Has anyone determined just how many calories we burn while riding. It should be dependant on gear and cadence right? and obviously multiplied by time. I would love if there was a math equation or a graph that could show if i right at this gear and cadence 1/2 the ride, but this gear 1/2 the ride while climbing. How much did i burn in my two hours. Anyone know just how much we do burn? I'm trying to figure out my caloric intake and i need to know how much i burn in a day. Thanks ahead of time.
Calories Burned?
Penn State
21 - 40 of 53 Posts
Joined
·
1,078 Posts
Rewinding back to the first mention of HRM's, Polar uses their "OwnCal" function to correlate total calories burned to heart rate. The lower end monitors (M series?) base the calculation on heart rate and user weight, however the higher end (S series?) also factor in the user's specified vo2max (as a representation of efficiency).wyomingclimber said:
I'd found an abstract of the research that Polar based their calculations on previously though can't find it now ("vo2max heart rate calories correlation" will probably find it). I don't recall if the details of the function were included, but it did talk about the methodology used in determining it.
Joined
·
5,280 Posts
Thanks for the clarification. I found the following on Polar's web site when looking at the OwnCal function:anotherbrian said:
"The Polar OwnCal feature shows your energy expenditure during one exercise session as well as your accumulated kilocalories during several exercise sessions. In Polar M-series Heart Rate Monitors, OwnCal calculation takes into account your gender, body weight and exercise heart rate. The calculation starts when your exercise intensity reaches 100 bpm. In Polar S-series Heart Rate Monitors, OwnCal calculation takes into account VO2max, HRmax and exercise heart rate. The calculation starts when your exercise intensity reaches 60 % of your maximum heart rate or 90 bpm - whichever is lower. In Polar Weight Management products the calculation starts when you put your transmitter on and start exercising. "
So indeed the S410 is likely more accurate than my M61 on calorie burn because it uses VO2max (even though my M61 can estimate my VO2max based on resting heart functions, it doesn't use it for calorie calculations). The S series is a tad more expensive and doesn't use the more comfortable WearLink fabric belt which is why I got an M61. I see Polar just came out with an F series, and the F-11 is about the same price as my M61, also uses the WearLink transmitter, and can download some summary data using a SonicLink.For calories, the F series OwnCal function seems similar to the M series, but I couldn't find this confirmed anywhere.
Joined
·
5,280 Posts
Been successful on diets - many times
I've successfully dieted a couple times down to 180-185 or so and bounced right back up even higher in a year or two. So I swore I wouldn't diet again until I was sure I knew how to do it in a way that I'd keep it off.
So this time I'm not dieting, but instead changing my diet and life style for good, and letting my weight change on it's own. I'm using the proven Weight Watchers system for support and computer diet logs to help with calorie counting. It's a lot slower, only 1-2 lbs/week versus 5 lbs/week I did on previous low-calorie diets. But I'm not starving like before, waiting for the "diet" to end so I can eat again, and I'm hoping this way will be more permanent. Excercise is a big part of it too. We'll see what happens over the next year. I'm down from 270 to 245 lbs now over the last 3-4 months. With summer coming I may ride more and loose faster, so the 220 lb announcement will be in another few weeks. I'll post the before/after stats over on the Clydes forum in the weight loss thread there. I'm hoping to reach equilibrium just under 200 lbs.
You know the joke about the smoker who says he can quit any time he wants, as he's proven on many occasions.LyNx said:
I've successfully dieted a couple times down to 180-185 or so and bounced right back up even higher in a year or two. So I swore I wouldn't diet again until I was sure I knew how to do it in a way that I'd keep it off.
So this time I'm not dieting, but instead changing my diet and life style for good, and letting my weight change on it's own. I'm using the proven Weight Watchers system for support and computer diet logs to help with calorie counting. It's a lot slower, only 1-2 lbs/week versus 5 lbs/week I did on previous low-calorie diets. But I'm not starving like before, waiting for the "diet" to end so I can eat again, and I'm hoping this way will be more permanent. Excercise is a big part of it too. We'll see what happens over the next year. I'm down from 270 to 245 lbs now over the last 3-4 months. With summer coming I may ride more and loose faster, so the 220 lb announcement will be in another few weeks. I'll post the before/after stats over on the Clydes forum in the weight loss thread there. I'm hoping to reach equilibrium just under 200 lbs.
Joined
·
1,078 Posts
I bought the S725 purely for the download capability. It does have the WearLink transmitter, which should be compatible with any of the other receivers that use coded transmitters.BigLarry said:
Calculating your VO2max is best done in a lab. I tried letting my Polar calculate mine and it didn't match my stress-test determined VO2max.
