HUD Customisation

It would be great if we could have some control over the metrics displayed in either the HUD or the companion dashboard. Key metric I am after is normalized power. This should be a really quick update. Normalized power is a key metric to help understand how hard we are riding / racing.

Also some control over power zones in Zwift would be helpful too……the existing power zones and associated colors at the bottom bar, bear no resemblance to my chosen training zones….


Unless your FTP in your [in-game] profile is way off, there isn’t much for them to be wrong; <60%, 60-75%, 76-89%, 90-104%, 105-120%, >120%

(that said, if you’re asking to be able to set them to very custom %'s, that’s different).

But if your FTP in Zwift in-game doesn’t match to whatever you’re going off of, then that’s your issue.
(for the record, the in game FTP bears no resemblance to your zFTP on the website / ZP, which is why I’m specifically referring to it as in-game profile FTP). This number is ONLY accessible in-game in the main menu after clicking on your profile picture.

Remember; Zwift’s in-game FTP won’t decrease automatically, it will only go up; and if it hasn’t changed in a very long time, or you’re recovering… then your power zones will be very far off the mark.

Thanks - yes I use a very customized set of Zones, so having flexibility to set my own in Zwift would be great.

1 Like

Just wanted to add a thought based on this thread to make sure it got heard- one option should be to turn on/off the navigation signs even when HUD is hidden. I tried riding without the HUD and it was quite less stressful in many ways, but I couldn’t turn how I wanted! :weary: Would love HUD off much better if this was there. :smiley:

Can calories be added to the dashboard?

Apparently this is triggering for some folk.

My understanding is that there is no functionality to have watts, rpm and heart rate averages along side the live data while riding. If correct, why not, could this not be developed? If wrong, how to get it?

It would be a rough estimate at best. I would suggest counting calories that you ingest instead for better results in the long run.

1 Like

No more or less rough than the amount shown in the ride summaries at the end. So I suspect the request is just about showing the cumulative calorie count on the dashboard using the same approach for the totals.

The calorie itself is a mostly mythical thing. Energy taken in to be used by our bodies is only an estimation based on a method of measurement that’s nothing like our bodies use. Ask anyone who’s carefully counted calories consumed and calories expended and found themselves not losing weight (and then getting blamed for miscounting or lying). It’s all rough estimates at best, in and out.


Agreed, I have had much better success in tuning in to my body’s cues on hunger and satiety than counting calories. It wasn’t until I started doing the former that I could actually manage my weight. I tried counting calories for years and didn’t have much success. It seemed like I was either starving myself which led to cheating/binging or meeting my numbers but not really losing weight.

Start running. Then you’ll see calories.:wink:

I don’t track calories personally, but isn’t biking with a power meter one of the better methods to estimate calories burned? I thought it was something like ±5% accuracy with a well calibrated power meter due to differences in efficiency etc. which isn’t too bad.

1 Like

From what I’ve read it’s within 5% accuracy if using a power meter. If it’s based off heart rate it’s within 20-25% and if not using either it’s just a guess.

According to google-fu: calories = kilojoules/4.184/.25. Kilojoules are derived from watts done over time… so why would calories not be precise?

How 'bout making Drops=Calories ? :grinning:

When someone says that power expended is ‘within 5% accuracy’ for calories expended, what measurement are they using to compare to?

When a food’s caloric content is measured in a lab–the way they get the number you see on a package–is by burning it. Literally burning it, with a flame. Stomachs don’t use flames. And not all stomachs process equally. The calorie itself, when used for food consumption, is not a precise tool to begin with. Calories expended in exercise then will be equally imprecise. Everyone pretends that the calorie is a precise thing, and it’s certainly true that if you accept as an assumption that it is precise, you can do all sorts of wonderful-seeming things with it. But it’s not precise. The numbers Zwift could show you on your HUD would necessarily be nothing more than a rough estimate. Same as the numbers on a gym treadmill, or the numbers from an HR watch.

That’s not itself to argue that they should or shouldn’t be displayed. But my take on it has been that, because people think the calorie is a precise measurement, when they see calories displayed, they end up coming to incorrect conclusions. And they often end up pressuring themselves, or being pressured by others, because of a devotion to a number. YMMV there of course.

I think this is a good summary…

Are you suggesting they should remove calories from all food labels as well? Calories may be not be perfect, but it might be the best measurement for someone’s goal if their goal is to track a certain amount of energy expended on a ride and themselves attempt to correlate it to something in the real world. It might not be perfect, but I’m not sure there’s a better metric.

No, I wouldn’t say that calories should be removed. But possibly changing them to something that clearly indicates the imprecise nature of the number would be better. “~300 calories”, for example. The major problem as I see it with calories being believed to have precision is because often people’s experiences don’t track what the numbers tell them they should. And I’ve known people who have been literally told by their doctors, trainers, etc “you’re lying” when they say what their numbers have been but they ‘still aren’t losing weight’. That’s massively frustrating and counter-productive. As is even seeing those numbers yourself and not seeing the expected results. “Why isn’t it working for me?” This is a significant source of stress for many people.

So maybe just an indication of the imprecise nature of the calorie would help. But I agree that some sort of number being there can be valuable. Ordering the giant burger at the drive-thru and seeing that it’s 2000 calories (or ‘~2000 calories’ if the change was made) can be pretty effective too.

I know in general what they’re doing. My point in asking the question was to lead into the notion that what the watt numbers are being compared to is already imprecise.