Ride time v elapsed time from garmin to Xert

I noticed the time xert sees as time for your ride is elepased time, meaning when i ride 10 minutes and i have a break of 50 minutes Xert think i ride 60 minutes. I dont think thats correct. Could you please adjust that to riding time? And whats the impact because it looks at elpased time now for your fitness planner?

We look at elapsed time for calculating MPA and Difficulty Score since they will decline over time. The software will insert the data during auto-pause, in fact. This is by design.

1 Like

Is there a way to show both then? my weekly total training time gets exaggerated due to coffee breaks etc. Use Elapsed time for your MPA calcuation but use ride time to show ride time totals?

1 Like

Should we count stops at stop lights? Long descents? Repairing flat tire? Waiting at a train track? Does walking your bike count? Walking near your bike? What if GPS isn’t on?

This is why our metrics aren’t based on averages over time unlike all other systems.


While I do not have a problem with either approach, this answer seems a bit harsh.

Short traffic light and train track stops wouldn’t do much to the total. Other long stops can either be pre-determined in length automatically, like > 5 or > 10 minutes, or invoked by the user pressing pause on his device.

Yes, you will then get ‘Oh, I forgot to press pause’, but in general, it would apparently make people happy to have the metric.

Even so, it/you wouldn’t need to change your calculations, as I can see how they are ‘by design’ and having a break is considered rest. And if anyone wants a correct ‘follow the cues’ workout, they should do that indoors, or on long straights without traffic, so there are no interruptions.

But people get out and it’s not so weird that stat nerds want to see numbers like this and yes, they can turn to Strava or Garmin - is that what you want?

1 Like

Yeah. Sorry about that @Cyclopaat and @ooglenz. It is a question we get often and perhaps the implications of using averaging and elapsed time get lost.

We can perhaps display an “elapsed time” as determined by 3rd parties. They aren’t all the same note.

Please remember though that Xert changes a lot of what people are used to. For example, people are still interested in FTP and Normalized Power too. NP (and by virtue TSS), is based on averaging btw, which begs the question of which stops to include. In fact, during their development, they came up with the idea of a Burrito rule which meant that if the stop was shorter than what it takes to eat a burrito, it was counted otherwise is wasn’t. Crazy huh?

Frankly, rather than give folks all of the old data here so that they don’t need to go elsewhere prolongs to change over to a process that doesn’t exhibit such arbitrary concepts. We try and be as deterministic as possible. Folks will look at elapsed time and average power for a while until they realize there is no need and that it doesn’t really provide a good way to compare one thing to another. Such is the Xert way.


It’s a real eyeopener when people stop using auto-pause or pausing their devices themselves. Shows you just how much time you spend not working if you’re not careful. I’d much rather have 100% accurate data, that I can look at and act upon if needed, than an artificial figure that flatters my performance. My ride today came in at four hours, with a quick stop for a photo and pee, cannot see any sense in not including that stop in my data, as otherwise the data doesn’t reflect exactly what happened.

Fair enough Armando and I for one have let go of all the old ways. But, I try also to explain why and how they compare.

It’s true, people generally are looking for a one-stop solution and it’s virtually impossible.

If it’s easy to implement an extra timer showing elapsed time, then why not? It won’t change anything, which arguably makes it obsolete, but anyway.

I was struggling with a three big ass mountain ride with three fast descents being qualified as moderate endurance ride or something, thinking whether or not it was because of the elapsed (downhill) time, but I’ve mastered the numbers, which is what matters.

1 Like

Xert needs to offer a bootcamp where newbies can go to be deprogrammed.
Some “stat nerds” and “zonies” may flunk out though. :slight_smile:


Did you master WKO4? I just mean, they all have a learning curve :joy:

Stat nerds is what defines most of us, which is why there is Elevate, Strava Sauce, intervals.icu and a ton of sites helping you repair flunky data.

