more calories or less?
Comments
-
Is there a way to test the intefgrity of a helmet? I have heard they become unreliable after 4 years.0
-
Is there a way to test the integrity of a helmet? I have heard they become unreliable after 4 years.0
-
paulevy wrote:If a loop consistes of a 1/2 mile steep uphill and 5 miles gentle down grade when going clockwise, and 5 miles of gentle upgrade to the top of a 1/2 mile steep hill going countercloskwise, which way uses up more calories of the rider?
Should be the same, if done in the same time.We are born with the dead:
See, they return, and bring us with them.0 -
paulevy wrote:Is there a way to test the integrity of a helmet? I have heard they become unreliable after 4 years.
Yes, run head first into a wall at ever increasing speeds until you are knocked unconscious (wearing your helmet of course, to do so with no helmet would just be plain silly). After you are released from hospital, repeat this test wearing a brand new helmet of the same type. If the old helmet allows you to be knocked unconscious at a lower impact speed then it's integrity had been compromised and you should no longer wear it (not that you could by this point of course).
Hope this helps.
Hypocrisy is only a bad thing in other people.0 -
paulevy wrote:If a loop consistes of a 1/2 mile steep uphill and 5 miles gentle down grade when going clockwise, and 5 miles of gentle upgrade to the top of a 1/2 mile steep hill going countercloskwise, which way uses up more calories of the rider?
Physics says it will be the same work done in calories , pretty much regardless of the time taken (I think!). But obviously doing it quicker will place greater demands on your heart/lungs and the direction taken will determine which metabolic systems are chiefly used. Steep hill =short hard effort = fast muscle fibres, more anaerobic, gentle upwards slope, slow muscle fibres, more aerobic etc.
Hope this helps
0 -
If a man makes a mistake and his wife doesn't know, is he still wrong?0
-
Yes of course he is. He's always wrong!SteveR_100Milers wrote:If a man makes a mistake and his wife doesn't know, is he still wrong?
Ruth0 -
Are you sure? According to James Thurber "a woman's place is in the wrong".BeaconRuth wrote:
Yes of course he is. He's always wrong!SteveR_100Milers wrote:If a man makes a mistake and his wife doesn't know, is he still wrong?
:shock:0 -
ut_och_cykla wrote:paulevy wrote:If a loop consistes of a 1/2 mile steep uphill and 5 miles gentle down grade when going clockwise, and 5 miles of gentle upgrade to the top of a 1/2 mile steep hill going countercloskwise, which way uses up more calories of the rider?
Physics says it will be the same work done in calories , pretty much regardless of the time taken (I think!).
Hope this helps
Not so! The biggest source of resistance in cycling ... air resistance of course. Which explains most of why Lance, pushing out 400+ watts doesn't go twice as fast as me pushing out 200. The fast you go, the more calories you burn for any given distance (ceterus parabus and all that).0 -
I reckon you'll burn more calories going up the steep section rather than down it. Steeper climbs will bring out inefficiency in form and possibly your bike too which will make the energy cost higher. Also, the climb may be steeper than you can comfortably do because your lowest gear is not low enough. This will force you to expend more energy and climb faster.0
-
At first I thought that wildmoustache was correct. The energy used to raise the weight of the bike and rider through the vertical distance is the same in both cases. Going up the steep hill will be slow so wind resistance will be small, whereas going up the gentle slope will be quick and wind resistance will be high. But thinking about it... the rider may well freewheel down the steep hill, thus using no energy there, but ride down the gentle slope absolutely eyeballs out ((copyright) David Duffield) and using up a lot more energy overcoming wind resistance.wildmoustache wrote:Not so! The biggest source of resistance in cycling ... air resistance of course. Which explains most of why Lance, pushing out 400+ watts doesn't go twice as fast as me pushing out 200. The fast you go, the more calories you burn for any given distance (ceterus parabus and all that).
In reality, the biggest difference might be which direction the wind (if any) is blowing. Near where I live is the longest continuous uphill gradient in England - the climb from Mytholmroyd to Blackstone Edge via Cragg Vale. This is about 5.5 miles up onto open moorland and only one little section in the middle is fairly steep. The rest is just a long drag so a fit rider can really power up it. There is, however, often a headwind as you get out into the open higher up and that really is what determines how difficult the climb is on a given day. From Blackstone Edge down to Littleborough is much steeper. From Littleborough it is valley roads via Todmorden and Hebden Bridge back to Mytholmroyd. I've done this loop*** many times in both directions and I wouldn't say that it is easier either way on a still day.
*** If you live in the area, it's a nice challenge to see if you can do the loop solo in an hour. It's 20 miles with a 1,000 ft climb and other undulations. My record so far is about 1 hour 8 minutes but I'm hoping to break the hour in 20080 -
SteveR_100Milers wrote:If a man makes a mistake and his wife doesn't know, is he still wrong?
Is it possible to make a mistake & your wife not know?There is no secret ingredient...0 -
wildmoustache wrote:ut_och_cykla wrote:paulevy wrote:If a loop consistes of a 1/2 mile steep uphill and 5 miles gentle down grade when going clockwise, and 5 miles of gentle upgrade to the top of a 1/2 mile steep hill going countercloskwise, which way uses up more calories of the rider?
