|Author:||Sorting Last Post on Top ↓ Message:||
Thanks for that thread link, I wanted to dredge up the thread for some equations and was dreading how much time it would take!
In God we trust, all others bring data.
- W. Edwards Demings
If God invented marathons to keep people from doing anything more stupid, the triathlon must have taken Him completely by surprise.
Specificity, specificity, specificity.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
- Frank Kotsonis
i use a hr monitor, i have the polar f11, and i just got the garmin 305. both have chest straps, they are not uncomfortable. i mtb and wear a back with straps. there is no problem there. the HR monitor is worn lower on your body, then where the back pack strap will hit.
the garmin is really cool because it records all kinds of additional info, but the watch part is kind of big. it has a gps built in. a bike computor will give you the same info, but the garmin graphs it and shows asent and descent, milage, hr at certain point of your ride or work out. really a neat thing to have.
if you are looking more for calories, just a HR monitor will do, i think with all the starts and stops on your it wouldnt be a bad idea to get one. chest strap is no problem. i forget i have mine on.
I think SP is off by some 41% on average. We actually had a back-and-forth forum post on this a few months back:
Edited by: SWEETCYCLINHAMS at: 2/17/2010 (19:54)
Thanks David. I'll send a private message with my email address for the screen capture.
Bummer that Spark is so off on their calorie figures. I base my nutrition tracker off the fitness calorie total.
I JUST tested the link I posted and it appears it's no longer there (I think it was originally posted about 10-15 years ago, so it's no wonder). Regardless, it truly is a VERY nice piece of software.
I actually have it as a stand-alone application you can run on your computer. If you'd be interested, I can send you a screen capture. If it looks interesting enough, I'll gladly send it to you to test drive.
Let me know.
Edited by: SWEETCYCLINHAMS at: 2/17/2010 (19:26)
To answer your last question first: Lord, NO! The SP calorie counter is horrifically inaccurate. It always tells me I burned somewhere around 1,000-2,000 more than I actually did. Here's a link to a really good calorie calculator that's far more accurate and takes into account a great number of variables with more concise results:
(You'll probably have to copy and paste the link in segments since SP parses links. It also runs an applet, so you may get a security warning but it truly is safe.)
As for your first question: I actually prefer the chest strap because it's so much less intrusive and seems far more accurate (to me) as it rests directly atop my heart vs. a wrist mount like the Garmin series. Being a female, you may well prefer something like the Garmin 305, 405 or 605 (I think all the new ones do it, with the right add-on's) which is a watch type unit.
I hope this helps!
I bike to and from work each day, totaling about 90 minutes each day. I get going at a pretty good clip but because I live in an urban area I get stopped at street lights, etc. Because of the bursts of speed and the stopping and starting I am not sure if Spark's calorie figures are correct.
I am considering buying a heart rate monitor but don't know much about them. I probably wouldn't like the one that straps around the chest (Bodybugg?) because I wear a backpack with a waist and sternum strap. Is there a brand that some of you awesome cyclists prefer?
Or, in your experience, are the Spark calorie figures for cycling pretty accurate?
Thanks and I can wait to hear your suggestions!
Edited by: CHICKYSOUP at: 2/17/2010 (19:08)
|Changing a Bicycle Flat Tire Without Hands||1/29/2014 9:51:46 AM|
|The Great Big FANY Ride - a bicycle tour across NY||5/21/2013 7:21:16 AM|
|May Riding Challenge||6/4/2014 10:30:13 AM|
|Improving side visibility - Fiks:Reflective||4/4/2014 9:45:34 AM|
|Bike Loot||1/28/2014 1:01:57 PM|