energy required to clmb a hil....
Comments
-
VinnyMarsden wrote:So, Let me get this right...if what some of the pseudo scientists are saying is to be believed........ everyone should be going up there using the same energy/calories regardless of fitness/technique etc!!!
So why do you see people hanging off their bars on big climbs when others simply fly past them??
Methinks the scientists trying to answer this one have maybe tried to overcomplicate the answer...it is in my opinion quite straightforward/simple......if you put in the work/hours/training, then you will be better than the Lardilicious lads/lasses that think its all genetic and come what may they are going to be alright!!
No they're not...its an age old saying...No pain...No gain...its not just for cycling..you can use it for anything sport related...I come from a distance running background and overall did quite well before injury forced me to admit it was insane in the first place!! But I KNEW that training was the only way to get better...not some scientific mumbo jumbo about energy spent etc etc..that only gets you so far....there's a line in the dirt....and everyone can get to that line...it's how far you want to go over it that dictates how hard you are willing to train!!!!
Just my thoughts...I'm not looking for an argument or to be shot down, albeit I accept I will no doubt be in someones sights before long!!!
Quiet, adults are talking0 -
It's a simple matter of physics. Other things being equal, the energy required to raise a mass depends only on three things, namely the height, mass and the force of gravity. It doesn't make any difference how fit you are or how quickly you do it (ignoring the relatively small effect of air resistance), the energy required is the same.VinnyMarsden wrote:So, Let me get this right...if what some of the pseudo scientists are saying is to be believed........ everyone should be going up there using the same energy/calories regardless of fitness/technique etc!!!0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:
What part of the question do you think I've missed?
RE elite athletes, whats the problem? An elite athlete will expend the same amount of energy climbing the hill as the chipper, assuming he climbs at the same speed. That doesn't mean he couldn't climb faster if he wanted to.
Nobody is arguing about the output (power). There are two parts to the question physical energy and the process needed to convert input to output (effort). If you are saying the unfit riders ability to turn input to output is the same as the fit person, then you would be disputing current views on how mitochondria work.0 -
I've changed my mind again and think Froome will actually burn less calories than me. Again back to HRs.
If we go out the same speed, as we already said I will have a higher HR, but I also will be breathing harder, and importantly, will probably be sweating more. This implies I'm creating more heat, which means I am wasting more energy. I have no idea how much its worth, but I imagine quite a significant amount of energy when cycling goes to heat?0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:Mikey23 wrote:I would assume that mental toughness a factor? There are those who seem to be able to deal with the pain of climbing and those, like me who are a little wimpy
Mental toughness a factor in energy used? You think?
The more mental processing you do, the more glucose your brain requires.
Although mental toughness is a concept, and isn't something that you can simply quantify. It's just telling your body to keep doing that thing that makes it uncomfortable.
But in a rash sense, if you had to think about pushing yourself to get up that hill as opposed to a more fit rider who has done it tens of times, you're using more energy due to increased thought processes.0 -
diy wrote:Froomes Edgar wrote:
What part of the question do you think I've missed?
RE elite athletes, whats the problem? An elite athlete will expend the same amount of energy climbing the hill as the chipper, assuming he climbs at the same speed. That doesn't mean he couldn't climb faster if he wanted to.
Nobody is arguing about the output (power). There are two parts to the question physical energy and the process needed to convert input to output (effort). If you are saying the unfit riders ability to turn input to output is the same as the fit person, then you would be disputing current views on how mitochondria work.
And if you are saying that, you would be disputing the finding that across all of cycling, from beginner to TdF winner, efficiency is largely the same. Not saying you're wrong, but it's contrary to what I've read so if you have anything that would convince me otherwise I'd be interested to read it.0 -
FlacVest wrote:Froomes Edgar wrote:Mikey23 wrote:I would assume that mental toughness a factor? There are those who seem to be able to deal with the pain of climbing and those, like me who are a little wimpy
Mental toughness a factor in energy used? You think?
The more mental processing you do, the more glucose your brain requires.
