Guess How Many Calories I Am Burning?

sampras38

robthehungrymonkey wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

but two riders putting out 200 watts will burn about the same amount of energy over the same time irrespective of their fitness. I say "about" as the exact amount depends on individual rider's efficiency levels, however that is not related to fitness. It is well documented that efficiency levels for the untrained is, on average, the same as for trained cyclists.

That's very interesting. I imagined that the efficiency would be a major factor.
And on an excercise bike the power is directly comparable to the energy used? Why aren't they really accurate? (or are they?)

HR monitors in my experience are pretty far out with their calorie readings because the formula they use doesn't take into account undulating rides or hills, or in fact a lot of other changes outside of a flat uninterupted ride. They are a rough guide at best. i've done a few tests of my own with my Garmin 705 and they aren't accurate at all. I know from my diet and riding expeience roughly how many calories I'm burning and pretty much igniore the Garmin and others I've used.

sampras38

Soni wrote:

Infamous wrote:

Soni wrote:

ThreeLionsBrian wrote:

Soni,

According to my HRM i burn around 2100 calories @ 16MPH over a 90 min trip i did it when i weighed 16 stone plus so somewhere in that region i would think.

Excellent, 2100 calories is VERY encouraging!

Your question has been answered about 5 times already, with most agreeing on the rough estimate of 600 calories per hour, why are you saying "excellent" ? because you want to believe you're burning more? it looks like you're after an ego stroke.

As I said before it's down to what you're not eating. The vast vast majority of people would struggle to only eat what you eat for one day, let alone every day for a month (we know this because of how many fat people there are, if it was truly that easy, everyone would do it). You are lucky that you don't feel hungry and that you find it easy, and it's clearly working... but you are NOT burning loads from cycling. Get over it.

Why don't you go get off your high horse and save your rude comments for a real life situation instead of being a keyboard warrior....

I don't need my ego stroked by anybody thank you very much, i've got myself to do that....

If you haven't got anything beneficial to add to the thread then don't bother posting - simple!

Soni, thing is, he's right.

On a more positive note you've done bloody well to get to where you are, but you could be doing a lot better with a smarter, safer diet.

I'm not being a "keyboard warrior"...honest...;-)

Alex_Simmons/RST

robthehungrymonkey wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

but two riders putting out 200 watts will burn about the same amount of energy over the same time irrespective of their fitness. I say "about" as the exact amount depends on individual rider's efficiency levels, however that is not related to fitness. It is well documented that efficiency levels for the untrained is, on average, the same as for trained cyclists.

That's very interesting. I imagined that the efficiency would be a major factor.
And on an excercise bike the power is directly comparable to the energy used? Why aren't they really accurate? (or are they?)

Well efficiency of individuals can vary from ~19-24% but the average joe blow is no more or less efficient than the pros.

Cycling measurement devices that purport to show calories converted need three pieces of information to be accurate:
1. the average power produced. Most gym bikes are woefully inaccurate in measuring power. Only a properly calibrated power meter (e.g. Powertap, SRM) or ergometer can do that.
2. the duration of effort
3. the individual rider's efficiency level (which would require lab testing to determine) and I'm sure a majority of riders do not know their own efficiency level when cycling.

Otherwise, the other method is analysis of volume of gases exchanged (O2 & CO2) while cycling, which requires special lab equipment. Every litre of O2 consumed has a metabolic energy equivalence. 1 litre O2 ~= 21kJ.

Soni

DaSy wrote:

Soni wrote:

05:00 - out of bed
05:15 At least one hours cycling, sometimes 1.5 hours if i have time
07:30 Glass of Tropicana orange juice and multi-vitamin - approximately 120 calories
08:00 Slimfast Shake - 210 calories
13:00 Pasta and Chicken Salad from Tesco - 765 Calories
18:00 Slimfast meal bar - 210 calories

I can see you have changed your diet dramaticaly, but I still don't think this is the way to do it. Once you decide to stop this regime and start eating normaly, you have no reference point, as you have either massively over-eaten or now massively under-eat.

You need to start making the healthy and sustainable choices now. A good breakfast of some rolled oats and banana etc, a peice of fruit mid morning, a light salad or soup (500cals kind of size) for lunch, handful of nuts mid afternoon and then a balanced evening meal (salad, baked sweet potatoe and peice of fish kind of thing).

