Weightloss
Comments
-
Slowmart wrote:mpatts wrote:Calorie intake is quite a personal thing. I'm 64kg and I fit that my 'resting' calorie useage is about 1500 calories a day. This is rather unscientific in that this is the intake I can have without loosing or putting on weight.
As for ride data, I've recently switched to a power meter which ie measuring calories much more accurately and found everything else hopelessly over estimated calorie useage.
I'm 20lbs over my ideal weight and appreciate calorie consumption and expenditure are specific and while I use my garmin as a measure for expenditure is there any other accurate way of measuring calorie usage other than a power meter which i can't stretch to?
Failing that i don't find the 1200 cal intake that hard to stick to and I don't get hungry but the weight isn't dropping off so I'm questioning my tactics. My rides are sporadic and may come in bursts, i.e. last week three days back to back with decreasing intensity due to being unfit....
Any advice on the above questions would be gratefully received.
Eat more; ride harder.0 -
NeXXus wrote:mpatts wrote:To take an extreme example, say I weigh myself every 5 minutes throughout the day, my weight will vary +- 1k, depending on how much I have eaten or drunk. If you happen to take a one measurement at a time of the day were you are 'light' and then a measurement on another day where you are 'heavy', what you are actually doing is comparing the same result, rather than showing you have put on weight. So, in other words, to get an acurate result you need to plot a lot of data.
This is just gumpf..
He said it was an extreme example, he didn't recommend doing it. I get the impression you're being deliberately difficult here.
FWIW I preferred weighing myself daily first thing in the morning when I was trying to lose weight. I don't find occasional increases especially demotivating and I like having more data. These days I just weigh myself once a week or so just to check I'm not putting on weight.0 -
5:2 or 6:1 will achieve this and if you get to the point where you can encompass some of your fasting days as active recovery training days, then you'll get some bonk train/endurance benefit too.
I found big benefits in my endurance performance.
If you want to do it the other way, then calculate your BMR, plenty of scales can do this.. Add in your training effort per day and subtract 470kcal (per day) for every lb you want to drop per week.
So.. if my BMR is 1900, I am doing 600 training - I need just over 2000 per day to drop 1 lb per week.
Since BMR is the minimum, you can be a little generous on the allowance for output.0 -
diy wrote:5:2 or 6:1 will achieve this and if you get to the point where you can encompass some of your fasting days as active recovery training days, then you'll get some bonk train/endurance benefit too.
I found big benefits in my endurance performance.
If you want to do it the other way, then calculate your BMR, plenty of scales can do this.. Add in your training effort per day and subtract 470kcal (per day) for every lb you want to drop per week.
So.. if my BMR is 1900, I am doing 600 training - I need just over 2000 per day to drop 1 lb per week.
Since BMR is the minimum, you can be a little generous on the allowance for output.
Thanks for replying.
So my BMR is 1688 less 470kcals = 1218 plus whatever calorie burn I have on the bike?
Ok so thats not far away from where I am with myfitnesspal and underlines my next question - how accurate is the garmin for calorie burn? Is there another formula?
This also goes back to my original question, I'm not hungry on 1200 calls a day, ok i may go over the 1200kcals a day by 300-500 on a garmin calorie count of 2000. To put that in perspective that was 33 miles, average 14.1mph and 1500ft climbing. it seems the common consensus on here is to increase my daily intake and increase the intensity?
Sorry, time poor here so i have to max out what time i have and want to spend it achieving something...“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
How much are you losing on your current regime? Give it some time to see results.0
-
@Slowmart, what time of day do you ride? I've had a steady weight loss of around 10lbs over the last year (which doesn't sound a lot but I think it's better than a fast drop) which I mainly atribute to fasted cardio.
ie get up at 5.45am and do a reasonable distance on the bike, mine is a 35km loop.
I worked on the idea that on a normal day you get up, eat (say 300 c's) to fuel your ride, burn off 600 then eat another meal when you get back (say 300c's agian) and you're no better off.
Instead, get up and ride burning 600 c's then eat a smaller breakfast of 200 c's to fuel the rest of your morning. You're then in calorie defecit*.