What makes the S725 so cool though (and I saw your comment about calorie/diet-logs is this):
That is heart rate in red and altitude in brown (note trailhead is set for 0 feet, and not the true altitude), for the Foresthill Divide Loop. You can also add speed/distance, cadence, and power, to the plot ($$$ add-on required for power), but it gets very messy looking. I've found it to be a good motivator to exercise ... graphically seeing improvement over time (i.e. max heart rate for a particular hill going down, while time elapsed to climb the hill also goes down).
The S725 is the cost of a nice crankset, so the next time you consider upgrading a component, think about the HRM instead.
Joined
·
5,280 Posts
Now I know what I want for Xmas!anotherbrian said:
How far off was the stress test versus Polar's VO2max, and which way?
I remember the Foresthill Divide trail as lots of short steep killers. I did Clementine on the way up, but then burned all my energy unintentionally by shooting to 160 BPM for the super fun connector trail on the way out. I was also just recovering from a couple months off as well, and dragged a bit, even more than normal, on the way back down to the parking lot.
I now can see the slow but sure affects of age. Loosing just one BPM per year doesn't sound like much, but as I'm approaching 50 soon, my 90% HR is about where you seem to be averaging at 155 BPM. It also helps explains why Lance is retiring before he fades away.
Joined
·
1,078 Posts
It was off by ~10%. The stress test indicated I was "healthier" than the Polar (though I've read contradicting information). My max heart rate was +12 bpm (197) higher on the stress test than a 220-age calculation would give, which may have affected the Polar's calculation.BigLarry said:Now I know what I want for Xmas!
How far off was the stress test versus Polar's VO2max, and which way?
Clementine isn't the best way to start if you want to feel fresh at the Foresthill Divide Loop. The best approach is probably to burn yourself out on Clementine so you can recover on the Connector. We rode the trail last Friday morning and ended up turning around at Foresthill rather than doing the loop. At least we were in better shape to enjoy the Culvert and Confluence trails on the way back.BigLarry said:
Joined
·
1,164 Posts
HR isn't a very good indicator either. I just got a HRM and using the factor for "moderate" cycling with my weight while doing a pre-ride on the creampuff course (rather intense riding) it came up with almost 9000 calories burned in a 5 hr ride. That's close to 2k/hour which I find rather doubtful.
Joined
·
5,280 Posts
You must have entered something wrong (kg versus lbs or something like that). I've never seen anything like that error with my Polar M61 (although I do suspect it could be high by 10-20% on occasions). What model did you use? What was your average HR?Brandon said:
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
I have to second the S725 recommendation. The ability to download and see graphs is great.
Mine showed me burning 4,800 calories in 8hrs-32min when doing the assault on mt mitchell a couple of weeks ago, 116 miles with 12,500' of climbing.
Lou.
Mine showed me burning 4,800 calories in 8hrs-32min when doing the assault on mt mitchell a couple of weeks ago, 116 miles with 12,500' of climbing.
Lou.
Joined
·
5,280 Posts
Power Output and Calories of Tour de France riders
I found this great article on power output, HR, and calories burned by professional athletes on Polar's web site.
http://www.polarusa.com/consumer/powerkit/Article2.asp
Interesting numbers:
Power output by Lance at Alpe D'Huez: 475-500 Watts (we were estimating about right!)
Power output in typical time trial by non-Lance: 325-450 Watts
Power output by Tour de France rider drafting at 40 KPH (24 MPH) in pack: 100 Watts (indeed they're almost resting in the pack)
Power output by Tour de France rider alone at 40 KPH (24 MPH), or front of pack: 275 Watts
Calories burned by rider in Tour de France: 6000-9500 calories/day
(So for 4-6 hour rides, they must be burning around 1500 calories/hour)
I found this great article on power output, HR, and calories burned by professional athletes on Polar's web site.
http://www.polarusa.com/consumer/powerkit/Article2.asp
Interesting numbers:
Power output by Lance at Alpe D'Huez: 475-500 Watts (we were estimating about right!)
Power output in typical time trial by non-Lance: 325-450 Watts
Power output by Tour de France rider drafting at 40 KPH (24 MPH) in pack: 100 Watts (indeed they're almost resting in the pack)
Power output by Tour de France rider alone at 40 KPH (24 MPH), or front of pack: 275 Watts
Calories burned by rider in Tour de France: 6000-9500 calories/day
(So for 4-6 hour rides, they must be burning around 1500 calories/hour)
Pretty accurate
I do have to update the HR monitor once per month to get accurate heart rate zones so that all calculations are as accurate as possible.
