Calories Burned on the Bike
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
2015-03-28 4:22 PM |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: Calories Burned on the Bike Anyone have a good (or even ballpark) on calories burned on the bike? If you go to your average calorie calculator, and put in >20mph (which covers all my rides) it gives you something around 1,200 or more calories/hr. I certainly don't feel like it takes that much effort. Obviously, they don't take into account the type of bike. If you were on a hybrid pushing 20+, yeah, you'd be burning some serious calories, but not on a nice carbon tri bike. On the other end of the spectrum is what I get from my Garmin, which is around 450 calories per hour. That I think is a bit shy. I think it's using my HR which is low (I think) relatively speaking. I've never once gone over 160 going all out in an interval. Anyway, the reason I ask is that I'm trying to fine tune my nutrition going into my first IM. |
|
2015-03-28 4:39 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike .25-.35Cal/(kgkm) will get you pretty close. However, race nutrition for IM is not about how much you are burning but how much you can process at race intensity. Shane |
2015-03-28 4:40 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike If you knew your power in watts you could calculate it. I assume you will probably ride an IM around 180 or so watts and would be burning 650 calories per hour. edit : about the midpoint of Shane's calculation for a 160male at 20mph :-) Edited by marcag 2015-03-28 5:03 PM |
2015-03-28 5:13 PM in reply to: 3mar |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Thanks guys. I just wanted to get an idea of how close I was to that number. I'm able to take in 300-350 cal/hr comfortably on my long rides, which are currently 80 miles at typically just over 20mph. |
2015-03-28 5:22 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by 3mar Thanks guys. I just wanted to get an idea of how close I was to that number. I'm able to take in 300-350 cal/hr comfortably on my long rides, which are currently 80 miles at typically just over 20mph. Remember, of those 650 calories burned you don't need to replace all of them. Some are coming from your fat reserves. Some are coming from your glycogen reserves. Those are the ones you need to be controlling because when they run out, you bonk. Edited by marcag 2015-03-28 5:24 PM |
2015-03-28 5:24 PM in reply to: marcag |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by 3mar Thanks guys. I just wanted to get an idea of how close I was to that number. I'm able to take in 300-350 cal/hr comfortably on my long rides, which are currently 80 miles at typically just over 20mph. Remember, of those 650 calories burned you don't need to replace all of them. Some are coming from your fat reserves. Some are coming from your glycogen reserves. Those are more limited and need to be topped up. Do you mean like carb loading? |
|
2015-03-28 5:30 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by 3mar Thanks guys. I just wanted to get an idea of how close I was to that number. I'm able to take in 300-350 cal/hr comfortably on my long rides, which are currently 80 miles at typically just over 20mph. Remember, of those 650 calories burned you don't need to replace all of them. Some are coming from your fat reserves. Some are coming from your glycogen reserves. Those are more limited and need to be topped up. Do you mean like carb loading? No, carb loading is more making sure the reserves are full the morning of the race. Let's say you start the race with 2000 calories in your glycogen stores If you are burning say 600 calories per hour, say 30% from fat, 70% from carbs. That's 420cals from carbs. If you are taking in 300, you have 120 cal deficit per hour, times 11 hours = 1320 calories...still under your 2000 calorie store If you are burning 100% from glycogen, that's a 350 per hour deficit, x 11hours = 3850 calories which is beyond your 2000 calorie reserve. You bonk This is the high level theory. The actual reserves, % fat....all are very personal Edited by marcag 2015-03-28 5:30 PM |
2015-03-28 5:48 PM in reply to: marcag |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by 3mar Thanks guys. I just wanted to get an idea of how close I was to that number. I'm able to take in 300-350 cal/hr comfortably on my long rides, which are currently 80 miles at typically just over 20mph. Remember, of those 650 calories burned you don't need to replace all of them. Some are coming from your fat reserves. Some are coming from your glycogen reserves. Those are more limited and need to be topped up. Do you mean like carb loading? No, carb loading is more making sure the reserves are full the morning of the race. Let's say you start the race with 2000 calories in your glycogen stores If you are burning say 600 calories per hour, say 30% from fat, 70% from carbs. That's 420cals from carbs. If you are taking in 300, you have 120 cal deficit per hour, times 11 hours = 1320 calories...still under your 2000 calorie store If you are burning 100% from glycogen, that's a 350 per hour deficit, x 11hours = 3850 calories which is beyond your 2000 calorie reserve. You bonk This is the high level theory. The actual reserves, % fat....all are very personal Nice! That's exactly what I was looking for. That helps a lot. I get that it's high level but gives me a benchmark to go off of at least. I have a lot of trouble taking in nutrition on the run, and obviously nothing on the swim, so I've got to figure that in there too. |