That way you keep you hunger at bay, eat regularly so keep a more even blood sugar level which stops the cravings to pig out, and have a natural source of minerals and vitamins you require.

Whilst you are on point at the moment you are able to control your cravings, but you won't be able to do that for the rest of your life on your current diet. My point is that you should start as you mean to go on, learn how to eat a healthy balanced diet that you can just adjust to maintain or lose weight with. Otherwise you are destined for the archetypal yo-yo diet syndrome.

Hi DaSy,

That diet recommendation you posted is exactly the type of food i intend to eat, but only once i've reached my goal....as i'm sure as much as that type of food is really good for you and probably wouldn't increase my weight, i know it would not enable me to drop the weight as quickly as i am at present.

I am a fittish bloke, and even when i was 18st 2lbs i could still jog around 7 miles....i used to allways be around 12.5 stone, however i got into a rutt and started eating crap during the day and during the evening, stopped going out, stopped excercising, and became a couch potatoe sitting in from of my HD Plasma watching movies all evening....however now that i've broke that habbit and i honestly believe that i have chaged my taste in food, as have'nt eaten a MacDonalds or Burger King for well over a month, and used to eat them at least 2-3 times per week.

However, i have willpower, and i'm determined to loose as much weight as i can by 16th July, and once i have done this and returned from holiday, i can confirm that i will definetely be eatnig foods as you described above, as i enjoy that type of food anyway.....

Soni

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

robthehungrymonkey wrote:

I understand that the calorie readings aren't accurate, but I don't see what speed or power has to do with it. Fitness varies so much, and the effort required for one unfit person to do 16mph over a flat course could burn the same as it takes Lance Armstrong to get up Alpe D'heuz!

It has nothing to do with fitness.

It's all about power and time.

energy cannot be created nor destroyed, merely moved about...

Hence when we ride we a convert the energy stored in our bodies (fats and glycogen) into mechanical energy (the muscles driving the bike) and heat as well as a bit to drive the other functions of the body. When riding, a bit less than 1/4 of the energy we convert goes toward turning the cranks, the vast majority of the balance is converted to heat.

IOW, how much total energy is converted from stored fuels is directly proportional to the power at which we are riding and the duration. Energy = power x time.

And of course the faster we ride, the more power is required to ride at that higher speed.

Fitness only dictates how hard/fast we can ride and for how long.

but two riders putting out 200 watts will burn about the same amount of energy over the same time irrespective of their fitness. I say "about" as the exact amount depends on individual rider's efficiency levels, however that is not related to fitness. It is well documented that efficiency levels for the untrained is, on average, the same as for trained cyclists.

Very informative post, thank you

Soni

robthehungrymonkey wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

but two riders putting out 200 watts will burn about the same amount of energy over the same time irrespective of their fitness. I say "about" as the exact amount depends on individual rider's efficiency levels, however that is not related to fitness. It is well documented that efficiency levels for the untrained is, on average, the same as for trained cyclists.

That's very interesting. I imagined that the efficiency would be a major factor.
And on an excercise bike the power is directly comparable to the energy used? Why aren't they really accurate? (or are they?)

I am wondering this also, as a couple of years ago i was using a decent excercise bike in the gym and it was telling me i was burnign around 77 calories for a 10 minute ride......however now that i'm riding 1hr/1.5hr rides, i would equate that to 462/693 respectively.....

However, i now for a fact that i am excercising a lot harder than the stationary bike ever worked me, i can feel the large muscles at the back of the leg between the knee and backside burning and hurting, although it is a very steep hilly area.....

Infamous

Soni wrote:

Why don't you go get off your high horse and save your rude comments for a real life situation instead of being a keyboard warrior....

I'm just here to help.

Infamous

Soni wrote:

I am wondering this also, as a couple of years ago i was using a decent excercise bike in the gym and it was telling me i was burnign around 77 calories for a 10 minute ride......however now that i'm riding 1hr/1.5hr rides, i would equate that to 462/693 respectively.....

At risk of enraging you further, can I ask why you need such an accurate calorie measure?