And then there is Xert - but it’s not perfect either, just better at most things :sunglasses:

1 Like

I’d go just to understand wtf I’m doing :rofl:


Greetings Armando. Pleased to meet you and sincere congratulations for this incredible training platform. I do not know how Garmin does its calculations, but when you finish any activity it tells you both elapsed (total) and effective training time based I guess on feeling sensors feeding data and gps if on. Given that you pause the activity and not select ‘resume later’.

usually done by movement. I think Garmin Connect calls it “moving time,” and Strava calls it “total moving time,” or something to that effect. That is versus the whole recording, which is “elapsed time.”

So as we describe in our podcast, if you sprint and stop (say at a stop light) you can get a pretty high average power for extended periods. Being stopped or moving isn’t a good enough criteria for what gets counted and what doesn’t.

1 Like

You’re overthinking it. Nobody is talking about power, breakthroughs and other Xert metrics, actually in this thread, nobody cares about that.

It’s fine to look at elapsed time for the metrics, but people want to see the moving time in addition to. They want a more accurate assessment of Progression and Weekly Stats to not include the 30 minutes you stopped to talk to a friend, or the 20 minutes in the port-a-potty, or the hour in the coffee shop, or the 30 minutes trying to find that tube patch that you lost in your bag.

When I read the thread, that’s pretty much all I see being asked. The only responses about metrics, and stop lights, and power, has been from your responses.

People keep an eye on different things for different purposes.


Thank you , Iamholland.

1 Like

You can calculate however is necessary. I just want to also include a “moving” time field in addition for my own reference rather then having to go to Garmin or Strava or TP to view it. I’m sure you know they show both. Thank you.

1 Like

Yes my only goal was to see the total riding time, not to change anything else. I understand the point of view of xert.

One could argue that Xert’s 24/7 predictive modeling is more accurate (to their model) because it ignores the concept of moving time. “Moving time” is an arbitrary construct to begin with.
If people want to get all analytical about it how about tracking cadence activity? IE moving feet (pedaling) versus moving bike (coasting)?
If you aren’t pedaling should that really count as moving time? :thinking:

Should Xert acquiesce to those that gotta-have-it or stick with explaining why you-don’t-need-it?
Seems to me this is kinda like asking Tesla to include a gas gauge.
Useless for driving the car but it’s a comfort to those accustomed to pumping gas.
Maybe we should just blame auto-pause. :grin: Or Garmin.

Yes, because that’s part of the activity. Coasting is an inevitable part of cycling, and you are physically moving. If you want to pedal down hill, you’re more than welcome to it, but you’re still moving and progressing along a planned route.

Tesla, gas gauge isn’t really a relevant analogy. It’s completely off-base and misses the point. There’s nothing here about adding a gauge for a non-relevant energy system. It’s about trying to exclude some time without having to split the fit file and manually upload things.

You can take side-shots at it, for being anal :roll_eyes: , but I know it’s a knee-jerk defensive reaction.

I’m not sure why some people get somewhat peeved up about this. It’s really intriguing and amusing to watch this thread. As if the world will turn upside down because “the metrics…” It’s pretty amazing, actually. Does it really break the metrics? No. Is Xert so absolutely revolutionary that the world collapses by excluding some time? Not really.

Really? I thought it was clearly explained.


But, I guess that’s what Xert is for. Hardcore training all the time. Coffee rides, and cruises with friends to lunch and back, and forgetting stop the Garmin, need not apply. It’s not stated to be such, but if that’s the way it’s approached, then sure, OK. That sorta makes sense, in some illogical parallel universe.

Or just remove the metrics entirely, if it’s deemed so worthless or so absolutely important that it can never be presented as anything but the total time that you had your recording device on.

I guess it boils down to some problems in the algorithm, which is probably why stop lights keep coming up. Heart rate, cadence, etc. will all “skip” during that time, so it’s really not hard to qualify or dis-qualify something.