calories burned ?

stronginthesun
stronginthesun Posts: 433
edited June 2009 in Road beginners
ive got no garmin , but going on what i burn in the gym in one hour on the various machines , and the time i spend cycling . i reckon i burn about 5000 a week ? what do you do ?

Comments

  • amochrie
    amochrie Posts: 73
    according to my garmin i burn about 4000 calories on one ride alone....my mate reckons my garmin's wrong!
  • richa
    richa Posts: 1,632
    Living: 2500/Day
    Riding: 600-800/Hr.
    Rich
  • nmcgann
    nmcgann Posts: 1,780
    RichA is right.

    A very hard cycling effort will burn approx 1000kcal/h (e.g. a 1h TT). More moderate rides are 600-800/h.

    (I base this on kJ measured from my powertap, human body energy conversion efficiency makes an approximate 1 kJ = 1 kCal equivalence)

    Neil
    --
    "Because the cycling is pain. The cycling is soul crushing pain."
  • Garz
    Garz Posts: 1,155
    I would agree that these machines/computers that are being used always overestimate the actual calories burned, when your freewheeling or coasting this isnt really still burning calories. Take its estimate and deduct 10-20% sounds like a more accurate figure.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,665
    At least the powertap is measuring actual work done unlike the Garmin. If my Garmin was right then I should be about 10 stone instead of over 15.
  • rjh299
    rjh299 Posts: 721
    I think in a review by C+ they said that if you use the Garmin calorie burned as an estimate you'll turn into a 'blimp'. It does seem to massively overestimate the amount you burn. It seems to go on speed rather than heart rate which is strange. I burn loads of calories freewheeling down a massive hill, but bugger all slogging my guts out up one!
  • Basing it on heart rate isn't much better.
  • chaffordred
    chaffordred Posts: 131
    According to my Garmin these are the results from my ride this morning:

    41.7 miles
    2 hrs 6 mins 2 secs
    19.85 MPH average
    2947 calories burned :lol:

    I should have bonked around about 30 miles and be a 5 stone size zero by now.

    Whatever the garmin says knock 30% off.
  • pottssteve
    pottssteve Posts: 4,069
    You could try a site like www.mapmyride.com.

    This will estimate calories burned based on your average speed, journey profile, weight etc. I don't know if it's any better than a Garmin though. I weigh 80kg and doing a 2 hour ride including a couple of moderate hills at about 23km/hr it tells me I've used about 1400 calories. So at 700 calories an hour this tallies with other estimates I've heard...

    Steve
    Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs
  • Mastineo
    Mastineo Posts: 182
    Maybe if you were in a coma.

    :lol::lol::lol:
  • According to my Garmin these are the results from my ride this morning:

    41.7 miles
    2 hrs 6 mins 2 secs
    19.85 MPH average
    2947 calories burned :lol:

    I should have bonked around about 30 miles and be a 5 stone size zero by now.

    Whatever the garmin says knock 30% off.
    I think 30% is conservative.

    That estimate suggests your average was < 20mph at an average of 410 watts for over 2 hours.
  • Maybe if you were in a coma.
    ill leave that to my girlfriend
  • dicer
    dicer Posts: 5
    Judging by some of the posts I read on these forums, some of you guys should be in competing in the classics.
  • bobtbuilder
    bobtbuilder Posts: 1,537
    I think it's fairly common knowledge that the algorithm use by Garmin to calculate calories burned is pretty poor (check out the Motion Based forum for more details).

    I would definitely agree that Garmin overstate your calorie usage. My 305 usually reckons I've burned 1,000 cals per hour at a plodding 16-17 mph.

    Polar have a better reputation for this, but I have no personal experience of using one of their devices.
  • Jeff Jones
    Jeff Jones Posts: 1,865
    nmcgann wrote:
    RichA is right.

    A very hard cycling effort will burn approx 1000kcal/h (e.g. a 1h TT). More moderate rides are 600-800/h.

    (I base this on kJ measured from my powertap, human body energy conversion efficiency makes an approximate 1 kJ = 1 kCal equivalence)
    The latter is correct, but the former depends on how much power you can put out for an hour. This varies a lot. But it's why you can lose weight more easily (without dieting) when you're really fit compared to when you're not.
    Jeff Jones

    Product manager, Sports
  • topher9
    topher9 Posts: 54
    I use a Suunto HRM - always thought it was pretty accurate. I do about 750 cals/hour on the bike which would make a lot of sense. Goes up to about 900/hour when running which again, would be in line with expectations.

    Don't think this is correct::

    "When your freewheeling or coasting this isnt really still burning calories"

    If your body is working, it's burning calories - if your HR is 160 for example and you've just finished a climb, then your body is working hard to bring that down, so you will still be burning calories?!

    Might be wrong but this has always been my understanding.
  • rjh299
    rjh299 Posts: 721
    Basing it on heart rate isn't much better.

    But still better. If you've got the monitor on why not use it?
  • rjh299 wrote:
    Basing it on heart rate isn't much better.

    But still better. If you've got the monitor on why not use it?
    Because the correlation between heart rate and power is not that good. One only needs to do a highly variable effort ride to know that HR can be high but still have a fairly low overall average power (and hence not burn as many calories as a HRM would have you beleive).

    Put it this way, if you are basing your calorie requirements on the numbers from a HRM, then you'll often make poor energy intake decisions.
  • topher9 wrote:
    I use a Suunto HRM - always thought it was pretty accurate. I do about 750 cals/hour on the bike which would make a lot of sense. Goes up to about 900/hour when running which again, would be in line with expectations.

    Don't think this is correct::

    "When your freewheeling or coasting this isnt really still burning calories"

    If your body is working, it's burning calories - if your HR is 160 for example and you've just finished a climb, then your body is working hard to bring that down, so you will still be burning calories?!

    Might be wrong but this has always been my understanding.
    You are burning calories to be alive but you won't be burning much. Once you stop pedalling and are not producing power, your rate of energy consumption falls dramatically. Your HRM doesn't indicate how much work you are doing. It just tells you how fast your heart is beating.
  • rjh299
    rjh299 Posts: 721
    Don't really know anything about power output and all so can't say much. I just thought that a hr monitor would give more accurate readings than speed, but thats still vague guess aswell then? As for my calorie requirements, i'll just eat when i'm hungry and ignore my Garmin. Cheers
  • right weight for right height ? then your doing something right