Question about calorie defecits and timing.
Comments
-
Godammit, what was the test rider wearing and do you have his/her Garmin data?0
-
Another couple of factors that Alex has neglected from efficiency his calculations are:-
Pokerface's upper body movements, and Pokerface's noise emissions.
1/ Every time Pokerface turns his head to observe motorists and other traffic, he uses muscles that are not contributing toward forward motion, and hence adding to inefficiency.
2/ Alex does not know how loud Pokerface can shout at motorists, so Pokerface's noise energy is discluded from the calculations.
Now these factors could be quite large in this case due to the big head and loud mouth of the subject, so I would estimate the efficiency here as around 3%.
So he might as well have taken the train.0 -
Today's test.
1 ) A 75kg cyclist on a 7kg bike with a 0.88 Cd is riding along a flat road with no breeze blowing at midday on a clear sunny day in Holland. He is wearing Lycra bibshorts and a single lycra full zip close fitting jersey.
He has been riding for about an hour and is fully warmed up. He is riding at a steady 22 mph and the ambient air temperature is 20 deg C.
a) How many kCals/min are been are being expended due to windchill?
b) How many kCals/min are being emitted off the parts of his clothing that are not subject to windchill?
c) What is the kCals/min offset due to 'Solar gain'?
2 ) The same cyclist is riding in the same attire on a winding 7% uphill road in the Alps and today the air temperature is 4 Deg C with a 12 mph wind which is against him for 50% of his journey and with him for 50% of his journey. He is riding at 10 mph and is again, fully warmed up. He rides for 30 minutes.
a ) What is his total calorific expenditure due to windchill?
Clue. The thermoconductivity of sweat damped Lycra is 0.03 W/(m.K)0 -
Troll of the month.Chiggy wrote:Today's test.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Troll of the month.Chiggy wrote:Today's test.
Which means you haven't got a clue how to offset calorific intake for climatic conditions.
If you ever ride a major tour ( or even a Sportive ) up a mountain, make sure you look at the weather forecast and compensate your breakfast accordingly.
BTW Alex, in 1993 I competed in the British White Water rafting championships. Training was done in Canada. We use considerably more muscles than just the legs and get soaked to the skin with cold water.
Energy loss due to 'cold' effects is the major problem. Muscular effort is irregular and can only be estimated as no PowerTap can be fitted to a canoe oar. Outdoor training included swimming in fast moving rivers.
Indoor training consisted of full body weights and specific shoulder and back exercises.
I was the qualified coach... and the nutritionist.
I was also a member of a team who paddled the River Wye 100 mile race. They listened to my advice.
We won the award for the best improved team in the River Wye event. We didn't win. The SAS always won.
In comparison, cycling is a F**king doddle.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Troll of the month.Chiggy wrote:Today's test.
Yeah, I'm starting to think that. He's pretty good too - I bet a few people read this sh1t and think he knows what he's talking about. Bravo.0 -
Do maths or ride my bike? umm 8)Why tidy the house when you can clean your bike?0
-
Given the chioce of racing a bicycle round France for three weeks or an intensive training fortnight on a fast moving river in Canada, heaving a RIB over boulders and swimming in Frigging cold water, give me the bike and a ticket to Paris.
The rafting is far too energetic.0 -
Then go and find a canoeing forum to waste time on.Chiggy wrote:In comparison, cycling is a F**king doddle.0 -
Sorry Alex, but cycling is my hobby, so you're stuck with me.
Just as a sideline. Do your calcs for cyclist's efficiency have the rider using both legs on the down AND upstroke to generate power, or only the front leg on the downstroke?
Well trained cyclists will use the upstroke in addition to the downstroke. Untrained cyclists wont and this will effect efficiency figures.
So lets get a clear understanding for the untrained cyclists out there. If you don't pull up with the back leg, reduce the theoretical efficiency value by 5%.0 -
Oooh lordy, what have I started?! :-)
Alex, your comments intrigued me:Don't get sucked into thinking about selectively burning and replacing fats and glycogen. it doesn't work like that.
What matters for weight changes is the overall calorie balance (irrespective of what fuels substrate was metabolised, and what balance of CHO/fat you eat).
Eat a healthy balanced diet with all the appropriate food types with the necessary macro and micro nutrients, and maintain a sustainable calorie deficit for the period you seek to lose body mass.
The original question was about coping with the calorie defecit on long ride days.
OK, so lets say that we all agree that 4000 calories isn't typical and that 2500 is more like a normal session. add back the 1700 "normal" day to day consumption and an extra 800 during the ride (typically a Torq bar, some energy drink, and a cup of tea and flapjack if I need thawing out at some stage).
Let's assume that the 2500 expenditure is accurate. I know it's probably not but untl Santa brings me a powermeter I just have to use my best guesstimate.
That leaves me on zero net calories, 1700 short of the target net calorific intake.
