Calories

welkman

Does 700 calories for a 75 Min round commute at 15-19 mph depending on weather sound in the right area for a 6ft 3 in guy weighing in at 14st on a 16kg bike?

Bloody livestrong.com reckons im burning about 1500 callories in that time, which I reckon is too much.


Cheers


W

rml380z

Doesn't it depend on your level of fitness?
It's at least a large slice of cake or a bacon butty

iPete

Give this a try..

http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/calo ... o.php?id=7

All I know is, I haven't stopped eating for a year...

jonny_trousers

welkman wrote:

Bloody livestrong.com reckons im burning about 1500 callories in that time, which I reckon is too much.

Yeah, sounds like nonsense. Not sure it's worth putting much stock in these calories burnt during exercise calculators.

Butterd2

Yep, that sounds about right. I'm 6'3" 16st and my Polar reckons I use 800-1000 per hour climbing in the mountains. My Garmin estimates >2000 per hour on the flat which is clearly bollox.

rml - I don't believe it does depend on fitness. KCals are a measure of energy, the fitter you are the more energy your body can process/generate but the energy required to propel a 14st man at 18mph remains constant whatever your fitness. I guess some bodies may be more efficient than others though.

sampras38

Difficult to be accurate but I reckon you're probably looking at around 6-800 calories per hour for a fairly intensive effort and I never pay attention to my Garmin's ridiculously generous readings. Pretty much all the calorie counters on these and others are so far out of wack I really don't know why they bother having them.

outofbreath2

700 cals is definitely in the ballpark. You can only ever estimate these things so be a tad conservative and everything else is a bonus.

1500 - wouldn't that be nice.

hatbeard

when calculating my daily intake allowance I normally factor in roughly half the amount my garmin tells me I've burnt and even then I don't use it as a goal but an upper limit (when I'm trying to lose weight that is).

when I reach my goal weight and switch to maintenance I think it will be a lot tougher.

welkman

Thanks for all the responces.

I think I am going to work on 650 calories for the next few weeks to see how it helps with my weight loss. I need to do something because I have been stuck at around 13st 10 lb for nearly 9 Months.


Cheers

W

gaz545

welkman wrote:

Does 700 calories for a 75 Min round commute at 15-19 mph depending on weather sound in the right area for a 6ft 3 in guy weighing in at 14st on a 16kg bike?

[Pedantic mode]700 calories? i eat nearly 4,000,000 calories a day.

There is a difference between calories and Calories, the later being kilocalories. The basic difference is in the equation to work out the unit of energey. with calories it's the raise of temperatue in a gram of water, where as in Calories it's the raise in temperature of a kilogram of water.

On food packets you will note they either say Calories or kcal[/Pedantic mode]

welkman wrote:

Thanks for all the responces.

I think I am going to work on 650 calories for the next few weeks to see how it helps with my weight loss. I need to do something because I have been stuck at around 13st 10 lb for nearly 9 Months.


Cheers

W

You need to remember that muscle has more mass than fat. So as you work out and burn the fat and your body creates muscle, your weight loss will appear lower.

welkman

Cheers Gaz, I have noticed that I have 'bulked up' a bit in the leg department so that could explain the lack of weight loss. Now I just need to tackle the moobs.

schweiz

gaz545 wrote:

You need to remember that muscle has more mass than fat. So as you work out and burn the fat and your body creates muscle, your weight loss will appear lower.

[Pedantic mode]

Muscle does not have more mass than fat!!

1kg of muscle has the same mass as 1kg of fat!!

muscle is more dense than fat, so 1m^3 of muscle has a greater mass than 1m^3 of fat!

Also, before anyone says it.... you cannot 'turn fat into muscle'.

[/Pedantic mode]

rml380z

Butterd2 wrote:

rml - I don't believe it does depend on fitness. KCals are a measure of energy, the fitter you are the more energy your body can process/generate but the energy required to propel a 14st man at 18mph remains constant whatever your fitness. I guess some bodies may be more efficient than others though.

I know that the work done in a pure physics sense won't vary, but I'd assumed that your own level of fitness (efficiency?) will affect how many calories you actually burn.

Do those calculators just calculate the physical energy required rather than the calories burned by someone doing that amount of work?

outofbreath2

rml380z wrote:

Butterd2 wrote:

rml - I don't believe it does depend on fitness. KCals are a measure of energy, the fitter you are the more energy your body can process/generate but the energy required to propel a 14st man at 18mph remains constant whatever your fitness. I guess some bodies may be more efficient than others though.

I know that the work done in a pure physics sense won't vary, but I'd assumed that your own level of fitness (efficiency?) will affect how many calories you actually burn.

Do those calculators just calculate the physical energy required rather than the calories burned by someone doing that amount of work?

They do work out roughly what the indivudal is burning because some gadgets take into account whatever details (height, weight sex age) you put in, plust heart rate in the appropriate gadgets. The thing is the calculations (and there are a few different formulas) are based on a population, not an individual.

sampras38

outofbreath2 wrote:

rml380z wrote:

Butterd2 wrote:

rml - I don't believe it does depend on fitness. KCals are a measure of energy, the fitter you are the more energy your body can process/generate but the energy required to propel a 14st man at 18mph remains constant whatever your fitness. I guess some bodies may be more efficient than others though.

I know that the work done in a pure physics sense won't vary, but I'd assumed that your own level of fitness (efficiency?) will affect how many calories you actually burn.

Do those calculators just calculate the physical energy required rather than the calories burned by someone doing that amount of work?

They do work out roughly what the indivudal is burning because some gadgets take into account whatever details (height, weight sex age) you put in, plust heart rate in the appropriate gadgets. The thing is the calculations (and there are a few different formulas) are based on a population, not an individual.

And the Garmin's formula for working out calories used is way out of wack, partly to do with the fact it doesn't take into account the difference between flat, uphill and downhill and uses the same formula for all 3.

welkman

well all I can say is 650 calories/hour for a normal commute and 700 calories/hour for a hard commute seems to be about right for me. I seem to be shifting weight at the required rate again now.

Gussio

I think that I may have eaten around 7,000 calories worth of yohurt coated peanuts today. Means that tonight's commute will have to be VERY hard :oops:

sampras38

welkman wrote:

well all I can say is 650 calories/hour for a normal commute and 700 calories/hour for a hard commute seems to be about right for me. I seem to be shifting weight at the required rate again now.

Sounds about right