*possibly a made up term...Advocate of disc brakes.0 -
markhewitt1978 wrote:How much are you losing on your current regime? Give it some time to see results.
I started on the 18th March and I've lost 7lbs. I weigh myself once a week when i get up“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
homers double wrote:@Slowmart, what time of day do you ride? I've had a steady weight loss of around 10lbs over the last year (which doesn't sound a lot but I think it's better than a fast drop) which I mainly atribute to fasted cardio.
ie get up at 5.45am and do a reasonable distance on the bike, mine is a 35km loop.
I worked on the idea that on a normal day you get up, eat (say 300 c's) to fuel your ride, burn off 600 then eat another meal when you get back (say 300c's agian) and you're no better off.
Instead, get up and ride burning 600 c's then eat a smaller breakfast of 200 c's to fuel the rest of your morning. You're then in calorie defecit*.
*possibly a made up term...
I do like my pre breakfast ride. The 24 mile loop is perfect for me but I've tried to up the length of time riding quality miles, aiming for the 3 hours plus 40 mile which is the weekend. I've read both are good for burning fat and I'm focused on adequate recovery as well including enough shut eye.“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
height? weight? current BMI? If your BMR is right then your calorie burn sounds high for 30 odd miles and 1500ft.
If you are time poor, then try to finish your riding on a high to get some oxygen deficit (EPOC/After burn) - it all helps. But can't say really what you should do without a rough idea of body mass.
Upping intake and riding more? Depends where you are now. If you want a flat diet (i.e. the same every day) rather than an intermittent fasting diet (e.g. 5:2) then IMO you wont go far wrong with:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/macro-m ... atios.html0 -
5'8 13st 4 lbs. BMI 29.34
When you say finish on a high, do you mean fast?“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
You don't have to worry about under eating. Right now there is plenty of energy stored for your body to consume, if it can't get it from food.
Yes working hard for the last 5-10 mins of your routine (providing you cool down/stretch properly) is supposed to put you in oxygen debt and raise your HR for several hours increasing you calorie burn. There is a lot of bro science out there as to how much of a difference it can make. Its sometimes called After burn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_pos ... onsumption0 -
I'm not time constrained fortunately, more energy/motivation constrained and have an aversion to hurting myself.
I'm on a weightloss diet myself, losing 1 or 2lb per week. Even though it's over 75% carbs I go into bonk towards the end of my 2-3 hr zone 1/2 rides without fail. TBH once i get out on the bike i'm enjoying it so much i won't stop till i hit the wall.
Sprint finishes are definitely out of the question in my case - to go into oxygen debt, you convert glucose to lactate and pay back the debt by converting the lactate back to glucose. If you're basically out of glucose however, the overdraft facility is not available.
Even so my HR is elevated 20bpm or more several hours after a ride.0 -
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you are bonking.
In zone 1,2 you "should" be able to go for hours. My take is this is a basic Cardio fitness thing, not a fuel thing (though the high carb diet may not be helping your recovery). Your glucose will be gone fairly early on in exercise and depending on the intensity, you'll then switch to glycogen and body fat. A typical man has about 1/2kg available which should last you easily. In Zone 1 or 2, as long as you have the cardio capacity, you should be able to go 6+ hours or more.
You could try some fasted training (as suggested in one of the earlier posts) to see if you can improve your endurance. I think its worth a go as it may even show that you are over eating before riding and basically your body is busy pumping blood to the stomach instead of keeping you going.
Do you drink while riding?
What is the reason behind the high carb diet - are you a body builder?0 -
Slowmart wrote:5'8 13st 4 lbs. BMI 29.34
I'm currently 5'10" and 15st dead. BMI is 30.1 :shock:
Thats me on the right last year in Italy with a bad day of helmet hair!
I think I'm too short for my weightAdvocate of disc brakes.0 -
OK to be fair i need to get a HR monitor/do a max hr test/functional power test/power meter to really know what zones i'm in. I'm just basing subjective feel out on the road compared to the hr and power numbers i see on the static bike at gym.
