Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Calories burned

Old 09-25-23, 09:19 AM
  #26  
Troul 
Senior Member
 
Troul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 6,975

Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 2,766 Times in 1,788 Posts
if what you're doing is achieving the end goal, the revised data might have little value added.
__________________
-Oh Hey!
Troul is offline  
Old 09-25-23, 09:29 AM
  #27  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 6,992
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3572 Post(s)
Liked 3,853 Times in 2,441 Posts
Originally Posted by MoAlpha
Believe the PM. It is giving you a real measurement of the amount of work performed on the ride. The only uncertainty in estimating the number of calories consumed to perform that work is the efficiency with which your muscles convert chemical to mechanical energy and that doesn't vary much across healthy people. The fitness app is just guessing, based on numerous assumptions.
It's just a bit odd that it should be so far out using the same App. I just looked at a couple of my mtb rides and the Strava estimated power and calorie burn is very similar to what I see on my road bike or Kickr Bike with power meters. I wouldn't expect estimated power to be very accurate, but I'm certainly not seeing double my measured power!
PeteHski is online now  
Old 09-25-23, 09:38 AM
  #28  
MoAlpha
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: 11,574

Bikes: Shmikes

Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9599 Post(s)
Liked 5,397 Times in 2,890 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
It's just a bit odd that it should be so far out using the same App. I just looked at a couple of my mtb rides and the Strava estimated power and calorie burn is very similar to what I see on my road bike or Kickr Bike with power meters. I wouldn't expect estimated power to be very accurate, but I'm certainly not seeing double my measured power!
Is the Wahoo thing using the Strava estimated power?
MoAlpha is offline  
Old 09-25-23, 10:15 AM
  #29  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,144

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 121 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10499 Post(s)
Liked 6,943 Times in 3,917 Posts
Originally Posted by wheelreason
That's not what I said. Cycling burns approximatelly 400-1200 calories per hour depending on intensity. Excersice is important in order to maintain or loose weight for various reasons, but the actual calories burnt, while certainly part of the equation do not themselves lead to weight loss.
So calories burned while exercising is not how weight is lost, but calories burned while exercising is part of the equation that results in weight lost.

Thank you for...
- stating what most everyone already knows.
- being pedantic.
- continually confusing 'loose' with 'lose'. Its always fun to see someone correct others while confusing 'loose' and 'lose' with regard to the loss of something.


Yes yes, if you increase your caloric intake to match your increased caloric burn, you will not lose weight and your clothes will not be 'loose'.
Thats pretty obvious.
All else the same, an increase in exercise results in a decrease in weight.
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 09-25-23, 10:52 AM
  #30  
wheelreason
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,348
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 359 Times in 206 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr
So calories burned while exercising is not how weight is lost, but calories burned while exercising is part of the equation that results in weight lost.

Thank you for...
- stating what most everyone already knows.
- being pedantic.
- continually confusing 'loose' with 'lose'. Its always fun to see someone correct others while confusing 'loose' and 'lose' with regard to the loss of something.


Yes yes, if you increase your caloric intake to match your increased caloric burn, you will not lose weight and your clothes will not be 'loose'.
Thats pretty obvious.
All else the same, an increase in exercise results in a decrease in weight.
LOL. You win, I loose...
wheelreason is offline  
Likes For wheelreason:
Old 09-25-23, 11:23 AM
  #31  
Black wallnut 
Senior Member
 
Black wallnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ellensburg,WA
Posts: 3,134

Bikes: Schwinn Broadway, Specialized Secteur Sport(crashed) Spec. Roubaix Sport, Spec. Crux

