calories burned ?

stronginthesun
Posts: 433
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 ?
0
Comments
-
Maybe if you were in a coma.0
-
according to my garmin i burn about 4000 calories on one ride alone....my mate reckons my garmin's wrong!0
-
Living: 2500/Day
Riding: 600-800/Hr.Rich0 -
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."0 -
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.0
-
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 15.0
-
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!0
-
Basing it on heart rate isn't much better.0
-
Edit: Stupid commentwinter beast: http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr34 ... uff016.jpg
Summer beast; http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr34 ... uff015.jpg0 -
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
I should have bonked around about 30 miles and be a 5 stone size zero by now.
Whatever the garmin says knock 30% off.0 -
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...
SteveHead Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
0
-
chaffordred wrote: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
I should have bonked around about 30 miles and be a 5 stone size zero by now.
Whatever the garmin says knock 30% off.
That estimate suggests your average was < 20mph at an average of 410 watts for over 2 hours.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Maybe if you were in a coma.0
-
Judging by some of the posts I read on these forums, some of you guys should be in competing in the classics.0
-
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.0 -
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)Jeff Jones
Product manager, Sports0 -
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.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Basing it on heart rate isn't much better.
But still better. If you've got the monitor on why not use it?0 -
rjh299 wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Basing it on heart rate isn't much better.
But still better. If you've got the monitor on why not use it?
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.0 -
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.0 -
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. Cheers0
-
right weight for right height ? then your doing something right0