Soni wrote:

However, i now for a fact that i am excercising a lot harder than the stationary bike ever worked me, i can feel the large muscles at the back of the leg between the knee and backside burning and hurting, although it is a very steep hilly area.....

Hamstring.

Soni

sampras38 wrote:

Soni wrote:

Infamous wrote:

Soni wrote:

ThreeLionsBrian wrote:

Soni,

According to my HRM i burn around 2100 calories @ 16MPH over a 90 min trip i did it when i weighed 16 stone plus so somewhere in that region i would think.

Excellent, 2100 calories is VERY encouraging!

Your question has been answered about 5 times already, with most agreeing on the rough estimate of 600 calories per hour, why are you saying "excellent" ? because you want to believe you're burning more? it looks like you're after an ego stroke.

As I said before it's down to what you're not eating. The vast vast majority of people would struggle to only eat what you eat for one day, let alone every day for a month (we know this because of how many fat people there are, if it was truly that easy, everyone would do it). You are lucky that you don't feel hungry and that you find it easy, and it's clearly working... but you are NOT burning loads from cycling. Get over it.

Why don't you go get off your high horse and save your rude comments for a real life situation instead of being a keyboard warrior....

I don't need my ego stroked by anybody thank you very much, i've got myself to do that....

If you haven't got anything beneficial to add to the thread then don't bother posting - simple!

Soni, thing is, he's right.

On a more positive note you've done bloody well to get to where you are, but you could be doing a lot better with a smarter, safer diet.

I'm not being a "keyboard warrior"...honest...;-)

He may be right about it being difficult to sustain a diet like i am using, however we will have to agree to disagree on all other points.

As allready mentioned, i don't need and didn't start this thread to have my ego stroked, if i needed that i would choose better looking blokes than you guys

Furthermore, he seems to be missing the point completely. The point is, ok as mentioned previously this is a Training forum, however what i am doing at the moment - i consider as training!

OK, it may not be on a par with some of the others on here who have more time/less commitments than i do, however training is training, regardless of how long you do it for, whether its 1.5 hrs per day or 7 hours per day....

Also, most people know that to loose weight you need to consume less calories than you burn, i am doing that, together with excercise, yet Infamous clearly can't get his head around that idea and is claiming that i am starving myself and the weight loss has nothing to do with the cycling....

OK, so i may only be burning 600-800 calories per day, however with a 1500 calorie intake (as recommende by most diets) then you can clearly see that the 1-1.5hrs cycling per day is clearly having a positive effect.

Oh, and by the way, you have given me no indication so far that you are worthy of being a 'Keyboard Warrior'

Soni

Infamous wrote:

Soni wrote:

Why don't you go get off your high horse and save your rude comments for a real life situation instead of being a keyboard warrior....

I'm just here to help.

You were helping greatly, its just a shame you felt the need to 'assume' that i had ulterior motives for starting this thread, anyway, forgotten about

Soni

Infamous wrote:

Soni wrote:

I am wondering this also, as a couple of years ago i was using a decent excercise bike in the gym and it was telling me i was burnign around 77 calories for a 10 minute ride......however now that i'm riding 1hr/1.5hr rides, i would equate that to 462/693 respectively.....

At risk of enraging you further, can I ask why you need such an accurate calorie measure?

Soni wrote:

You really don't know when to stop do you

Actually, your reference to 'enraging me further made me smile....

Well i did say within my first post of this thread, i don't need it 'to the calorie, within 100 would do.....

Its nice to get a feel for how many calories i am burning, as i don't have access to any high spec computer gadget that will tell me otherwise....

Infamous

Soni wrote:

Also, most people know that to loose weight you need to consume less calories than you consume, i am doing that, together with excercise, yet Infamous clearly can't get his head around that idea and is claiming that i am starving myself.

Have a quick look at:
http://www.nwf.org/population/whatsfordinner.cfm

Note the countries in the 0-2000 calories per day zone. Obviously cycling is going to help, but if you sat on your arse all day, you'd still lose loads of weight eating 1500 calories.

sampras38

Soni wrote:

sampras38 wrote:

Soni wrote:

Infamous wrote:

Soni wrote:

ThreeLionsBrian wrote:

Soni,

According to my HRM i burn around 2100 calories @ 16MPH over a 90 min trip i did it when i weighed 16 stone plus so somewhere in that region i would think.