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked 139 Times in 70 Posts
Originally Posted by Craptacular8
Power meters should give you the most accurate information. They are not infallible though, so just use them as a general guide.....and leave plenty of wiggle room. I say this as someone that has experienced just how crap Garmin's Rally power meter pedals truly are. Calibrated and riding the same loop for a few months, they at least gave me what I thought was good baseline information, ie, I typically rode at about 187 watts, and on this one loop, that equaled about 700 calories. That was a true statement until a couple months ago when it started shaving 70 watts of every ride. Same loop, same cadence, faster time....70 watts less. Garmin has been unresponsive, aside from having me update the software on my head unit, which did nothing. At any rate, it makes following doctors orders more difficult. They have advised me eating 2000 calories a day when I don't ride, and about a 500 calorie deficit on days when I do. Given that my weight loss is miniscule, and longer/harder rides might be 1600 calories effort....or maybe they are 2800....I have no real way of knowing any longer, but know when my scale goes up by a pound after a ride like that...I guessed wrong, and ate too little.
Two reasonable explanations. First you are going faster thus less time in the exercise. Second you are becoming more efficient in your cycling also decreasing the your watt output for a given speed, maybe your cadence is increasing.
__________________
Sir Mark, Knight of Sufferlandria
Black wallnut is offline  
Old 09-25-23, 11:39 AM
  #32  
Craptacular8
Senior Member
 
Craptacular8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 635
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked 36 Times in 31 Posts
power meter

Originally Posted by Black wallnut
Two reasonable explanations. First you are going faster thus less time in the exercise. Second you are becoming more efficient in your cycling also decreasing the your watt output for a given speed, maybe your cadence is increasing.
Cadence is the same. Going faster at the same cadence should mean more watts were used to achieve that performance gain, given I'm comparing values over the exact same course. I would anticipate some improved efficiency, but probably not much, as I cycle all year round. The big wattage reduction occurred during a one week period...so, let's say same route/bike always showed 187 watts on Friday and prior rides, but by Monday that same route/bike/performance now started showing 100 watts. It's stayed pretty consistent at that lower rate since that time, for the past 2 months. I would expect to see that efficiency maybe in the KJ that Garmin measures, though not entirely sure how sophisticated their calculation is. I'm a little suspicious that Garmin's power meter isn't really all that technical either. It looks like it's pretty much just saying my average gravel ride is worth 30 calories per mile, and is doing little aside from that to generate a value.
Craptacular8 is offline  
Old 09-25-23, 12:14 PM
  #33  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 6,992
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3572 Post(s)
Liked 3,853 Times in 2,441 Posts
Originally Posted by Black wallnut
Two reasonable explanations. First you are going faster thus less time in the exercise. Second you are becoming more efficient in your cycling also decreasing the your watt output for a given speed, maybe your cadence is increasing.
It doesnt work like that. If you really produce 70W less power then you go slower. In this case the PM is clearly faulty.
PeteHski is online now  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 09-25-23, 12:19 PM
  #34  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 6,992
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3572 Post(s)
Liked 3,853 Times in 2,441 Posts
Originally Posted by MoAlpha
Is the Wahoo thing using the Strava estimated power?
I dont know what the Wahoo App uses for estimated power. Maybe it just uses a generic calorie burn per hour number for each type of activity. Ive never used the Wahoo App myself.
PeteHski is online now  
Old 09-25-23, 12:27 PM
  #35  
Iride01 
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,156

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5839 Post(s)
Liked 4,458 Times in 3,074 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
It doesnt work like that. If you really produce 70W less power then you go slower. In this case the PM is clearly faulty.
Not real clear. We don't know if this was solo or group. Riding behind someone will make for less watts on the same course than solo. Perhaps this time of year favors a different wind direction over the course the OP was mentioning.

It's not clear whether the OP is talking about total watts used for the ride, the watts just for that loop or the average hourly watts for the ride.

I just wouldn't make the blanket call that it can only be the PM's fault.
Iride01 is offline  
Old 09-25-23, 01:44 PM
  #36  
Craptacular8
Senior Member
 
Craptacular8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 635
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked 36 Times in 31 Posts
Solo rides, the surface is always a little deep/loose sandy gravel, it's always windy, though the direction switches around...sometime during the same ride. Data I'm using goes from April through end of August, then, the abrupt change in wattage. I'm going by Garmin's reported weighted average power number.
Craptacular8 is offline  
Old 09-25-23, 04:51 PM
  #37  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 6,992
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3572 Post(s)
Liked 3,853 Times in 2,441 Posts
Originally Posted by Iride01
Not real clear. We don't know if this was solo or group. Riding behind someone will make for less watts on the same course than solo. Perhaps this time of year favors a different wind direction over the course the OP was mentioning.

It's not clear whether the OP is talking about total watts used for the ride, the watts just for that loop or the average hourly watts for the ride.

I just wouldn't make the blanket call that it can only be the PM's fault.
Total power is not even a thing since power is a rate of work done over time.

It seemed pretty obvious he was talking about average power over his regular route, which suddenly dropped by 70W for no apparent reason without any change in speed, cadence or perceived effort. That doesnt happen for real.

I typically see a variation of about 5W on average power when riding the same loop at the same perceived effort. A 70W difference in average is like going from a recovery spin to a full gas effort.
PeteHski is online now  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 09-28-23, 06:51 AM
  #38  
RH Clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 389 Post(s)
Liked 387 Times in 207 Posts
Yes, you will need to consume fewer calories than you burn to lose weight. That does not necessarily mean that counting calories and estimating calories burned is the best way. Calorie counting assumes all calories are equal, and that certainly isn't true as different foods effect different processes in a human body. Starting at age 50, in 2 years I lost 180lbs without ever counting a single calorie or estimating calories burned.
RH Clark is offline  
Likes For RH Clark:
Old 09-28-23, 07:25 AM
  #39  
Jklotz
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2023
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked 36 Times in 22 Posts
Back to the OP, I think I may have found some insight into this. I did a ride yesterday and recorded it on the wahoo/PM pedals and also on my garmin instinct 2 watch, not paired with the PM but to HR strap. In comparing the numbers afterwards, the garmin app shows total number of calories burned, which is a good bit higher than the wahoo. When I went into the app and looked at the stat details, however, it breaks it down further into activity calories and resting calories, in other words how much it thinks I have burned from cycling AND how much I burned normally during that time period, and the sum is the number presented for the workout. You have to go into the stats page in the app to see the breakdown. The wahoo, OTOH, simply displays calorie burn in relation to watts produced, or "activity" calories. Comparing active calories, the garmin was still a bit high, but was way closer to what the wahoo showed. Closer than I expected actually.

In reality, I only care about the active calories, as the resting calories are already accounted for in my 1850/day target. Something to keep in mind if you use that metric for weight loss. Anywho, mystery solved. Hopefully some of you may find this helpful.
Jklotz is offline  
Old 09-28-23, 08:11 AM
  #40  
wheelreason
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,348
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 359 Times in 206 Posts
Originally Posted by Jklotz
Back to the OP, I think I may have found some insight into this. I did a ride yesterday and recorded it on the wahoo/PM pedals and also on my garmin instinct 2 watch, not paired with the PM but to HR strap. In comparing the numbers afterwards, the garmin app shows total number of calories burned, which is a good bit higher than the wahoo. When I went into the app and looked at the stat details, however, it breaks it down further into activity calories and resting calories, in other words how much it thinks I have burned from cycling AND how much I burned normally during that time period, and the sum is the number presented for the workout. You have to go into the stats page in the app to see the breakdown. The wahoo, OTOH, simply displays calorie burn in relation to watts produced, or "activity" calories. Comparing active calories, the garmin was still a bit high, but was way closer to what the wahoo showed. Closer than I expected actually.

In reality, I only care about the active calories, as the resting calories are already accounted for in my 1850/day target. Something to keep in mind if you use that metric for weight loss. Anywho, mystery solved. Hopefully some of you may find this helpful.
Yeah, folks burn around 1400-2500 calories a day doing absolutelly nothing, so like 7 rich donuts, and it would take you around 2 hours to burn them off working out.
wheelreason is offline  
Old 09-28-23, 08:16 AM
  #41  
Jughed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 608

Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Liked 525 Times in 261 Posts
Last nights ride -
Garmin head unit, Garmin power pedals
846 Calories
Normalized power 201, average 189
1:20 min

Strava
961 calores (+115 calories - 12% difference)
Normalized power 191, average 176 (5% less)

One app is 5% less in power numbers - and I have no clue why as it gets data from Garmin, and 12% more in calories burned.

