Mountain biking calories make no sense

jj2339

Well-known member
Apr 29, 2014
84
0
6
Visit site
So I went for a thirty minute slow jog, did three miles. I got 350 calories for that. Then I went for an 8 mile mountain bike trek, later on same day, and I only for 454 calories. The bike was an hour and fourth minutes with a higher average heart rate (155 vs 120) for a longer period of time (30 mins vs one hour forty). However the tracking was off, it only measured 7 miles.

Regardless it’s nuts that a brief run that didn’t slay me gave me almost as much calorie benefit as a tough hour and a half bike ride up and down hills!

I did notice a year ago that when I bike on dirt, I get far less credit than on concrete. Another trail I like has a ten mile dirt section and a seven out and back. Watch gave me a lot more calories for the paved vs dirt. Wonder if watch algorithm is based on speed vs heart rate for biking?

Any ideas?
 

Annie_M

Moderator
Mar 2, 2016
21,725
742
113
Visit site
I agree that doesn't make a lot of sense! If I were you, I'd submit feedback to Apple. There's clearly something off there! [URL="https://www.apple.com/feedback/watch.html#mn_p]Click here for a link to Apple Watch Feedback[/URL].
 

jj2339

Well-known member
Apr 29, 2014
84
0
6
Visit site
I really thought I was going to see photos of a Mountain Bike...LOL

Ha! Here you go!

195b3235ad55176ffb95ef8846940365.jpg
 

Spencerdl

Apple Watch Champion
Moderator
Jan 10, 2013
41,121
193
63
Visit site
Absolutely! End of the day it’s the time outside that matters, not how many calories I get back from the watch!

That's exactly what I was thinking. I personally think "we" get to wrapped up in tech, that we forget about the enjoyment part.
 

Trees

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2012
1,171
11
38
Visit site
If there are downhill areas where you are coasting more than working hard on level or uphill sections then that may account for some differences.

It might be an interesting experiment to try the same ride with a 3rd party app like Endomondo, which does have an MTB workout category, and compare that with the native watch app Outdoor Cycle workout category.

Will probably not be possible to get an exact comparison given workout exertion differences between rides. If time is no obstacle, then doing the same comparison more than once would be ideal to get more data samples.
 

imwjl

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2011
1,399
12
38
Visit site
So I went for a thirty minute slow jog, did three miles. I got 350 calories for that. Then I went for an 8 mile mountain bike trek, later on same day, and I only for 454 calories. The bike was an hour and fourth minutes with a higher average heart rate (155 vs 120) for a longer period of time (30 mins vs one hour forty). However the tracking was off, it only measured 7 miles.

Regardless it’s nuts that a brief run that didn’t slay me gave me almost as much calorie benefit as a tough hour and a half bike ride up and down hills!

I did notice a year ago that when I bike on dirt, I get far less credit than on concrete. Another trail I like has a ten mile dirt section and a seven out and back. Watch gave me a lot more calories for the paved vs dirt. Wonder if watch algorithm is based on speed vs heart rate for biking?

Any ideas?

The Cyclemeter (Abvio) app has explicit settings for sports the built in watch app does not have. Using its mountain biking setting I get a calorie burn that makes more sense. It does require your phone to be with you but that's an advantage for an epic type ride - the battery life. The app lets you import other exercise sessions from Health app data.

I know some who use the Strava app that is stand alone but I do not like Strava. Something to know is Abvio privacy and sync lets you send your rides to Strava and other services or keep it all private.

My habit has become use Cyclemeter for a true MTB ride and that way I know and use it's year over year comparison. I look at total cycling in Health app vs my miles in Cyclemeter to know what's been true MTB riding.