Excellent, 2100 calories is VERY encouraging!

Your question has been answered about 5 times already, with most agreeing on the rough estimate of 600 calories per hour, why are you saying "excellent" ? because you want to believe you're burning more? it looks like you're after an ego stroke.

As I said before it's down to what you're not eating. The vast vast majority of people would struggle to only eat what you eat for one day, let alone every day for a month (we know this because of how many fat people there are, if it was truly that easy, everyone would do it). You are lucky that you don't feel hungry and that you find it easy, and it's clearly working... but you are NOT burning loads from cycling. Get over it.

Why don't you go get off your high horse and save your rude comments for a real life situation instead of being a keyboard warrior....

I don't need my ego stroked by anybody thank you very much, i've got myself to do that....

If you haven't got anything beneficial to add to the thread then don't bother posting - simple!

Soni, thing is, he's right.

On a more positive note you've done bloody well to get to where you are, but you could be doing a lot better with a smarter, safer diet.

I'm not being a "keyboard warrior"...honest...;-)

He may be right about it being difficult to sustain a diet like i am using, however we will have to agree to disagree on all other points.

As allready mentioned, i don't need and didn't start this thread to have my ego stroked, if i needed that i would choose better looking blokes than you guys

Furthermore, he seems to be missing the point completely. The point is, ok as mentioned previously this is a Training forum, however what i am doing at the moment - i consider as training!

OK, it may not be on a par with some of the others on here who have more time/less commitments than i do, however training is training, regardless of how long you do it for, whether its 1.5 hrs per day or 7 hours per day....

Also, most people know that to loose weight you need to consume less calories than you burn, i am doing that, together with excercise, yet Infamous clearly can't get his head around that idea and is claiming that i am starving myself and the weight loss has nothing to do with the cycling....

OK, so i may only be burning 600-800 calories per day, however with a 1500 calorie intake (as recommende by most diets) then you can clearly see that the 1-1.5hrs cycling per day is clearly having a positive effect.

Oh, and by the way, you have given me no indication so far that you are worthy of being a 'Keyboard Warrior'

OK, a bit about me. 38 yrs old, been into fitness since I was 14. Got into bodybuilding at a young age and by the time I was 19 I was ready to compete. Decided to give it up, and go back to my 1st love of tennis. (I always dabbled and was playing for the County on and off in my teens). Used to muck about on road and mountain bikes too. Played tennis at a high club level until 3 years ago when I decided I wanted to get into the road biking full time. I've gone from a fit but quite muscular 15 .6 stone, to what I am now, 12, 6. I ride regularly every week, rain, snow or sunshine, have ridden with fast groups in various clubs and do a lot of hill climbing, such as Box hill etc. doing the 117 mile Wales Dragon in Wales on Sunday.

Oh, and I have a Sports Science degree.

And 1500 calories a day is too little for a guy your size.

;-)

robthehungrymonkey

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Well efficiency of individuals can vary from ~19-24% but the average joe blow is no more or less efficient than the pros.

Cycling measurement devices that purport to show calories converted need three pieces of information to be accurate:
1. the average power produced. Most gym bikes are woefully inaccurate in measuring power. Only a properly calibrated power meter (e.g. Powertap, SRM) or ergometer can do that.
2. the duration of effort
3. the individual rider's efficiency level (which would require lab testing to determine) and I'm sure a majority of riders do not know their own efficiency level when cycling.

Otherwise, the other method is analysis of volume of gases exchanged (O2 & CO2) while cycling, which requires special lab equipment. Every litre of O2 consumed has a metabolic energy equivalence. 1 litre O2 ~= 21kJ.

I've read so many posts on this and similiar subjects. But you're last 2 contained more info than all of them put together! (as well as the 1000kcal per hour = 280watts).

So with an accurate power meter you can measure your calorie usage on a bike to within 5%. I reckon that's pretty damn good.

Soni

Infamous wrote:

Hamstring.

Not the hamstring, the Gluteus Maximus.....

Soni

Infamous wrote:

Soni wrote:

Also, most people know that to loose weight you need to consume less calories than you consume, i am doing that, together with excercise, yet Infamous clearly can't get his head around that idea and is claiming that i am starving myself.