If I've not trained the day before and eaten heartily, i can cycle for may be 2 to 3 hours with no food and not bonk, depending on intensity. I'm training 6 days a week and am in 1000 calories per day deficit with respect to food, so i'm already half empty when i set off.
re: whether i know what bonking is
1. i'm not dehydrated, i can tell from the amount i'm urinating and the colour of it
2. i'm not suffering muscle fatigue. if i refuel i can go on twice as long again
3. i'm not out of breath and my hr is pretty constant, if anything it drops when i bonk
4. i quite rapidly go from "on top of the world" feeling, to lightheaded, confused, unco-ordinated, like i'm drunk or hungover or both. Muscles also feel weaker, but the main problem is i have a hard time remembering to pedal because i keep forgetting where i am and what i am supposed to be doing.
5. i did get one of those finger stab meters and saw readings around 3.1 mmol/l in bonk. only did it once or twice because it hurts and it's hard to remember how to use one in that state
re: the carbohydrates
If you're a low carb proponent i think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, or we'll end up in a flame war or putting each other on ignore.
the gym i go to pushes the paleo philosophy hard. Last year i was eating there (they have a canteen, serving paleo food) as well as training there. Weight loss wasn't as good, i was low on energy, getting cravings, dizzy spells, and binging. Fat calories and protein calories beyond my rda aren't going to help me through the next training session - they're wasted calories.0 -
homers double wrote:@Slowmart, what time of day do you ride? I've had a steady weight loss of around 10lbs over the last year (which doesn't sound a lot but I think it's better than a fast drop) which I mainly atribute to fasted cardio.
ie get up at 5.45am and do a reasonable distance on the bike, mine is a 35km loop.
I worked on the idea that on a normal day you get up, eat (say 300 c's) to fuel your ride, burn off 600 then eat another meal when you get back (say 300c's agian) and you're no better off.
Instead, get up and ride burning 600 c's then eat a smaller breakfast of 200 c's to fuel the rest of your morning. You're then in calorie defecit*.
*possibly a made up term...
Yup, that's what the general advice is, to workout before breakfast. Then have a decent breakfast.
The idea being that you don't have much stored glycogen after fasting overnight, so your body has to turn to fat as a fuel source. I do think that often on long rides I have a big breakfast, eat on the way around and then eat when I get back, it might be good for fitness, but for weightloss it does nothing.
Now it's a bit lighter I've been doing 30 minute rides in the morning, which I know it's a massive amount, but it already means getting up at 5.50am just to do that. Any more would mean cutting into my sleep which I don't want to do!0 -
Slowmart wrote:diy wrote:5:2 or 6:1 will achieve this and if you get to the point where you can encompass some of your fasting days as active recovery training days, then you'll get some bonk train/endurance benefit too.
I found big benefits in my endurance performance.
If you want to do it the other way, then calculate your BMR, plenty of scales can do this.. Add in your training effort per day and subtract 470kcal (per day) for every lb you want to drop per week.
So.. if my BMR is 1900, I am doing 600 training - I need just over 2000 per day to drop 1 lb per week.
Since BMR is the minimum, you can be a little generous on the allowance for output.
Thanks for replying.
So my BMR is 1688 less 470kcals = 1218 plus whatever calorie burn I have on the bike?
Ok so thats not far away from where I am with myfitnesspal and underlines my next question - how accurate is the garmin for calorie burn? Is there another formula?
This also goes back to my original question, I'm not hungry on 1200 calls a day, ok i may go over the 1200kcals a day by 300-500 on a garmin calorie count of 2000. To put that in perspective that was 33 miles, average 14.1mph and 1500ft climbing. it seems the common consensus on here is to increase my daily intake and increase the intensity?
Sorry, time poor here so i have to max out what time i have and want to spend it achieving something...
That seems an awfully high calorie count for 33 miles? In comparison last Sunday I rode 61 miles with 1,451ft climb and clocked 1600 calories???0 -
@ Homers double, yep, I reckon we were 6' plus until something heavy was dropped on our heads!
All
Cheers for the advice and links which have provided me a more informed insight....“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
Vmlopes wrote:Slowmart wrote:diy wrote:5:2 or 6:1 will achieve this and if you get to the point where you can encompass some of your fasting days as active recovery training days, then you'll get some bonk train/endurance benefit too.
