015-07-16 1:25 PM in reply to: brigby1 |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. One would have you riding at ~179 watts and the other at ~377 watts. I don't have a power meter (it's on my wish list) so I have no clue which is closer to the truth. I ride in dead flat, smooth pavement with moderate winds and a lot of heat in aero position the whole time. Any ballparks on where that may land? |
| 2015-07-16 1:30 PM in reply to: 3mar |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by brigby1 I don't have a power meter (it's on my wish list) so I have no clue which is closer to the truth. I ride in dead flat, smooth pavement with moderate winds and a lot of heat in aero position the whole time. Any ballparks on where that may land? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. One would have you riding at ~179 watts and the other at ~377 watts. The former is more realistic. The latter is just over what Lionel Sanders has posted and probably about what Andrew Starykowicz will do in a HIM. |
| 2015-07-16 1:54 PM in reply to: brigby1 |
Elite 7783 PEI, Canada | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by brigby1 I don't have a power meter (it's on my wish list) so I have no clue which is closer to the truth. I ride in dead flat, smooth pavement with moderate winds and a lot of heat in aero position the whole time. Any ballparks on where that may land? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. One would have you riding at ~179 watts and the other at ~377 watts. The former is more realistic. The latter is just over what Lionel Sanders has posted and probably about what Andrew Starykowicz will do in a HIM. If you avg 20.7 MPH on 377 watts in the Florida Keys, we need to fix your aero position. |
| 2015-07-16 1:58 PM in reply to: axteraa |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by axteraa Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by brigby1 I don't have a power meter (it's on my wish list) so I have no clue which is closer to the truth. I ride in dead flat, smooth pavement with moderate winds and a lot of heat in aero position the whole time. Any ballparks on where that may land? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. One would have you riding at ~179 watts and the other at ~377 watts. The former is more realistic. The latter is just over what Lionel Sanders has posted and probably about what Andrew Starykowicz will do in a HIM. If you avg 20.7 MPH on 377 watts in the Florida Keys, we need to fix your aero position. is this not good aero? (bike parachute.JPG) Attachments ---------------- bike parachute.JPG (17KB - 14 downloads) |
| 2015-07-16 2:02 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Extreme Veteran 2261 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. Powermeter would be your best bet for burned calories. You seem serious about the sport enough to where you should have one anyway. |
| 2015-07-16 2:03 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL Gold member | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by 3mar FL hill workouts!Originally posted by axteraa is this not good aero? Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by brigby1 I don't have a power meter (it's on my wish list) so I have no clue which is closer to the truth. I ride in dead flat, smooth pavement with moderate winds and a lot of heat in aero position the whole time. Any ballparks on where that may land? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. One would have you riding at ~179 watts and the other at ~377 watts. The former is more realistic. The latter is just over what Lionel Sanders has posted and probably about what Andrew Starykowicz will do in a HIM. If you avg 20.7 MPH on 377 watts in the Florida Keys, we need to fix your aero position. |
| 2015-07-16 2:08 PM in reply to: 3mar |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by axteraa is this not good aero? Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by brigby1 I don't have a power meter (it's on my wish list) so I have no clue which is closer to the truth. I ride in dead flat, smooth pavement with moderate winds and a lot of heat in aero position the whole time. Any ballparks on where that may land? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. One would have you riding at ~179 watts and the other at ~377 watts. The former is more realistic. The latter is just over what Lionel Sanders has posted and probably about what Andrew Starykowicz will do in a HIM. If you avg 20.7 MPH on 377 watts in the Florida Keys, we need to fix your aero position. Only if there is a handlebar basket too. |
| 2015-07-16 2:10 PM in reply to: msteiner |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by msteiner Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. Powermeter would be your best bet for burned calories. You seem serious about the sport enough to where you should have one anyway. Any recommendations? Will any powermeter with ANT+ show up on my Garmin 920xt? Or do I need a bike computer as well? It looks like Stages power meters are the easiest on the pocket book. How are those? |
| 2015-07-16 2:19 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Extreme Veteran 2261 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by msteiner Any recommendations? Will any powermeter with ANT+ show up on my Garmin 920xt? Or do I need a bike computer as well? It looks like Stages power meters are the easiest on the pocket book. How are those? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. Powermeter would be your best bet for burned calories. You seem serious about the sport enough to where you should have one anyway. I use a powertap, which is one of the more reliable ones out there. The drawback is you're married to one wheel, but I use a wheelcover for time trials and have it built into a 38mm Chinese wheel. |
| 2015-07-16 2:22 PM in reply to: 0 |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by msteiner Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by msteiner Any recommendations? Will any powermeter with ANT+ show up on my Garmin 920xt? Or do I need a bike computer as well? It looks like Stages power meters are the easiest on the pocket book. How are those? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. Powermeter would be your best bet for burned calories. You seem serious about the sport enough to where you should have one anyway. I use a powertap, which is one of the more reliable ones out there. The drawback is you're married to one wheel, but I use a wheelcover for time trials and have it built into a 38mm Chinese wheel. Thanks. I think I saw an option where stages could be used on both legs, but not sure. How about the garmin pedals? Also, what do you mean by <20 efforts? Edited by 3mar 2015-07-16 2:23 PM |
| 2015-07-16 2:24 PM in reply to: 3mar |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by msteiner Any recommendations? Will any powermeter with ANT+ show up on my Garmin 920xt? Or do I need a bike computer as well? It looks like Stages power meters are the easiest on the pocket book. How are those? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. Powermeter would be your best bet for burned calories. You seem serious about the sport enough to where you should have one anyway. This is an entire topic on itself! But yes, the 920 is a bike computer you wear one your wrist. |
| 2015-07-16 2:38 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Extreme Veteran 2261 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by 3mar Thanks. I think I saw an option where stages could be used on both legs, but not sure. How about the garmin pedals? Also, what do you mean by <20 efforts? Sprints mainly or really big surges. For example I have workouts where I'll do several 15 second all out sprints as my main set, and for those I want an accurate number. With just multiplying the left leg X2 the margin of error could be all over the place. |
| 2015-07-17 8:36 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Elite 7783 PEI, Canada | Subject: RE: great workout Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by msteiner Any recommendations? Will any powermeter with ANT+ show up on my Garmin 920xt? Or do I need a bike computer as well? It looks like Stages power meters are the easiest on the pocket book. How are those? Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Lupy Those #'s are probably based off his HR. HIJACK alert :D. How accurate are our watches for calorie burn? When the algorithm reads our HR and other factors is it close? Been wondering the same thing. I have a pretty low HR and sometimes I think that when my watch uses HR it is underestimating my calorie burn. I just can't see how it is so different. Here is an example, I rode the same distance, at about the same pace on the same course with similar weather two weeks apart. One I wore an HRM and the other I did not. Look the calorie burn differences. That's crazy. Powermeter would be your best bet for burned calories. You seem serious about the sport enough to where you should have one anyway. You strike me as the type of person that wouldn't be happy with an estimation of your power (double the left leg) as opposed to an actual measurement of your power. |
| 2015-07-17 7:52 PM in reply to: axteraa |
| 409 Durham, North Carolina | Subject: RE: great workout I just ordered the 4iiii power meter. I haven't gotten an estimate on ship date yet, but for $350 on clevertraining (w/ dc coupon code) it's a steal. |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK