Sorry for the big screen shot. Shrinking it rendered hard to see text. See if you can spot the ??? (it's not the auto lap ever 2 miles either. A friend set it up and he for some reason likes that)

http://jamisonroberts.com/images/garmin1.png

I rode 31.43 miles and it appears my average cadence was 71 RPM. Can anyone say "masher"?

While losing weight remains priority #1, I'm going to make a new priority #2; and that's to train myself to spin faster. Maybe aim for 85 RPM.

What's funny is that when I started road cycling in 2004, I used a cadence sensor and always kept my cadence between 90-100. But then I felt that I knew what 90 cadence "felt like", so I removed the sensor and have ridden without for 2005-Yesterday. No wonder my quads are always singing after a ride (and I end up with knee pain as the year goes on).

Thats alot of good info. Which Garmin do you have? I've been thinking about getting one, perhaps the 705.

Thanks.

That's just the 305 with cadence, speed, and heart rate sensors

Are zeros included in the average? Don't you have a cadence display? Haven't you noticed that you were pedaling sub-80s all the time?

I'm not sure how the Garmin handles this, but what happens when you stop pedaling ona descent, or at a traffic light? If the avg cadence includes that time at 0 rpm, then the average might be somewhat lower than your actual "average" while spinning. Does that make sense?

My computer just has instantaneous cadence - so I've no idea what my average is. I try to spin @ 90 - 100 rpm, but there are definitely times when I'm much lower.

I'm not sure how the Garmin handles this, but what happens when you stop pedaling ona descent, or at a traffic light? If the avg cadence includes that time at 0 rpm, then the average might be somewhat lower than your actual "average" while spinning. Does that make sense?

My computer just has instantaneous cadence - so I've no idea what my average is. I try to spin @ 90 - 100 rpm, but there are definitely times when I'm much lower.

I believe that some of the "lowness" of the cadence value has to do with coasting. However, I was by myself or on the front on a flat course about 90% of the time, so I think the number probably isn't more than 10% off.

The old version of Training Center included 0's in cadence. The updated version does NOT include 0's. Which version do you have?

How did you burn 2000 calories that quickly? That seems quite high.

iliveonnitro - I downloaded that version last night. This was my first ride with the 305 and even with a heart rate monitor.

filtersweep - You'd have to ask Garmin how they came up with that number. I gave it some of my personal info such as gender, age, weight, max heart rate and the software does the rest.

Cadence doesn't really mean, well, much at all.

Some pedal at 70. Some pedal at 100.

Let your body tell you what you need to pedal at. Normally pedaling higher cadences take a lot more fitness, so chances are good that you'll pedal higher RPMs the fitter you get.

Don't worry about it for now. Just ride.

70 cadence is very different than 100 cadence, and there is a difference between those numbers. 70-80? 90-100? Maybe not...

The garmin calorie counter works with or w/o the HR monitor strap, just like all gym machines. I wouldn't trust any calorie counter that isn't attached to a power measuring device.

How did you burn 2000 calories that quickly? That seems quite high.

Agreed. The data presented suggests 64 calories per mile. That's just about double what the real number would be (assuming around 20 mph on flat roads). Bogus.

Don't sweat the cadence numbers. I just looked back at mine and they are a little higher say 78-84 for 20-30 miles rides. I normally spin in the 90-100 cadence range. The lower number accounts for soft pedaling and coasting.

Per both my Polar HRM and my Garmin I burn ~65 cal/mile. Frankly I pay no attention to that. The truth is told when I step on the scale.

Looking at your totals, I recently did a very similar ride

Dist = 31.33
Time = 1:47:18
Ave Heart Rate 159
Max HR 187
Ave Cadence 84
Total Ascent 1635 (lots of 100' rollers)

Please don't tell me you are an 85 year old lady :)

By the way, I had my Garmin set for 1 mile auto lap increments and it filled up the memory after about 1000 miles so I turned it off. You can download Sport Tracks software and break it down into various increments by mile without having to have it stored on your Garmin. The only thing I don't like about Sport Tracks is that the elevation numbers are way off compared to Garmin.

Don't sweat the cadence numbers. I just looked back at mine and they are a little higher say 78-84 for 20-30 miles rides. I normally spin in the 90-100 cadence range. The lower number accounts for soft pedaling and coasting.

Per both my Polar HRM and my Garmin I burn ~65 cal/mile. Frankly I pay no attention to that. The truth is told when I step on the scale.

Looking at your totals, I recently did a very similar ride

Dist = 31.33
Time = 1:47:18
Ave Heart Rate 159
Max HR 187
Ave Cadence 84
Total Ascent 1635 (lots of 100' rollers)

Please don't tell me you are an 85 year old lady :)

By the way, I had my Garmin set for 1 mile auto lap increments and it filled up the memory after about 1000 miles so I turned it off. You can download Sport Tracks software and break it down into various increments by mile without having to have it stored on your Garmin. The only thing I don't like about Sport Tracks is that the elevation numbers are way off compared to Garmin.

No, I'm not an 85 year old woman, so you can rest easy there. However, it was just my 8th ride since mid October, and I weigh 250+

Thats alot of good info. Which Garmin do you have? I've been thinking about getting one, perhaps the 705.

Thanks.

I posted a quick review of my 705 here...

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=127829

How did you burn 2000 calories that quickly? That seems quite high.

The Vermin way overestimates calories I have recently found since putting on a PowerTap.

Here the comparison for the last three rides I've done:

PT:1338 / 305: 2777
PT: 2303 / 305: 4075
PT: 1207 / 305: 1674

How did you burn 2000 calories that quickly? That seems quite high.