So, should I aim to balance all that out on the same day, and if so when, and with what?0 -
Chiggy wrote:.
I was the qualified coach... and the nutritionist.
They must have been bored to tears!
You still haven't said what the massive deviation is in calorie expenditure at different levels, and whether it actually really matters that much. I suspect that it matters not a lot.0 -
G-Wiz wrote:Oooh lordy, what have I started?! :-)
Alex, your comments intrigued me:Don't get sucked into thinking about selectively burning and replacing fats and glycogen. it doesn't work like that.
What matters for weight changes is the overall calorie balance (irrespective of what fuels substrate was metabolised, and what balance of CHO/fat you eat).
Eat a healthy balanced diet with all the appropriate food types with the necessary macro and micro nutrients, and maintain a sustainable calorie deficit for the period you seek to lose body mass.
The original question was about coping with the calorie defecit on long ride days.
OK, so lets say that we all agree that 4000 calories isn't typical and that 2500 is more like a normal session. add back the 1700 "normal" day to day consumption and an extra 800 during the ride (typically a Torq bar, some energy drink, and a cup of tea and flapjack if I need thawing out at some stage).
Let's assume that the 2500 expenditure is accurate. I know it's probably not but untl Santa brings me a powermeter I just have to use my best guesstimate.
That leaves me on zero net calories, 1700 short of the target net calorific intake.
So, should I aim to balance all that out on the same day, and if so when, and with what?
I just eat normally on long ride days but with fruit and recovery drink immediately afterwards and a high GI meal a couple of hours later. On shorter training days I just have the fruit and a protein shake, then the high GI meal.0 -
Chiggy wrote:Sorry Alex, but cycling is my hobby, so you're stuck with me.
Just as a sideline. Do your calcs for cyclist's efficiency have the rider using both legs on the down AND upstroke to generate power, or only the front leg on the downstroke?
Well trained cyclists will use the upstroke in addition to the downstroke. Untrained cyclists wont and this will effect efficiency figures.
So lets get a clear understanding for the untrained cyclists out there. If you don't pull up with the back leg, reduce the theoretical efficiency value by 5%.
The pros using the upstroke is a myth as explained by Chris Carmichael (he is a fully qualified and experienced cycling coach, as opposed to a rafting coach who tries to use big words to impress less experienced people)Chris Carmichael wrote:Power production falls drastically as the pedals approach and pass through the top and bottom of the stroke. The power of the down stroke is so great that it negates the opposite leg's capacity to produce any power during the upstroke. The best a cyclist can do is unweight the upstroke leg, or try to get it out of the way of the pedal coming up at it. In some senses, the upstroke leg can be seen as working against the rider. A portion of the force being applied in the down stroke is going to lift the opposing leg instead of propelling the bicycle forward.0 -
NapoleonD wrote:
The pros using the upstroke is a myth as explained by Chris Carmichael (he is a fully qualified and experienced cycling coach, as opposed to a rafting coach who tries to use big words to impress less experienced people]
Try putting your powertap on a turbo and just pulling UP on the pedals. It still gives you a power reading. As you are still producing power.
Therefore, whether you push, pull or just breathe hard on the pedals - it all still contributes to the power produced figure and is already in the whole calculation.0 -
0
-
Pokerface wrote:NapoleonD wrote:
The pros using the upstroke is a myth as explained by Chris Carmichael (he is a fully qualified and experienced cycling coach, as opposed to a rafting coach who tries to use big words to impress less experienced people]
Try putting your powertap on a turbo and just pulling UP on the pedals. It still gives you a power reading. As you are still producing power.
Therefore, whether you push, pull or just breathe hard on the pedals - it all still contributes to the power produced figure and is already in the whole calculation.
It does, but when pedalling normally you don't actually produce power on the upstroke due to the amount you are putting in on the downstroke. If you 'lift' on the upstroke you appear to produce more power as there is less resistance to the leg doing the downstroke. That's how I understand it anyhoo.0 -
This thread just goes to show that a little bit of knowledge in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing. Especially when the owner of those hands likes to ramble so authoritatively....More problems but still living....0
-
amaferanga wrote:This thread just goes to show that a little bit of knowledge in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing. Especially when the owner of those hands likes to ramble so authoritatively....
You're right. I'm sorry. I'll be quiet now. :oops:0 -
NapoleonD wrote:Pokerface wrote:NapoleonD wrote:
The pros using the upstroke is a myth as explained by Chris Carmichael (he is a fully qualified and experienced cycling coach, as opposed to a rafting coach who tries to use big words to impress less experienced people]
Try putting your powertap on a turbo and just pulling UP on the pedals. It still gives you a power reading. As you are still producing power.
Therefore, whether you push, pull or just breathe hard on the pedals - it all still contributes to the power produced figure and is already in the whole calculation.
