Calorie counters and bike computers - 2 questions!
DavidfromWarboys
Posts: 80
Right, firstly, my wife uses the exercise bike and the treadmill but feels that the calorie counts are very different between each. So, it might be right, it might be wrong but I'd like to buy her a cheap machine that will allow her to measure her calories used consistently across both. She has an iPhone but I was thinking about a watch. Can't figure which would be good without a chest strap.
Secondly, I'm using Strava on my bike, mounted on the handlebars with a top peak mount. It's realy hacking me off for a number of reasons now. Firstly, the battery goes after about 3 hours, secondly, the bloody thing goes to sleep if I don't remember to touch it every 4 minutes (and that is an accident waiting to happen!) and thirdly, in spite of Strava being pretty excellent, the fact that they still cannot programme it to show current speed means they don't deserve my £4.99 per month. What should I buy, with gps?
Secondly, I'm using Strava on my bike, mounted on the handlebars with a top peak mount. It's realy hacking me off for a number of reasons now. Firstly, the battery goes after about 3 hours, secondly, the bloody thing goes to sleep if I don't remember to touch it every 4 minutes (and that is an accident waiting to happen!) and thirdly, in spite of Strava being pretty excellent, the fact that they still cannot programme it to show current speed means they don't deserve my £4.99 per month. What should I buy, with gps?
0
Comments
-
Buy a Garmin 200 or 500.
500 if you want to have a wheel based speed and cadence sensor, although either the 200 or 500 will record and show speed anyway using their gps.
The charge will last for ages, and they're reliable, have a look at them, garmin are the most popular cycling gps computers.
They do higher models that do more but these will do what you need and more. You can still use Strava to track all your activities, and/or 'garmin connect' https://connect.garmin.com/en-US/
As far as your wife goes, dunno. On the topic of calorie counting though, what I do know is calorie estimators on Strava and Garmin are overestimated and based on algorithms that seem way off, I generally think they read about double what they should when doing moderate effort road biking for example.0 -
does anybody know how to stop a 5s going to sleep. According to my web research many iphones have the option of "never" but I seem to have 1,2,3,4 and 5 mins.0
-
My 5s has a 'never' option... Why do you want the screen on all the time? The battery will last longer if it's off. You could always get that Wahoo RFLKT, although i'm pretty sure it won't help your phone battery...0
-
Er, it most definitely will help his phone battery if he is keeping the screen on all the time.My 5s has a 'never' option... Why do you want the screen on all the time? The battery will last longer if it's off. You could always get that Wahoo RFLKT, although i'm pretty sure it won't help your phone battery...
The screen is what is making the battery run down in three hours - if you want to keep it on you'll need to turn the brightness right down to get any sort of life out of it (which yes, in sunny weather will make it near impossible to read...). This is why dedicated bike computers exist, and have small screens = less power.
You could consider getting one of those strap on batteries for your phone if you're keen to keep using it, but for yourself, either a RFLKT or a cheap garmin 200/500/20/25 is probably the way forward.
For your wife, to get even vaguely accurate calorie counting you need to monitor your heart rate throughout the exercise - if you don't want to wear a strap across your chest then there are some watches that will do it, such as the new garmin FR225 - http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/05/garmin-fr225-gps-optical-hr.html - although that is probably massive overkill.
Even with the HR monitor the calorie counting isn't very reliable and I'd argue a fairly pointless exercise - quite honestly if you want to lose weight, set a daily food calorie target, don't exceed it, take regular exercise, monitor your weight loss. If you are losing weight too quickly, increase calorie target, if not losing weight decrease target/stop cheating/do more exercise. An estimation of 'calories burnt' is IMO a poor motivational tool for exercise.0 -
Er, it most definitely will help his phone battery if he is keeping the screen on all the time.
Obviously, however it will use more battery than it does when it's not connected it to the RFLKT, which was my point. :roll:0 -
As others have said, calorie counting is never going to be very accurate even using HR and without HR it's much worse again.
It's just as good, to pick a number of calories for a given distance of a given activity and just work towards distance goals as opposed to calorie goals. For example you might say:
Brisk walk: 50 cals/km
Run: 75 cals/km
Cycle: 35 cals/km
Note: These are completely made up numbers and may be way off.