I also use a 305 and for my own tracking of calories and such I have found that multiplying Garmin's number by 0.58 gives a much more reasonable value.

....The only thing I don't like about Sport Tracks is that the elevation numbers are way off compared to Garmin.

TC is totally inaccurte when it comes to elevation numbers. They massage the elevation data and do not tell you how they do it. SportTracks will also massage the data but at least you have the option of how its done.

My ST settings are anything over .5% is climbing, set in Categories for Climb Zones and data smoothing over a 5 second period set in Settings/Analysis. That seems to give me very accurate numbers when compared to digital elevation maps.

For me the TC numbers are worthless, YMMV.

In regards to Training Center...

The storage format is plain XML, so you can view the data if you wish. I believe by default the Garmin 305 records data every second. So for a 2 hour ride you will have 7200 data points. Each second the unit records your current GPS location and the elevation.

I believe all TC does is if the previous point is lower than current, then sum difference to elevation, if it's less, sum difference to descent, else do nothing.

I think I will write an XSL transform that will smooth the data too...for instance, if you've been going up for more than 10 linear, then start adding elevation.

Because I'm sure that doing 1500 ft of climbing over 30 miles is less strenuous than a single climb of 1500 ft. (which I've never done).

TC is totally inaccurte when it comes to elevation numbers. They massage the elevation data and do not tell you how they do it. SportTracks will also massage the data but at least you have the option of how its done.

My ST settings are anything over .5% is climbing, set in Categories for Climb Zones and data smoothing over a 5 second period set in Settings/Analysis. That seems to give me very accurate numbers when compared to digital elevation maps.

For me the TC numbers are worthless, YMMV.

I disagree for this reason:

Sport Tracks takes the data as recorded by the Garmin and then manipulates it by removing any climbing/descents that fall within the definition of "flat". Thus, by manipulating flawed data (due to time between measurements), it becomes more flawed.

I have my Garmin set to smart recording in lieu of taking data every second. If I used the every second option it would take more data points, thus pick up more subtle elevation changes making the total ascent/descent numbers go up, which technically would be more accurate. By exporting the Garmin data to an Excel file you can see that they simply take every data point and compare it to the previous point. If the elevation went up they count the difference as ascent. If it goes down, they cout the difference as descent. Very simple. Training Center reflects that simple approach.

From using various maping utilites, looking at ride profiles provided by ride organizers and looking at old fashioned topo maps I have found them to be more in line with my Garmin than with what Sport Tracks reports.

Here is an example for you: if you were to build a ramp to the top of Mt. Everest 1,000 miles long you could ride to the top and Sport Tracks would claim 0' of ascent because the grade would be less than .5%.

All of that being said, I like Sport Tracks better in all aspects except ascent calculations.

I disagree for this reason:

Sport Tracks takes the data as recorded by the Garmin and then manipulates it by removing any climbing/descents that fall within the definition of "flat". Thus, by manipulating flawed data (due to time between measurements), it becomes more flawed.

I have my Garmin set to smart recording in lieu of taking data every second. If I used the every second option it would take more data points, thus pick up more subtle elevation changes making the total ascent/descent numbers go up, which technically would be more accurate. By exporting the Garmin data to an Excel file you can see that they simply take every data point and compare it to the previous point. If the elevation went up they count the difference as ascent. If it goes down, they cout the difference as descent. Very simple. Training Center reflects that simple approach.

From using various maping utilites, looking at ride profiles provided by ride organizers and looking at old fashioned topo maps I have found them to be more in line with my Garmin than with what Sport Tracks reports.

Here is an example for you: if you were to build a ramp to the top of Mt. Everest 1,000 miles long you could ride to the top and Sport Tracks would claim 0' of ascent because the grade would be less than .5%.

All of that being said, I like Sport Tracks better in all aspects except ascent calculations.
Smart recording is better than every second in almost every aspect including elevation. Problem with Training Center's simplistic approach is that the altimeter (barometric in 305/705, gps based in 205/705) is not perfect and occasionally will have spurious readings not at all in line with reality.

If I didn't have to worry about fatigue because of the 1000 mile distance or the thin air at higher elevation there really isn't much real climbing in your scenario (as unrealistic as it is just to prove a point). You could easily ride at the same speed using the same effort when the grade is less than .5% just as well as 0%.

I have come not to trust cue sheets and ride profiles since most are based on flawed data they got by assuming that the simplistic method of calculating elevation is the best way.

Other that that, I do agree that SportTracks is better than Training Center or MotionBased, for that matter, in all respects when it comes to recording and archiving ride data.

The Vermin way overestimates calories I have recently found since putting on a PowerTap.

Here the comparison for the last three rides I've done:

PT:1338 / 305: 2777
PT: 2303 / 305: 4075
PT: 1207 / 305: 1674

From what I have observed, the PT records calorie expenditure when you are actually producing watts. It does not record calories expended while coasting. Granted, the number of calories consumed while coasting may not be significant but PT is not calculating the calories you burned on the ride but rather the calories burned producing the watts recorded.

From what I have observed, the PT records calorie expenditure when you are actually producing watts. It does not record calories expended while coasting. Granted, the number of calories consumed while coasting may not be significant but PT is not calculating the calories you burned on the ride but rather the calories burned producing the watts recorded.

Sure, but you're burning a few calories sitting on the couch too. I think you'd have to put in twelve and a half hours of coasting to account for the extra calories the Vermin reports.