Although mental toughness is a concept, and isn't something that you can simply quantify. It's just telling your body to keep doing that thing that makes it uncomfortable.
But in a rash sense, if you had to think about pushing yourself to get up that hill as opposed to a more fit rider who has done it tens of times, you're using more energy due to increased thought processes.
Yeah, but the fitter rider will be thinking about people who say daft things on the internet, so it evens out.0 -
richymcp wrote:Hi,
Me and some of my riding buddies have been having a bit of a debate/disagreement about the amount of energy required to climb a hill/mountain and if it’s the same for every rider (if you discount variables such as weight of bike etc.).
If you have 2 riders of similar weights riding similar bikes do they use the same amount of energy (and burn the same amount of calories) when climbing an identical mountain?
Also does it make any difference if one is extremely fit and the other is not (in terms of the amount of energy required) is it the same for both?
Any answers to this puzzle would be appreciated!
Me and my mate climbed over 2000ft last weekend. He is a former Ironman competitor and weighs probably 12 stone max. I weigh 17.5 - 18 stone currently. At the end of the ride Strava said he'd burned 900+ calories and I'd burned close to 1400!!0 -
rstabler11 wrote:I've changed my mind again and think Froome will actually burn less calories than me. Again back to HRs.
If we go out the same speed, as we already said I will have a higher HR, but I also will be breathing harder, and importantly, will probably be sweating more. This implies I'm creating more heat, which means I am wasting more energy. I have no idea how much its worth, but I imagine quite a significant amount of energy when cycling goes to heat?
Why do you think you'll sweat more? Since the efficiency of the riders is likely to be (largely) the same, and if we assume that the vast majority of the inefficiency of cycling manifests itself as heat production (which it does) then the excess heat will be the same.
The only reasons pros seem to sweat less is that
1. Most of the time on TV they're riding easy in the bunch (<200w)
2. When they're not, they're going much faster than the chipper so have a greater benefit from wind cooling
3. They're skinnier than chippers, so have a relatively greater surface area per kg of body mass from which to dissipate excess heat
Watch them when they're warming up on the turbo before a TT. Sweat EVERYWHERE.0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Me and my mate climbed over 2000ft last weekend. He is a former Ironman competitor and weighs probably 12 stone max. I weigh 17.5 - 18 stone currently. At the end of the ride Strava said he'd burned 900+ calories and I'd burned close to 1400!!
Fat man burned more calories than skinny man climbing a hill. Astonishing insight, thanks0 -
For me it's all about Oxygen.
I have more than enough power in my legs to get up the hills but Christ do my lungs and heart suffer. If I fail a climb it is because of the pain from my lungs not my muscles.
VO2 max
VO2 max (also maximal oxygen consumption, maximal oxygen uptake, peak oxygen uptake or maximal aerobic capacity) is the maximum capacity of an individual's body to transport and use oxygen during incremental exercise, which reflects the physical fitness of the individual. The name is derived from V - volume, O2 - oxygen, max - maximum.
VO2 max is expressed either as an absolute rate in litres of oxygen per minute (l/min) or as a relative rate in millilitres of oxygen per kilogram of bodyweight per minute (ml/kg/min). The latter expression is often used to compare the performance of endurance sports athletes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:
Fat man burned more calories than skinny man climbing a hill. Astonishing insight, thanks
You are a fcukcing prick mate. Why do you assume I'm fat simply because I weigh more?
Idiot!!0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Froomes Edgar wrote:
Fat man burned more calories than skinny man climbing a hill. Astonishing insight, thanks
You are a fcukcing prick mate. Why so you assume I'm fat simply because I weigh more?
Idiot!!
Just playing the odds. Let me guess - you're big boned and carry it well?0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:Just playing the odds. Let me guess - you're big boned and carry it well?
Well considering I've been lifting weights for 20 years now I'll let your brilliant intelligence make an educated guess.
Also, who's to say I'm not 6'7"?
You absolute fukking moron.0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Froomes Edgar wrote:Just playing the odds. Let me guess - you're big boned and carry it well?