And yes, Garmin lies to make me feel good... says it was a recovery ride. No way is that power level a recovery ride for me.
Jughed is offline  
Old 09-28-23, 08:25 AM
  #42  
Mojo31
-------
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Tejas
Posts: 11,444
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8577 Post(s)
Liked 5,688 Times in 3,116 Posts
Originally Posted by Broctoon
I'm always a bit suspicious of any data put out by a fitness app. I mean, they're very accurate with time and distance, but health and training stats are just estimates.

Garmin tells me my estimated VO2 max is around 45 or 46. I'm like, "Okay, cool!" Then it says I'm in the top 15% for my age and gender, and I think, "Seriously? Me?" It goes one step further and says "Your Fitness Age is that of an excellent 20-year-old." At that point my 53-year-old self says, "No way. They're just trying to keep me using their products."
Flattery gets them everything.
Mojo31 is offline  
Old 09-28-23, 08:32 AM
  #43  
Jughed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 608

Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Liked 525 Times in 261 Posts
Originally Posted by RH Clark
Yes, you will need to consume fewer calories than you burn to lose weight. That does not necessarily mean that counting calories and estimating calories burned is the best way. Calorie counting assumes all calories are equal, and that certainly isn't true as different foods effect different processes in a human body. Starting at age 50, in 2 years I lost 180lbs without ever counting a single calorie or estimating calories burned.
Yep - starting at age 47, 320#+++ - age 51 184# and declining.

Never once counted a calorie.

2 meals per day with a 16-18 hour fast, low carb (keto), and a ton of cycling.

I've since added breakfast back in and am slow rolling some healthy carbs back into the mix - still losing weight.
Jughed is offline  
Likes For Jughed:
Old 09-28-23, 12:36 PM
  #44  
RH Clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 389 Post(s)
Liked 387 Times in 207 Posts
Originally Posted by Jughed
Yep - starting at age 47, 320#+++ - age 51 184# and declining.

Never once counted a calorie.

2 meals per day with a 16-18 hour fast, low carb (keto), and a ton of cycling.

I've since added breakfast back in and am slow rolling some healthy carbs back into the mix - still losing weight.
I have about the same story. I was 360-380 when I turned 50 and had not been on a bike for 40 years. I rode 360 days my second year and got down to 170. 5 years later I'm 180. I do a 4-6 hour feeding window every day and whole food low carb. I lost all mine by eliminating 5 foods completely, sugar, bread, rice, pasta and potatoes. I ate as much as I wanted of anything not containing those foods and never counted a calorie.

Both ways work and anybody losing weight is consuming fewer calories than they are burning, but for me getting into ketosis gave me more energy without ever being hungry.
RH Clark is offline  
Old 09-28-23, 12:44 PM
  #45  
Jughed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 608

Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Liked 525 Times in 261 Posts
Originally Posted by RH Clark
I have about the same story. I was 360-380 when I turned 50 and had not been on a bike for 40 years. I rode 360 days my second year and got down to 170. 5 years later I'm 180. I do a 4-6 hour feeding window every day and whole food low carb. I lost all mine by eliminating 5 foods completely, sugar, bread, rice, pasta and potatoes. I ate as much as I wanted of anything not containing those foods and never counted a calorie.

Both ways work and anybody losing weight is consuming fewer calories than they are burning, but for me getting into ketosis gave me more energy without ever being hungry.
all those foods and plus one more thing - alcohol. I was stuck at 225 for a year or so, quit sipping whiskey and low carb beers - 45 more pounds and counting.

I've tested my personal limits with keto - high intensity work or tempo type rides. I fail miserably and don't recover at all. My cycling gains came to a halt.

Moderate healthy carb intake - meaning carbs from whole/natural foods = extra 20-25w to my Z2, helps fuel my intense rides & helps recovery. But I am a slight bit hungrier. Still losing weight, but I want to eat...
Jughed is offline  
Old 09-29-23, 05:57 AM
  #46  
Craptacular8
Senior Member
 
Craptacular8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 635
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked 36 Times in 31 Posts
Calories

Originally Posted by Jughed
Last nights ride -
Garmin head unit, Garmin power pedals
846 Calories
Normalized power 201, average 189
1:20 min

Strava
961 calores (+115 calories - 12% difference)
Normalized power 191, average 176 (5% less)

One app is 5% less in power numbers - and I have no clue why as it gets data from Garmin, and 12% more in calories burned.