I found big benefits in my endurance performance.
If you want to do it the other way, then calculate your BMR, plenty of scales can do this.. Add in your training effort per day and subtract 470kcal (per day) for every lb you want to drop per week.
So.. if my BMR is 1900, I am doing 600 training - I need just over 2000 per day to drop 1 lb per week.
Since BMR is the minimum, you can be a little generous on the allowance for output.
Thanks for replying.
So my BMR is 1688 less 470kcals = 1218 plus whatever calorie burn I have on the bike?
Ok so thats not far away from where I am with myfitnesspal and underlines my next question - how accurate is the garmin for calorie burn? Is there another formula?
This also goes back to my original question, I'm not hungry on 1200 calls a day, ok i may go over the 1200kcals a day by 300-500 on a garmin calorie count of 2000. To put that in perspective that was 33 miles, average 14.1mph and 1500ft climbing. it seems the common consensus on here is to increase my daily intake and increase the intensity?
Sorry, time poor here so i have to max out what time i have and want to spend it achieving something...
That seems an awfully high calorie count for 33 miles? In comparison last Sunday I rode 61 miles with 1,451ft climb and clocked 1600 calories???
I'd always guessed at 500 cals an hour for my 14mph bimbling round here, and when I got a Garmin Edge Touring Plus last year it seemed to agree. 2000 sounds like an over estimate unless you managed to be riding into a gale force headwind all the way round.0 -
keef66 wrote:Vmlopes wrote:Slowmart wrote:diy wrote:5:2 or 6:1 will achieve this and if you get to the point where you can encompass some of your fasting days as active recovery training days, then you'll get some bonk train/endurance benefit too.
I found big benefits in my endurance performance.
If you want to do it the other way, then calculate your BMR, plenty of scales can do this.. Add in your training effort per day and subtract 470kcal (per day) for every lb you want to drop per week.
So.. if my BMR is 1900, I am doing 600 training - I need just over 2000 per day to drop 1 lb per week.
Since BMR is the minimum, you can be a little generous on the allowance for output.
Thanks for replying.
So my BMR is 1688 less 470kcals = 1218 plus whatever calorie burn I have on the bike?
Ok so thats not far away from where I am with myfitnesspal and underlines my next question - how accurate is the garmin for calorie burn? Is there another formula?
This also goes back to my original question, I'm not hungry on 1200 calls a day, ok i may go over the 1200kcals a day by 300-500 on a garmin calorie count of 2000. To put that in perspective that was 33 miles, average 14.1mph and 1500ft climbing. it seems the common consensus on here is to increase my daily intake and increase the intensity?
Sorry, time poor here so i have to max out what time i have and want to spend it achieving something...
That seems an awfully high calorie count for 33 miles? In comparison last Sunday I rode 61 miles with 1,451ft climb and clocked 1600 calories???
I'd always guessed at 500 cals an hour for my 14mph bimbling round here, and when I got a Garmin Edge Touring Plus last year it seemed to agree. 2000 sounds like an over estimate unless you managed to be riding into a gale force headwind all the way round.0 -
RutlandGav wrote:re: the carbohydrates
If you're a low carb proponent i think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
No not at all,diets for specific goals, is my view. I think there are a 1000 ways to achieve a goal, so wouldn't dream of saying my way is best. I asked about the high carb because it sounded like you were managing macro nutrient ratios for a rapid weight gain/strength program. 75% carb - is a f*** load of carb. Even BodyBuilders on crash weight gain wont go much over 60%, 25% 15% carb/protein/fat.
- My goal was a reduction of risk indicators. i.e. cholesterol and growth factor. I needed a diet that I could stay on and would work around my work demands, hence I'm a faster. I lost weight as a consequence - My BMI went from a nearly acceptable 26 (I've done bodybuilding of some sort most of my adult life) to 21, which I personally felt was too skinny. Holding it around 23 at the moment by upping my strength training.
I would have a go at some bonk training. Have you tested for diabetes /hypoglycemia?