Well considering I've been lifting weights for 20 years now I'll let your brilliant intelligence make an educated guess.
Also, who's to say I'm not 6'7"?
You absolute fukking moron.
I'm fairly confident you're fat0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:I'm fairly confident you're fat
I'm fairly confident you're a virgin.0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Froomes Edgar wrote:I'm fairly confident you're fat
I'm fairly confident you're a virgin.
True, but at least I don't get all defensive about it on the internet.0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:True, but at least I don't get all defensive about it on the internet.
So?
That's what the internets here for!! So idiots like you can learn the errors of your ways!! It's boring when everyone is nice anyway.0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Froomes Edgar wrote:True, but at least I don't get all defensive about it on the internet.
So?
That's what the internets here for!! So idiots like you can learn the errors of your ways!! It's boring when everyone is nice anyway.
You've haven't proven me wrong. Lets have a pic of you, holding today's newspaper, wearing speedos. If you look like this:
I'll admit I'm wrong. Otherwise, I'll assume I'm right as usual.0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:You've haven't proven me wrong. Lets have a pic of you, holding today's newspaper, wearing speedos. If you look like this:
I'll admit I'm wrong. Otherwise, I'll assume I'm right as usual.
Look pal, you've already admitted to being a virgin and are now asking for a pic of me in speedo's whilst posting pics of Arnie.
Something tells me I'll settle for you assuming I'm a fatass!0 -
I KNEW IT! Fat and implicitly homophobic.0
-
Hilarious stuff!
But to drag this kicking and screaming back onto topic, lets compare again the average 70kg biker versus a 70kg pro up a hill;
15km/h up a 6%, 10km hill (assume wind effects negligible). Temp 20'C.
Av.biker working fairly hard, HR 160bpm, breathing quite hard, sweating freely. Cadence 80.
Pro finding it very easy, HR 130bpm or less, breathing normally, hardly sweating. Cadence 80.
At the summit, both have had to deliver the exact same energy (call it 500kJ) to get to the top. (Identical bikes). BUT, given the extra cardiovascular effort by the av.biker, heart, lungs, sweat, surely he has consumed more energy making those 500kJ. No?0 -
bernithebiker wrote:Hilarious stuff!
But to drag this kicking and screaming back onto topic, lets compare again the average 70kg biker versus a 70kg pro up a hill;
15km/h up a 6%, 10km hill (assume wind effects negligible). Temp 20'C.
Av.biker working fairly hard, HR 160bpm, breathing quite hard, sweating freely. Cadence 80.
Pro finding it very easy, HR 130bpm or less, breathing normally, hardly sweating. Cadence 80.
At the summit, both have had to deliver the exact same energy (call it 500kJ) to get to the top. (Identical bikes). BUT, given the extra cardiovascular effort by the av.biker, heart, lungs, sweat, surely he has consumed more energy making those 500kJ. No?
As I've said above, possibly, but is it material? What proportion of the total energy used do you reckon the effort to pump a bit more blood around a closed system is, vs the energy used to lift a 70kg + bike mass 1000+ vertical metres against the force of gravity?0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:bernithebiker wrote:Hilarious stuff!
But to drag this kicking and screaming back onto topic, lets compare again the average 70kg biker versus a 70kg pro up a hill;
15km/h up a 6%, 10km hill (assume wind effects negligible). Temp 20'C.
Av.biker working fairly hard, HR 160bpm, breathing quite hard, sweating freely. Cadence 80.
Pro finding it very easy, HR 130bpm or less, breathing normally, hardly sweating. Cadence 80.
At the summit, both have had to deliver the exact same energy (call it 500kJ) to get to the top. (Identical bikes). BUT, given the extra cardiovascular effort by the av.biker, heart, lungs, sweat, surely he has consumed more energy making those 500kJ. No?
As I've said above, possibly, but is it material? What proportion of the total energy used do you reckon the effort to pump a bit more blood around a closed system is, vs the energy used to lift a 70kg + bike mass 1000+ vertical metres against the force of gravity?