Have a quick look at:
http://www.nwf.org/population/whatsfordinner.cfm

Note the countries in the 0-2000 calories per day zone. Obviously cycling is going to help, but if you sat on your ars* all day, you'd still lose loads of weight eating 1500 calories.

I 'may' be eating less than somebody from Ethiopia :?

Soni

sampras38 wrote:

Soni wrote:

sampras38 wrote:

Soni wrote:

Infamous wrote:

Soni wrote:

ThreeLionsBrian wrote:

Soni,

According to my HRM i burn around 2100 calories @ 16MPH over a 90 min trip i did it when i weighed 16 stone plus so somewhere in that region i would think.

Excellent, 2100 calories is VERY encouraging!

Your question has been answered about 5 times already, with most agreeing on the rough estimate of 600 calories per hour, why are you saying "excellent" ? because you want to believe you're burning more? it looks like you're after an ego stroke.

As I said before it's down to what you're not eating. The vast vast majority of people would struggle to only eat what you eat for one day, let alone every day for a month (we know this because of how many fat people there are, if it was truly that easy, everyone would do it). You are lucky that you don't feel hungry and that you find it easy, and it's clearly working... but you are NOT burning loads from cycling. Get over it.

Why don't you go get off your high horse and save your rude comments for a real life situation instead of being a keyboard warrior....

I don't need my ego stroked by anybody thank you very much, i've got myself to do that....

If you haven't got anything beneficial to add to the thread then don't bother posting - simple!

Soni, thing is, he's right.

On a more positive note you've done bloody well to get to where you are, but you could be doing a lot better with a smarter, safer diet.

I'm not being a "keyboard warrior"...honest...;-)

He may be right about it being difficult to sustain a diet like i am using, however we will have to agree to disagree on all other points.

As allready mentioned, i don't need and didn't start this thread to have my ego stroked, if i needed that i would choose better looking blokes than you guys

Furthermore, he seems to be missing the point completely. The point is, ok as mentioned previously this is a Training forum, however what i am doing at the moment - i consider as training!

OK, it may not be on a par with some of the others on here who have more time/less commitments than i do, however training is training, regardless of how long you do it for, whether its 1.5 hrs per day or 7 hours per day....

Also, most people know that to loose weight you need to consume less calories than you burn, i am doing that, together with excercise, yet Infamous clearly can't get his head around that idea and is claiming that i am starving myself and the weight loss has nothing to do with the cycling....

OK, so i may only be burning 600-800 calories per day, however with a 1500 calorie intake (as recommende by most diets) then you can clearly see that the 1-1.5hrs cycling per day is clearly having a positive effect.

Oh, and by the way, you have given me no indication so far that you are worthy of being a 'Keyboard Warrior'

OK, a bit about me. 38 yrs old, been into fitness since I was 14. Got into bodybuilding at a young age and by the time I was 19 I was ready to compete. Decided to give it up, and go back to my 1st love of tennis. (I always dabbled and was playing for the County on and off in my teens). Used to muck about on road and mountain bikes too. Played tennis at a high club level until 3 years ago when I decided I wanted to get into the road biking full time. I've gone from a fit but quite muscular 15 .6 stone, to what I am now, 12, 6. I ride regularly every week, rain, snow or sunshine, have ridden with fast groups in various clubs and do a lot of hill climbing, such as Box hill etc. doing the 117 mile Wales Dragon in Wales on Sunday.

Oh, and I have a Sports Science degree.

And 1500 calories a day is too little for a guy your size.

;-)

Exactly, i'm glad you have come around to my way of thinking, 1500 calories IS too little for a guy my size, and thats the idea, so i don't stay this size!

Oh and by the way, i have done 60 mile club rides, started in November last year, did a few, however was gone for pretty much the whole of Sunday which didn't leave much time at the weekend for my other commitments...

Soni

Today, i've drank a glass of Tropicana Orange Juice (approx 120 calories), Multi Vitamin, Slimfast Shake (210 calories) for breakfast, Slimfast snack at 11am - 99 calories, and then for lunch i had a 720 calorie thin base Hawaian pizza from Tesco, so therefore total of 1149 calories, and will be having a slim fast bar this evening and one more packet of snacks, so total calorie intake today will be 1458.