@Ai_1, keef66, Vmlopes look at the BMI, plus we don't know the intensity.0 -
diy wrote:...@Ai_1, keef66, Vmlopes look at the BMI, plus we don't know the intensity.
Weight dictates energy requirements for altitude gain. Speed (and aerodynamics) dictate energy requirements for distance covered. His weight is similar to mine (he's about 2kg lighter) and his average speed was similar to mine (I accept the variability of speed will have an impact but since I did much more climbing on my ride, speed variability would be greater so probably more aerodynamic loses). I know this isn't exactly precise but IF my data is correct, it's unlikely that his is. Similar weight and avg speed but we got similar calorie usage figures despite mine being 35% extra distance and 160% more climbing.
The IF above is important! When I changed from my old Garmin Forerunner 305 to my current Forerunner 910XT a couple of years ago, I noticed a dramatic change in the calorie predictions despite all the same raw data.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:diy wrote:...@Ai_1, keef66, Vmlopes look at the BMI, plus we don't know the intensity.
Weight dictates energy requirements for altitude gain. Speed (and aerodynamics) dictate energy requirements for distance covered. His weight is similar to mine (he's about 2kg lighter) and his average speed was similar to mine (I accept the variability of speed will have an impact but since I did much more climbing on my ride, speed variability would be greater so probably more aerodynamic loses). I know this isn't exactly precise but IF my data is correct, it's unlikely that his is. Similar weight and avg speed but we got similar calorie usage figures despite mine being 35% extra distance and 160% more climbing.
The IF above is important! When I changed from my old Garmin Forerunner 305 to my current Forerunner 910XT a couple of years ago, I noticed a dramatic change in the calorie predictions despite all the same raw data.
My 800 is 4 years old and I've ensured the data in there specific to my weight now. The software is up to date and the comments on this have made me question the validity of the calorie burn on the Garmin. As for the intensity, I'm not using a heart rate monitor , the majority of the ride was untaken at a pace where I where a conversation would have been possible but not comfortable.“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
Slowmart wrote:Ai_1 wrote:diy wrote:...@Ai_1, keef66, Vmlopes look at the BMI, plus we don't know the intensity.
Weight dictates energy requirements for altitude gain. Speed (and aerodynamics) dictate energy requirements for distance covered. His weight is similar to mine (he's about 2kg lighter) and his average speed was similar to mine (I accept the variability of speed will have an impact but since I did much more climbing on my ride, speed variability would be greater so probably more aerodynamic loses). I know this isn't exactly precise but IF my data is correct, it's unlikely that his is. Similar weight and avg speed but we got similar calorie usage figures despite mine being 35% extra distance and 160% more climbing.
The IF above is important! When I changed from my old Garmin Forerunner 305 to my current Forerunner 910XT a couple of years ago, I noticed a dramatic change in the calorie predictions despite all the same raw data.
My 800 is 4 years old and I've ensured the data in there specific to my weight now. The software is up to date and the comments on this have made me question the validity of the calorie burn on the Garmin. As for the intensity, I'm not using a heart rate monitor , the majority of the ride was untaken at a pace where I where a conversation would have been possible but not comfortable.
I've lost about 10kg VERY slowly as the combined result of generally improving my levels of activity and also making a few periods of conscious effort to eliminate snacks and slightly reduce my portion sizes (my meals have always been reasonably sensible IMO). This has always worked well except that I've never maintained it for prolonged periods. After a successful couple of months I'd hit a stressful period of long hours in work or perhaps christmas would happen, or I'd get injured and my good habits would lapse. However I've never put back on as much as I lost. I think this is the right approach, for me at least. As much as I'm generally a numbers guy, calorie accounting doesn't appeal to me. Your views may differ!
I'm pretty healthy (cholesterol, blood sugar, etc) and was comfortable enough with my current weight for a while but now I want to get it lower. I look and feel okay but I think I'd look and feel better if I was closer to 80kg versus 86kg. It would also help my running significantly and obviously would be a big help riding in the mountains too.0 -
I've been enjoying the outliers argument, and thought a picture would paint some useful words (assuming there's no trolling going on of course).