2015-03-28 5:55 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by 3mar Do you mean like carb loading? Further to what Marc posted, carb loading is not effective for most triathletes for several reasons. First is that to do it correctly you really need to experiment and figure out a roughly week long protocol. Second, if you do it properly, you will gain weight and you really don't want to go into race day heavy. Third, for most, it is only effective for events where one is not planning to consume any calories during the race. Shane |
2015-03-28 6:13 PM in reply to: gsmacleod |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by gsmacleod Originally posted by 3mar Do you mean like carb loading? Further to what Marc posted, carb loading is not effective for most triathletes for several reasons. First is that to do it correctly you really need to experiment and figure out a roughly week long protocol. Second, if you do it properly, you will gain weight and you really don't want to go into race day heavy. Third, for most, it is only effective for events where one is not planning to consume any calories during the race. Shane I had heard that, but never heard any details behind it. Does it still not help to at least top of the reserves by concentrating on carbs over protein the night before, or is it already in the books by that point? |
2015-03-29 4:17 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike You want to try to hit the start line with your glycogen stores topped up; however, this can be accomplished with a fairly normal supper and a good breakfast. Most overdo it with "carb-loading" pasta meals. Shane |
|
2015-03-29 6:50 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by 3mar I have a lot of trouble taking in nutrition on the run, and obviously nothing on the swim, so I've got to figure that in there too. Here is a good post and a good guy to talk to for advice. http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp... |
2015-03-29 9:24 AM in reply to: marcag |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Good read. I've heard a few people mention Coke as he does in that post. Is that served warm on the course? Is it carbonated, or flat? |
2015-03-29 9:31 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Expert 2373 Floriduh | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Most of the Coke I've ever had during a race is both warm and flat, my bet is that it got that way sitting on the table for a while. |
2015-03-29 10:10 AM in reply to: gsmacleod |
538 Brooklyn, New York | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by gsmacleod You want to try to hit the start line with your glycogen stores topped up; however, this can be accomplished with a fairly normal supper and a good breakfast. Most overdo it with "carb-loading" pasta meals. Shane True point, not to mention that not all carbs have the same glycemic effect either. My brother and I have had greater success in using white rice over pastas. Though I do not work the same distances as mentioned here, if, in the taper leading up to an event or heavier training session, there is slightly less caloric burning, but the same consumption of calories due to normal routine of one's diet, I find a more "natural" store has been built up without drastically heavier eating. There is benefit to a sodium load though My two cents, then again, I'm just training for sprints lol |
2015-03-29 4:36 PM in reply to: gsmacleod |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by gsmacleod However, race nutrition for IM is not about how much you are burning but how much you can process at race intensity. Shane I'm assuming the kg includes the bike? How about English units, you know, good old rods, hogheads, stones, etc... Kidding. So that'd be 0.183-0.256 Cal/lb-mile for those of us south of the border. I'm 157 and my bike with water included for a long ride would be about 25 lbs, so 182 lbs. (182 lbs)*(0.183 Cal/lb-mile)*(1 mile) = 33.3 Cal/mile (182 lbs)*(0.256 Cal/lb-mile)*(1 mile) = 45.6 Cal/mile @ 20 mph that would be between 666 cal/hr and 912 cal/hr So how does this take into account aerodynamics, wind and hills? Or is that what the range is for? |
|
2015-03-29 4:59 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by gsmacleod However, race nutrition for IM is not about how much you are burning but how much you can process at race intensity. Shane I'm assuming the kg includes the bike? How about English units, you know, good old rods, hogheads, stones, etc... Kidding. So that'd be 0.183-0.256 Cal/lb-mile for those of us south of the border. I'm 157 and my bike with water included for a long ride would be about 25 lbs, so 182 lbs. (182 lbs)*(0.183 Cal/lb-mile)*(1 mile) = 33.3 Cal/mile (182 lbs)*(0.256 Cal/lb-mile)*(1 mile) = 45.6 Cal/mile @ 20 mph that would be between 666 cal/hr and 912 cal/hr So how does this take into account aerodynamics, wind and hills? Or is that what the range is for? The most accurate formulas are to take the power generated and assume an average efficiency. Power will depend on wind, hills, weight...... Calories is average watts * hours * 3.6 * 4.184 * efficiency (about 23.6) or average watts*hours*3.6 use a bike power calculator to estimate watts Edited by marcag 2015-03-29 5:00 PM |
2015-03-29 5:03 PM in reply to: marcag |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by marcag Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by gsmacleod However, race nutrition for IM is not about how much you are burning but how much you can process at race intensity. Shane I'm assuming the kg includes the bike? How about English units, you know, good old rods, hogheads, stones, etc... Kidding. So that'd be 0.183-0.256 Cal/lb-mile for those of us south of the border. I'm 157 and my bike with water included for a long ride would be about 25 lbs, so 182 lbs. (182 lbs)*(0.183 Cal/lb-mile)*(1 mile) = 33.3 Cal/mile (182 lbs)*(0.256 Cal/lb-mile)*(1 mile) = 45.6 Cal/mile @ 20 mph that would be between 666 cal/hr and 912 cal/hr So how does this take into account aerodynamics, wind and hills? Or is that what the range is for? The most accurate formulas are to take the power generated and assume an average efficiency. Power will depend on wind, hills, weight...... Calories is average watts * hours * 3.6 * 4.184 * efficiency (about 23.6) or average watts*hours*3.6 use a bike power calculator to estimate watts Or just use this to try and convince my wife that I just absolutely *need* a power meter. |