Went out for a 12 mile ride this morning, and will be doing another 12 miles tonight, can't wait until i get on the scales in the morning, i'm hoping i'll be under 15st 10lbs.....

sturmey

then for lunch i had a 720 calorie thin base Hawaian pizza from Tesco

You should look at your body as a well-oiled, super-efficient engine (I'm sure it is already), capable of devouring 50+ mile rides non-stop averageing between 18 and 20 mph. You should aim to do this 4 days per week.
You are still relatively young and able-bodied so are capable of achieving this.

As your in house dietician I am forthwith prohibiting you from eating any more pizzas or takeaways as they are JUNK and you would gain more nutrition from eating your underpants. You need to change your diet. You need to suffer pain. Or you will be no thinner or fitter than a Sunday league footballer.

sampras38

sturmey wrote:

then for lunch i had a 720 calorie thin base Hawaian pizza from Tesco

You should look at your body as a well-oiled, super-efficient engine (I'm sure it is already), capable of devouring 50+ mile rides non-stop averageing between 18 and 20 mph. You should aim to do this 4 days per week.
You are still relatively young and able-bodied so are capable of achieving this.

As your in house dietician I am forthwith prohibiting you from eating any more pizzas or takeaways as they are JUNK and you would gain more nutrition from eating your underpants. You need to change your diet. You need to suffer pain. Or you will be no thinner or fitter than a Sunday league footballer.

I can picture him sitting there with his fingers in his ears going "la la la la la"

;-)

Infamous

The effort that would take would probably cause him to faint.

Soni

sturmey wrote:

then for lunch i had a 720 calorie thin base Hawaian pizza from Tesco

You should look at your body as a well-oiled, super-efficient engine (I'm sure it is already), capable of devouring 50+ mile rides non-stop averageing between 18 and 20 mph. You should aim to do this 4 days per week.
You are still relatively young and able-bodied so are capable of achieving this.

As your in house dietician I am forthwith prohibiting you from eating any more pizzas or takeaways as they are JUNK and you would gain more nutrition from eating your underpants. You need to change your diet. You need to suffer pain. Or you will be no thinner or fitter than a Sunday league footballer.

But hangabout, we aren't talking your average run of the mill Domino's or Pizza Express or Pizza Hut pizza here, we are talking about a non cooked off the shelf pizza for £1.39 from Tesco - i thought pizza was healthy?.....

Soni

Infamous wrote:

The effort that would take would probably cause him to faint.

, i'm quite energetic actually, i could 'easily' push 50 mile plus, however that would take me about 3 hours, of which i don't have that much time....

I personally think i've discovered a happy medium, somewhere in between, combined with a low calorie diet, which is still working and the scales are still moving every morning, so what is the problem? :?

Soni

Out of interest, how many miles and how often do you guys train?

couldashouldawoulda

I was in a similar position some time back and can only add my 2p's worth. First of all - well done! You're off the couch and doing something about it. Once I started there was no going back.

When I started off weight loss was "easy" calorie wise (at the time the effort was murder!) - ie a given amount of exercise over a week would loose me substansially more weight than the same effort does now.

Also heart rate monitors and calories are not on the same planet. I now have 3 HRMs and what they all say is relativley random.

From my experience I'd say when I was overweight I burned 650 calories per hour at moderate cycling exertion (initially that was an ave of 12mph - now 17mph but way less calories).

But for me (and I'd guess - probably most others on here) the key is the balance between what you eat and what exercise you do. If my weight started to creep up again the very first thing I'd do is cut out take aways, then beer and lastly do more cycling - I already do 10 hours a week.

So - 2p's worth of advice for free!

Infamous

Soni wrote:

I personally think i've discovered a happy medium, somewhere in between, combined with a low calorie diet, which is still working and the scales are still moving every morning, so what is the problem? :?

Muscular atrophy? lower immune system? lower nutrient intake? lack of energy? brittle bones?

I'm sure a doctor could tell you a fair few more.

Soni

couldashouldawoulda wrote:

I was in a similar position some time back and can only add my 2p's worth. First of all - well done! You're off the couch and doing something about it. Once I started there was no going back.