It does, but when pedalling normally you don't actually produce power on the upstroke due to the amount you are putting in on the downstroke. If you 'lift' on the upstroke you appear to produce more power as there is less resistance to the leg doing the downstroke. That's how I understand it anyhoo.
Yeah, I forget where but I saw some graphs of the pedal-strokes world class cyclists in a 4k pursuit type effort - compared to the mediocre, they just push down harder - the rest of the stroke is much the same - with, as you say, barely taking the weight of their leg in the upstroke.0 -
Let me get this right.
SRM cranks can differentiate between the upward pull and the downward push. Yes because the sensor is between the spider and the chainring.
A PowerTap in the rear wheel cannot. It sees every fluctuation, the total of both legs, however it is produced.
The best track cyclists just push down harder?
So why did Tommy Godwin and Hugh Porter tell me to pull round the whole revolution and heave up with all my might at the sprint?
Don't tell me,,, 1960s cycling is not correct in the 21st Century.
I say, I say, I say. What is the difference between lifting the upward moving leg without generating power and pulling it up to generate power?
I don't know, what is the difference between lifting the upward moving leg without generating power and pulling it up to generate power?
Losing!0 -
Dunno. Why did Tom Simpson refresh himself with brandy before climbing the Ventoux?
To answer the question, perhaps because people in the 60s had, at best, a superficial understanding of human performance?
Or perhaps because a sprint effort is very different type of effort from a predominantly aerobic effort - in that efficiency isn't nearly as important for a sprint (and probably practically impossible to measure)
Or perhaps they didn't, but you misunderstood them spouted off on the internet that they did?0 -
I have to say, I heard that the push down harder method was the correct way. I can't remember who or where it was said. The reasoning, if I remember, is that by "pulling up" you redirect the blood flow ever so slightly away from the quads (or pushing down muscles), thereby losing efficiency.
It went on to say, that the hamstrings of some top cyclists tend to be rather under developed as a consequence.CAAD9
Kona Jake the Snake
Merlin Malt 40 -
P_Tucker wrote:Dunno. Why did Tom Simpson refresh himself with brandy before climbing the Ventoux?
To answer the question, perhaps because people in the 60s had, at best, a superficial understanding of human performance?
Or perhaps because a sprint effort is very different type of effort from a predominantly aerobic effort - in that efficiency isn't nearly as important for a sprint (and probably practically impossible to measure)
Or perhaps they didn't, but you misunderstood them spouted off on the internet that they did?
You'll be surprised P_Tucker what the Soviets and Americans, as well as the Brits were doing post war 1950s and 60s in physiology testing of human beings.
Would you believe some of the testing was combined with exposure to Nuclear testing in the pacific?
You wouldn't. My ex wife's Uncle is only just recieving compensation from the government for the stuff they got him to do.
NASA knew a bit more about human performance than 'superficial'.
if you want anyone rescued from captivity, call the SAS. Their testing techniques haven't changed much for sixty years. There's only a certain amount of physical abuse a human body can withstand, and when it hooked up to instrumentation, a good idea of human performance is soon realised.0 -
0 -
Pokerface wrote:amaferanga wrote:This thread just goes to show that a little bit of knowledge in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing. Especially when the owner of those hands likes to ramble so authoritatively....
You're right. I'm sorry. I'll be quiet now. :oops:
Ha ha!
(Just to be clear though, I didn't mean you)More problems but still living....0 -
Pokerface.
Those hats won't work.
They need to be gold plated. 4 microns at least.
PS Pub quiz question.
If you look up at the Earth from the Moon, what's the only man made thing you can see?
Answer. Your helmet's visor.0 -
Another pub quiz question involing gold.
How thick are the gold conductor tracks on an Intel Pentium 4 processor?
Answer. 4 atoms.0 -
You really have lost the plot Chiggy. I've never heard such utter tripe. Except for that Jimboalee character on Cyclechat.
2010 British Sporting Course Time Trial Championship contender,,,, but Cycling.0 -
Chiggy wrote:P_Tucker wrote:Dunno. Why did Tom Simpson refresh himself with brandy before climbing the Ventoux?
To answer the question, perhaps because people in the 60s had, at best, a superficial understanding of human performance?
Or perhaps because a sprint effort is very different type of effort from a predominantly aerobic effort - in that efficiency isn't nearly as important for a sprint (and probably practically impossible to measure)
Or perhaps they didn't, but you misunderstood them spouted off on the internet that they did?
You'll be surprised P_Tucker what the Soviets and Americans, as well as the Brits were doing post war 1950s and 60s in physiology testing of human beings.
Would you believe some of the testing was combined with exposure to Nuclear testing in the pacific?
You wouldn't. My ex wife's Uncle is only just recieving compensation from the government for the stuff they got him to do.
Nice. Did he have a questionable relationship with a bespectacled young nerd by the name of Fallout Boy?0