Physics says it will be the same work done in calories , pretty much regardless of the time taken (I think!).
Hope this helps
Not so! The biggest source of resistance in cycling ... air resistance of course. Which explains most of why Lance, pushing out 400+ watts doesn't go twice as fast as me pushing out 200. The fast you go, the more calories you burn for any given distance (ceterus parabus and all that).
Yes wind resistance must be taken into account . However cycling up hills usually goes quite a bit slower than on teh flat - even for Lance - and thus I'm not sure wind etc would play too great a part in the calculations regarding how many calories are burnt/how much work is done. perhaps I'm wrong - I did stop physics when I was 14!
And on another note - does Steve 100milers have something he should tell his wife??? 0 -
wildmoustache wrote:ut_och_cykla wrote:paulevy wrote:If a loop consistes of a 1/2 mile steep uphill and 5 miles gentle down grade when going clockwise, and 5 miles of gentle upgrade to the top of a 1/2 mile steep hill going countercloskwise, which way uses up more calories of the rider?
Physics says it will be the same work done in calories , pretty much regardless of the time taken (I think!).
Hope this helps
Not so! The biggest source of resistance in cycling ... air resistance of course. Which explains most of why Lance, pushing out 400+ watts doesn't go twice as fast as me pushing out 200. The fast you go, the more calories you burn for any given distance (ceterus parabus and all that).
The point I'm objecting to is the "same calories, regardless of the time taken". That's false. Doing the 5 mile loop in 10minutes (c,pro TT pace) will use more calories than doing the loop in 20 minutes. The main reason for this is air resistance.0 -
I reckon ColinJ is about right - if the rider pedals up the hills and freewheels down them, then he'd use more calories going up the shallow side and down the steep side than vice versa, because of the higher speed while pedalling.
If the rider's gonna pedal down the hills, then maybe a better approach is to assume that he's at full power all the time, so the most calories just depends on which way round he takes longer.
That sum is a little too hard to do in me head.0 -
Ah but who pedals down steep hills :shock:!!! We've got some nasty 25% descents round here and you can hit over 50 mph in seconds without pedalling. If you had a high enough gear to be able to pedal, you'd be going so fast that you'd end up killing yourself. The only way you could do it is to jam your brakes on and pedal against the resistance but that wouldn't make much sense...sloboy wrote:If the rider's gonna pedal down the hills, then maybe a better approach is to assume that he's at full power all the time, so the most calories just depends on which way round he takes longer.0 -
wildmoustache wrote:wildmoustache wrote:ut_och_cykla wrote:paulevy wrote:If a loop consistes of a 1/2 mile steep uphill and 5 miles gentle down grade when going clockwise, and 5 miles of gentle upgrade to the top of a 1/2 mile steep hill going countercloskwise, which way uses up more calories of the rider?
Physics says it will be the same work done in calories , pretty much regardless of the time taken (I think!).
Hope this helps
Not so! The biggest source of resistance in cycling ... air resistance of course. Which explains most of why Lance, pushing out 400+ watts doesn't go twice as fast as me pushing out 200. The fast you go, the more calories you burn for any given distance (ceterus parabus and all that).
The point I'm objecting to is the "same calories, regardless of the time taken". That's false. Doing the 5 mile loop in 10minutes (c,pro TT pace) will use more calories than doing the loop in 20 minutes. The main reason for this is air resistance.
Still not sure you're right on this. The faster ride would use more calories per minute (more watts to conquer hill & wind) ; the slower ride would use fewer calories per minute. The total work/calories consumed would however be about the same.
perhaps Rick or Alex could provide some more info! (never thought i'd write that 0 -
ut_och_cykla wrote:wildmoustache wrote:wildmoustache wrote:ut_och_cykla wrote:paulevy wrote:If a loop consistes of a 1/2 mile steep uphill and 5 miles gentle down grade when going clockwise, and 5 miles of gentle upgrade to the top of a 1/2 mile steep hill going countercloskwise, which way uses up more calories of the rider?
Physics says it will be the same work done in calories , pretty much regardless of the time taken (I think!).
Hope this helps
Not so! The biggest source of resistance in cycling ... air resistance of course. Which explains most of why Lance, pushing out 400+ watts doesn't go twice as fast as me pushing out 200. The fast you go, the more calories you burn for any given distance (ceterus parabus and all that).
The point I'm objecting to is the "same calories, regardless of the time taken". That's false. Doing the 5 mile loop in 10minutes (c,pro TT pace) will use more calories than doing the loop in 20 minutes. The main reason for this is air resistance.
Still not sure you're right on this. The faster ride would use more calories per minute (more watts to conquer hill & wind) ; the slower ride would use fewer calories per minute. The total work/calories consumed would however be about the same.
perhaps Rick or Alex could provide some more info! (never thought i'd write that
they would only use the same if there was a linear relationship between power and speed, which, due mainly to air resistance, there isn't.
Have a look at this site:
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
Road bike on the hoods, 200w produces 18.9mph, double the power and what do you get ... 24.5mph .. .not 38mph!
Which also goes a long way to explaining why a Ferrari, with 500bhp, doesn't have a top speed 5x a Fiesta with 100bhp0