When I started off weight loss was "easy" calorie wise (at the time the effort was murder!) - ie a given amount of exercise over a week would loose me substansially more weight than the same effort does now.

Also heart rate monitors and calories are not on the same planet. I now have 3 HRMs and what they all say is relativley random.

From my experience I'd say when I was overweight I burned 650 calories per hour at moderate cycling exertion (initially that was an ave of 12mph - now 17mph but way less calories).

But for me (and I'd guess - probably most others on here) the key is the balance between what you eat and what exercise you do. If my weight started to creep up again the very first thing I'd do is cut out take aways, then beer and lastly do more cycling - I already do 10 hours a week.

So - 2p's worth of advice for free!

Cheers mate, i'll mail you my address so you can forward your invoice

That figure you quoted of 650 calories for moderate, that is what i would expect, i'm not trying to say i'm working harder than you are, as my interpretation of moderate and yours may be totally different, however i would personally say i'm working really hard, for one its very hilly where i live, and for two i'm really powering it up the hills giving it 90% of my maximum effort.

Yeah the takeaways are sometimes a problem, however what i do is punish myself and do double training the next day if i cheat, which hopefully offsets the takeaway....

Soni

Infamous wrote:

Soni wrote:

I personally think i've discovered a happy medium, somewhere in between, combined with a low calorie diet, which is still working and the scales are still moving every morning, so what is the problem? :?

Muscular atrophy? lower immune system? lower nutrient intake? lack of energy? brittle bones?

I'm sure a doctor could tell you a fair few more.

If you knew me you would realise i don't suffer in the energy depleted department, i've been referred to as hyper on many occasion.

As for colds, can't remember the last time i had a cold, i'm talking years ago, although now i've stated that i'll most probably go down with Pork Flu....

Anyway, out of interest, how many miles and how frequently do you train?

Infamous

Soni wrote:

Out of interest, how many miles and how often do you guys train?

It varies obviously, but roughly..... an easy week for me would be riding 5/6 days per week doing 100-150 miles, harder weeks are more like 7 days a week and 200-250 miles. Intensity wise, the hard weeks will have faster/hillier rides, with 1 day a week of TT effort. Also, these things change week by week as I feel, I don't like things set in stone as I don't usually stick to them.

3 hard weeks followed by 1 easy. for me.

Alex_Simmons/RST

robthehungrymonkey wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Well efficiency of individuals can vary from ~19-24% but the average joe blow is no more or less efficient than the pros.

Cycling measurement devices that purport to show calories converted need three pieces of information to be accurate:
1. the average power produced. Most gym bikes are woefully inaccurate in measuring power. Only a properly calibrated power meter (e.g. Powertap, SRM) or ergometer can do that.
2. the duration of effort
3. the individual rider's efficiency level (which would require lab testing to determine) and I'm sure a majority of riders do not know their own efficiency level when cycling.

Otherwise, the other method is analysis of volume of gases exchanged (O2 & CO2) while cycling, which requires special lab equipment. Every litre of O2 consumed has a metabolic energy equivalence. 1 litre O2 ~= 21kJ.

I've read so many posts on this and similiar subjects. But you're last 2 contained more info than all of them put together! (as well as the 1000kcal per hour = 280watts).

So with an accurate power meter you can measure your calorie usage on a bike to within 5%. I reckon that's pretty damn good.

Actually it's better than that since individual efficiency does not vary much, so the number from a power meter will be very consistent (precise) but perhaps depending on efficiency, converting the mechanical work done to total kcal might be out by a bit (accuracy).

One can always have their efficiency determined if they really want (via VO2 measurements at various power outputs) but in general most of us simply take kJ of mechanical work done = kcal total energy consumption as good enough (since our efficiency is a little less than1/4 and there are ~4.2 J per cal, they pretty much cancel each other out).

I seem to recall the actual conversion goes like this (from a Charles Howe post at wattage):

if GME is 23%, multiply kJ by 1.04 to obtain kcal

if GME is 22%, multiply kJ by 1.09 to obtain kcal

if GME is 21%, multiply kJ by 1.14 to obtain kcal

if GME is 20%, multiply kJ by 1.20 to obtain kcal

if GME is 19%, multiply kJ by 1.26 to obtain kcal