2015-04-01 11:27 AM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by marcag Or just use this to try and convince my wife that I just absolutely *need* a power meter. Originally posted by 3mar The most accurate formulas are to take the power generated and assume an average efficiency. Power will depend on wind, hills, weight...... Calories is average watts * hours * 3.6 * 4.184 * efficiency (about 23.6) or average watts*hours*3.6 use a bike power calculator to estimate watts Originally posted by gsmacleod .25-.35Cal/(kgkm) will get you pretty close. However, race nutrition for IM is not about how much you are burning but how much you can process at race intensity. Shane I'm assuming the kg includes the bike? How about English units, you know, good old rods, hogheads, stones, etc... Kidding. So that'd be 0.183-0.256 Cal/lb-mile for those of us south of the border. I'm 157 and my bike with water included for a long ride would be about 25 lbs, so 182 lbs. (182 lbs)*(0.183 Cal/lb-mile)*(1 mile) = 33.3 Cal/mile (182 lbs)*(0.256 Cal/lb-mile)*(1 mile) = 45.6 Cal/mile @ 20 mph that would be between 666 cal/hr and 912 cal/hr So how does this take into account aerodynamics, wind and hills? Or is that what the range is for? All of this is interesting, and good for understanding how it all works, but in the end, it's like Shane said in his first reply in the thread: None of it's relevant, because what matters is the rate that you can absorb fuel at race intensity. That's the limiter.
|
2015-04-01 12:39 PM in reply to: TriMyBest |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by TriMyBest Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by marcag Or just use this to try and convince my wife that I just absolutely *need* a power meter. Originally posted by 3mar The most accurate formulas are to take the power generated and assume an average efficiency. Power will depend on wind, hills, weight...... Calories is average watts * hours * 3.6 * 4.184 * efficiency (about 23.6) or average watts*hours*3.6 use a bike power calculator to estimate watts Originally posted by gsmacleod .25-.35Cal/(kgkm) will get you pretty close. However, race nutrition for IM is not about how much you are burning but how much you can process at race intensity. Shane I'm assuming the kg includes the bike? How about English units, you know, good old rods, hogheads, stones, etc... Kidding. So that'd be 0.183-0.256 Cal/lb-mile for those of us south of the border. I'm 157 and my bike with water included for a long ride would be about 25 lbs, so 182 lbs. (182 lbs)*(0.183 Cal/lb-mile)*(1 mile) = 33.3 Cal/mile (182 lbs)*(0.256 Cal/lb-mile)*(1 mile) = 45.6 Cal/mile @ 20 mph that would be between 666 cal/hr and 912 cal/hr So how does this take into account aerodynamics, wind and hills? Or is that what the range is for? All of this is interesting, and good for understanding how it all works, but in the end, it's like Shane said in his first reply in the thread: None of it's relevant, because what matters is the rate that you can absorb fuel at race intensity. That's the limiter.
Right, and I understand that, but what I wanted to know was how that value plays into the bigger picture. If someone says my goal should be, say 250-350 cal/hour, I'm not one to say "OK" I'm the one who asks "why?" |
2015-04-01 1:03 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by 3mar Right, and I understand that, but what I wanted to know was how that value plays into the bigger picture. If someone says my goal should be, say 250-350 cal/hour, I'm not one to say "OK" I'm the one who asks "why?" The answer to your "why" is not going to be found with anything your powermeter or caloric expenditure is going to tell you. Shane |
|
2015-04-01 1:06 PM in reply to: gsmacleod |
1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by gsmacleod Originally posted by 3mar Right, and I understand that, but what I wanted to know was how that value plays into the bigger picture. If someone says my goal should be, say 250-350 cal/hour, I'm not one to say "OK" I'm the one who asks "why?" The answer to your "why" is not going to be found with anything your powermeter or caloric expenditure is going to tell you. Shane I really don't want to belabor the issue. I just wanted an understanding of the overall energy balance is all. For my own edification and peace of mind. The power meter thing was just a joke. I'm always looking for an excuse for a new toy. |
2015-04-01 1:13 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Calories Burned on the Bike Originally posted by 3mar I really don't want to belabor the issue. I just wanted an understanding of the overall energy balance is all. For my own edification and peace of mind. The power meter thing was just a joke. I'm always looking for an excuse for a new toy. Knowing the caloric expenditure can be useful for a couple of things which is why there is a rough calculation that you can do as I provided in my first response. However, the caloric balance between what you're burning on the bike versus what you are ingesting is a pretty meaningless number since what you can absorb at a given intensity doesn't really depend on how much you're burning. Shane |
RELATED POSTS
RELATED ARTICLES
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|