And yes, Garmin lies to make me feel good... says it was a recovery ride. No way is that power level a recovery ride for me.
At least on my Garmin head unit, if I look in the Garmin Connect app, it will show the same breakdown. It will show active, and total calories burned. For me, total calories burned figure from Garmin equals what is shown in Strava, ditto for Garmin's average power. It is the same figure that Strava shows. Strava does something different that Garmin's Normalized power figure, they show Weighted Avg power, which does not seem to correlate to any figures that Garmin generates from a power meter.
Craptacular8 is offline  
Likes For Craptacular8:
Old 09-29-23, 06:29 AM
  #47  
bruce19
Senior Member
 
bruce19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,449

Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1717 Post(s)
Liked 1,267 Times in 731 Posts
Cycling alone is not going to cause you to lose weight. I suspect you know that already. Reduce calorie intake, cycle, weights and do it consistently. Be patient. That last one always kills me. As for accuracy in calories burned, nothing is going to be 100% accurate. But, estimates are still helpful. When I use online formulas I see 15 cals per minute at 15 mph. There are just too many variables. I rarely bother to look and if I do I just substitute 10 cals for the 15 cals/min. I don't really care that much.
bruce19 is offline  
Old 09-29-23, 08:31 AM
  #48  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 6,992
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3572 Post(s)
Liked 3,853 Times in 2,441 Posts
Originally Posted by Jughed
Last nights ride -
Garmin head unit, Garmin power pedals
846 Calories
Normalized power 201, average 189
1:20 min

Strava
961 calores (+115 calories - 12% difference)
Normalized power 191, average 176 (5% less)

One app is 5% less in power numbers - and I have no clue why as it gets data from Garmin, and 12% more in calories burned.

And yes, Garmin lies to make me feel good... says it was a recovery ride. No way is that power level a recovery ride for me.
Strava doesnt measure Normalized Power like Garmin. They have their own proprietary Weighted Average Power which for me always gives a lower value. There is no right or wrong here, they are both proprietary attempts to normalise average power to take account of how lumpy your terrain was.

Average Power however should be the same in both cases and for me it always is. I wonder if you have set one App to show average power only while moving and the other to show average power including any stops? Thats the only way Average Power can be different with the same power data.
PeteHski is online now  
Old 09-29-23, 08:39 AM
  #49  
Jughed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 608

Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Liked 525 Times in 261 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
Average Power however should be the same in both cases and for me it always is. I wonder if you have set one App to show average power only while moving and the other to show average power including any stops? Thats the only way Average Power can be different with the same power data.
Will check that out. Thanks.


More on calories - I rode a very easy paced ride with a guy from my charity ride team, he's slow going and just starting to train. 20 miles @ 14mph. His apple Apps had him at 1200+ calories for the ride. Garmin with power meter had 560 - which falls in line with other easy rides. That is a huge delta.

And he was thinking that he could go home and eat whatever he wanted - because 1200+ calories.
Jughed is offline  
Old 09-29-23, 09:51 AM
  #50  
wheelreason
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,348
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 359 Times in 206 Posts
Originally Posted by Jughed
Will check that out. Thanks.


More on calories - I rode a very easy paced ride with a guy from my charity ride team, he's slow going and just starting to train. 20 miles @ 14mph. His apple Apps had him at 1200+ calories for the ride. Garmin with power meter had 560 - which falls in line with other easy rides. That is a huge delta.

And he was thinking that he could go home and eat whatever he wanted - because 1200+ calories.
So now he is going to go treat himeself to 900 calories thinking he's ahead. That 1200 number is off by a factor of 2 or so. There is no way to figure out why without knowing the inputs and formulas used by the app. It's probably adding on metabolic calories as well. Enjoy the ribs!...
wheelreason is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.