On the bike I'd go for a Garmin bike computer such as those mentioned by others; or if you also run and you don't mind spending a bit more, get one of their multisport watches and a quick release kit so it can be mounted to the bars or on your wrist without any hassle.0 -
A Garmin with a HR strap uses the Firstbeat algorithm to measure energy expenditure (calories burnt) and it's pretty accurate by all accounts. The compatible cycling computers are Edge 500/510/800/810/1000.0
-
It gives very different results, in my experience, to the method used by Garmin when HR or power data are not available, and I suspect it's a lot more accurate with HR. But a lot more accurate doesn't mean accurate. I still suspect it's a very rough estimate at best. I occasionally glance at the calories figures just out of curiosity but I don't display them on the watch or use them as goals of any sort. Distance, elevation and HR are far more useful for evaluating work done onthe bike (if you've a power meter then better again!). For running or walking Distance, speed, elevation and HR tell you all you really need in terms of effort expended.A Garmin with a HR strap uses the Firstbeat algorithm to measure energy expenditure (calories burnt) and it's pretty accurate by all accounts. The compatible cycling computers are Edge 500/510/800/810/1000.0 -
It gives very different results, in my experience, to the method used by Garmin when HR or power data are not available, and I suspect it's a lot more accurate with HR. ....A Garmin with a HR strap uses the Firstbeat algorithm to measure energy expenditure (calories burnt) and it's pretty accurate by all accounts. The compatible cycling computers are Edge 500/510/800/810/1000.
I noticed the other day I'd done a regular ride but the Garmin hadn't picked up the HR for some reason. The calorie figure for the ride was about 40% higher than the average when the HR is recorded. I think the calorie figure with HR looks about right when compared with published figures using more accurate measures.0 -
As advised by others, for weight loss best to count calories consumed (plenty of apps can do that) and set a target based upon but less than the recommended daily intakes for a woman and increase your exercise regime.
That way calories IN will be less than calories OUT and you are likely to lose weight.
THEN start to look at the where your calories are coming from and start to eat better (more healthy/less processed) forms and the weight loss will be more effective.
THEN maintain the new regime for ever.... although you will be able to flex on calorie intake as you reach your optimum weight.0 -
Yes, I think it always gives a much higher figure without HR.
It gives very different results, in my experience, to the method used by Garmin when HR or power data are not available, and I suspect it's a lot more accurate with HR. ....A Garmin with a HR strap uses the Firstbeat algorithm to measure energy expenditure (calories burnt) and it's pretty accurate by all accounts. The compatible cycling computers are Edge 500/510/800/810/1000.
I noticed the other day I'd done a regular ride but the Garmin hadn't picked up the HR for some reason. The calorie figure for the ride was about 40% higher than the average when the HR is recorded. I think the calorie figure with HR looks about right when compared with published figures using more accurate measures.
My old Forerunner 305 used to give very high figures too despite my using a HR strap. Perhaps that predated the HR based algorithm? My 910XT gives much more credible figures but I still don't take them as anything but a rough ballpark figure.0 -
I used the Garmin with HRM calorie figures to lose 2 stone in 10.5 weeks. They are definitely in the ball park and way lower than the Strava and other estimates I've seen bandied around. The numbers equate to 10 calories per minute for a brisk/tempo/sweetspot cycle, but not all runs are done that sort pace so it can be hard to judge without some sort of device. I'd definitely put faith in the Garmin+HRM numbers for weight loss purposes given the success I've had using it.
Yes, I think it always gives a much higher figure without HR.
It gives very different results, in my experience, to the method used by Garmin when HR or power data are not available, and I suspect it's a lot more accurate with HR. ....A Garmin with a HR strap uses the Firstbeat algorithm to measure energy expenditure (calories burnt) and it's pretty accurate by all accounts. The compatible cycling computers are Edge 500/510/800/810/1000.
I noticed the other day I'd done a regular ride but the Garmin hadn't picked up the HR for some reason. The calorie figure for the ride was about 40% higher than the average when the HR is recorded. I think the calorie figure with HR looks about right when compared with published figures using more accurate measures.
My old Forerunner 305 used to give very high figures too despite my using a HR strap. Perhaps that predated the HR based algorithm? My 910XT gives much more credible figures but I still don't take them as anything but a rough ballpark figure.0 -
On the other hand, while accurate calorie figures would be useful for that purpose, the most important thing, IMO, is the ability to compare activities. i.e. The actual value is not that important. The consistency of any error is probably of more significance.....
I used the Garmin with HRM calorie figures to lose 2 stone in 10.5 weeks. They are definitely in the ball park and way lower than the Strava and other estimates I've seen bandied around. The numbers equate to 10 calories per minute for a brisk/tempo/sweetspot cycle, but not all runs are done that sort pace so it can be hard to judge without some sort of device. I'd definitely put faith in the Garmin+HRM numbers for weight loss purposes given the success I've had using it.0