Here's a graph of some weight measurements from beginning of Jan 2015 to recently showing an overall weight loss from 15 stone to 11 stone. The overall trend is linear, so shows somebody perfectly able to control their calorie intake (if a little extreme). However, there is a natural variation about that linear trend of +/- 3 lbs a day.
I hope it's clear that you can pick two measurements on that graph a week apart, and believe that your weight is going up - even though in fact the trend is reducing at 3 to 4 lbs per week! Only by seeing instantaneous measurements in context of lots of measurements can you see that the weight is going down.
0 -
BM for some reading!
Currently 91 kgs. Want to be down to 82 by July.0 -
ilav84 wrote:BM for some reading!
Currently 91 kgs. Want to be down to 82 by July.
Stop eating? Chop off a leg?I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
jawooga wrote:I've been enjoying the outliers argument, and thought a picture would paint some useful words (assuming there's no trolling going on of course).
Here's a graph of some weight measurements from beginning of Jan 2015 to recently showing an overall weight loss from 15 stone to 11 stone. The overall trend is linear, so shows somebody perfectly able to control their calorie intake (if a little extreme). However, there is a natural variation about that linear trend of +/- 3 lbs a day.
I hope it's clear that you can pick two measurements on that graph a week apart, and believe that your weight is going up - even though in fact the trend is reducing at 3 to 4 lbs per week! Only by seeing instantaneous measurements in context of lots of measurements can you see that the weight is going down.0 -
ilav84 wrote:BM for some reading!
Currently 91 kgs. Want to be down to 82 by July.0 -
Slowmart wrote:Ai_1 wrote:diy wrote:...@Ai_1, keef66, Vmlopes look at the BMI, plus we don't know the intensity.
Weight dictates energy requirements for altitude gain. Speed (and aerodynamics) dictate energy requirements for distance covered. His weight is similar to mine (he's about 2kg lighter) and his average speed was similar to mine (I accept the variability of speed will have an impact but since I did much more climbing on my ride, speed variability would be greater so probably more aerodynamic loses). I know this isn't exactly precise but IF my data is correct, it's unlikely that his is. Similar weight and avg speed but we got similar calorie usage figures despite mine being 35% extra distance and 160% more climbing.
The IF above is important! When I changed from my old Garmin Forerunner 305 to my current Forerunner 910XT a couple of years ago, I noticed a dramatic change in the calorie predictions despite all the same raw data.
My 800 is 4 years old and I've ensured the data in there specific to my weight now. The software is up to date and the comments on this have made me question the validity of the calorie burn on the Garmin. As for the intensity, I'm not using a heart rate monitor , the majority of the ride was untaken at a pace where I where a conversation would have been possible but not comfortable.
Not using a heart rate monitor is going to substantially affect the accuracy - the Garmin uses the Firstbeat algorithm for determining calorie burn from heart rate (http://www.firstbeat.com/), which is supposedly one of the more accurate methods for measuing calorie burn outside of lab testing and if set up properly should be able to achieve within 10% of lab results, which is perfectly good enough for our purposes (see DC Rainmaker's post on the subjectfor a good overview).
Speed/distance based calorie estimates are substantially less accurate, potentially explaining why you're having issues with it:DC Rainmaker wrote:5) Speed/Distance Algorithm: This is the most basic method of determining calories, as it is only used when a heart rate strap is not enabled/used (default). Given the lack of heart rate data, the unit will simply use speed/distance, as well as the weight you entered in the device setup. The reason this is less accurate (65-80% accurate) is that it can’t differentiate how much effort you’re expending to travel a given distance – which while less important for running, is quite important for cycling.
Personally, my 810 HR-based calorie estimate is usually about 10-30% lower than Strava's internal calculation, but occasionally up to 10% higher. Strava makes a guess based in turn on another guess of my power output... So if I've spent a while struggling into a headwind Strava can't take this into account, for example, whereas HR does show the extra effort. I have also used Fitbit's internal speed/distance calculator, and this usually agrees fairly well for flat steady rides, but for anything else it tends to wildly overestimate (by over 50% higher than the Garmin on occasion).0