True, relative to the energy required to do the climb, the extra cardiovascular energy must be quite small, possibly 1 or 2%? (Guesstimate)
But small or not, it's there! And it's not just the heart pumping blood - all your rib muscles have to compress and inflate your lungs at least once per second.0 -
Double post0
-
True. So based on what we know (basic physics) and "guessimating" the rest, the collective knowledge of BR can say the answer is that the fitter rider would use marginally less energy, but not materially so. So no excuse for Bustacapp to keep stuffing his face and convincing himself he carries it well.0
-
If I may just backtrack slightly and ask something about this "efficiency" issue where it's been stated that almost everyone regardless of their cycling prowess is almost the same. What exactly does that 23% represent?
As I'm looking at this we are talking about the efficiency of converting fuel (food) into movement of the bike's rear wheel and there's a whole lot of things in that chain of events. Is the 23% referring to the efficiency of someone's body to transform energy stored in food to useful energy for doing work? Also is that a maximum? I can fully accept that a human's maximum capability to do that might be fairly similar across the population but what I assume is that certain people find their bodies operating at that sort of figure for only some of the time. Is that correct? or is it a fairly static figure that happens irrespective on what the person is doing or what their fitness is? i.e. would that drop to say 15% when asleep and raise to 23% during hard exercise, or vice versa? and does that variation change across the population even thought the maximum "never" exceeds 23% regardless of who you are?
Secondly, does that figure also refer to cycling specifically and the ability for a person to transfer output body energy into energy to the bike's chain. I find it hard to believe that I would have an equally efficient pedal action as a pro cyclist. In fact improving this is one of the major selling points of the Wattbike products isn't it? I could easily see that despite having a body that's equally as efficient at processing food as an elite athlete that I'd be wasting energy with every turn of the pedals compared to a pro cyclist, therefore my efficiency overall would be lower. I can't believe that the 23% figure is static if we take that in to account.0 -
As I understand it, the 23% means that you would use 1000w of power to output 230w of useful power to the cranks - thus it is specific to cycling. I'm not sure its ever been measured whilst someone is asleep, mostly because people don't tend to ride bikes whilst sleeping.
Relying on Wattbike marketing material is probably not your best bet. But as I understand it yes - despite what you might think (and I would think the same, were it not for the illumination provided by science) the efficiency is the same. Pro cyclists just have a bigger engine, not a more efficient one.0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:
And if you are saying that, you would be disputing the finding that across all of cycling, from beginner to TdF winner, efficiency is largely the same. Not saying you're wrong, but it's contrary to what I've read so if you have anything that would convince me otherwise I'd be interested to read it.
Sadly the best research is stuck behind subscription only services, but there is a quite a bit on google:
I googled "mitochondria fit and unhealthy" and "increasing mitochondria" lots of the articles talk about the more training we do the more efficient our mitochondria become. Since it is this that regulates the conversion of food to cell energy, it should stand that someone who is fit will benefit from this. Some also claim that fit people have "more" than unfit people.
see:
http://www.medicinenet.com/aerobic_exercise/page2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion
http://voices.yahoo.com/running-more-mi ... 97984.html
It seams reasonable therefore that the biology between fit and unfit in the conversion of food to energy is a factor of the density of your mitchondria. Thus the fit and unfit person will have different chemical activities occurring in their body. Hence this suggests 2 people could well be different.
I'm not an expert btw - I just read up on it when this thread came up.bernithebiker wrote:At the summit, both have had to deliver the exact same energy (call it 500kJ) to get to the top. (Identical bikes). BUT, given the extra cardiovascular effort by the av.biker, heart, lungs, sweat, surely he has consumed more energy making those 500kJ. No?
seems logical to me from what I have been reading on mitochondria0 -
I don't think having more / a higher density of mitochondria should make a difference, shouldn't it just mean you can convert more food into more energy, but not change efficiency? If, however, you can change efficiency of mitochondria that would be significant. I'm not sure though.
BTW if you do want to see any primary papers PM me which ones and I might well be able to get you the pdf on my uni access0