My HR monitor has a calorie counter on it. It doesn't base it on activity your doing, but some algorythm of age, sex, weight and heart rate. That number above is pretty accurate based on my results of a 60 minute workout, depending on the effort I put forth. I don't think that the link above would be as accurate due to the fact that it doesn't take into account the physical effort being put forth. If I do a 60 minute effort at low resistance, much less calories are burned, and the opposite is true as well.Penn State said:
I do have to update the HR monitor once per month to get accurate heart rate zones so that all calculations are as accurate as possible.
Joined
·
166 Posts
At my weight, 60 mins is............
Mountain Biking- 1785 calories
walking- 735 calories
I'm 6'3" and 462 as of last weigh in and losing an average of 53 pounds a month after bariatric surgery. My weight loss really took off after I took cycling back up. As of March 11 THIS year, I weighed in at 581 pounds and was in a wheelchair because of a tumor on my pituitary. As of last Saturday I weighed in at 462, and if the average keeps up I'll be under 450 tomorrow(I HOPE!) Wish me luck! I can tell ya I sure as hell FEEL BETTER!
Mountain Biking- 1785 calories
walking- 735 calories
I'm 6'3" and 462 as of last weigh in and losing an average of 53 pounds a month after bariatric surgery. My weight loss really took off after I took cycling back up. As of March 11 THIS year, I weighed in at 581 pounds and was in a wheelchair because of a tumor on my pituitary. As of last Saturday I weighed in at 462, and if the average keeps up I'll be under 450 tomorrow(I HOPE!) Wish me luck! I can tell ya I sure as hell FEEL BETTER!
BigLarry said:
Joined
·
6,034 Posts
Whoever decided that mountain biking should (a) have the same caloric value as BMX and (b) a lower caloric value than riding 15-15.9 mph (presumably on road) has never climbed Mnt Diablo.Penn State said:
Joined
·
143 Posts
That seems really high. The formula is relatively simple to convert watts into calories burned for cycling because we know most riders are in the ballpark of 23% efficient. Unfortunately, I can't seem to locate the formula like I did once before. I seem to recall someone saying their HRM or something said they burned 1400 calories in an hour and we used something like 475 watts as a limit test and it was around that number. However since 475 watts for an hour would be what a top rider could manage for one hour and not much more, I'm sure over a TdF stage there is no way they're averaging around 1500 calories burned per hour. If we could find the formula and use your 260 watts per hour as an average, I think we'll find it's more on the order 700-800 calories per hour.BigLarry said:
Edit: Didn't find the formula per se, but did find a conversion website. It takes 223563 calories to produce 260 watts for an hour. The "calories" from we speak of are actually kilocalories so rounding off it would take 224 calories to produce 260 watts for an hour if we were 100% efficient, since we are only roughly 23% efficient when cycling (224/.23) = 974 calories to produce 260 watts for an hour.
Joined
·
5,280 Posts
If you see my post #14 above, I give the conversion formula you needed between Kcal and Joules (and a Watt is just a Joule/sec)Dwayne Barry said:
I also mention I calculate efficiencies between 15 and 20% in my rides. I suspect this power efficiency depends on the rider weight, effort, condition, and many other factors, wtih the maximum possible efficiency being around 25% in optimal conditions. The calorie expendiiture was quoted by physiology experts who should know better than anyone from their various measurements and experience. Where'd you get your 23% efficiency number?
Joined
·
143 Posts
I've come across it a few times in papers, etc. Thinking about the issue, even if 23% is an accurate number the calculation would have to be a minimum number since those would be the calories required to produce the power contributing to the bike's motion solely but naturally you need to expend calories to maintain balance, posture, etc. that wouldn't be measured by whatever power measuring device you're using.BigLarry said:
Joined
·
5,280 Posts
Actually the "efficient" or desired energy output measured is that in useful work (pedaling the bike). The other inefficient energy expended in all the "overhead" of heart pumping, thinking, sweating, farting, digestion, chemical conversion efficiency, maintaining balance, etc.. are all considered part of the inefficiency relative to useful work. (FWIW, your brain uses 40 Watts in full operation!) If I just sit still at my size, I burn 2800 calories/day or around 120 calories/hour with no useful work output and 0% efficiency. So if a lot of energy is spent thinking or balancing, that lowers your efficiency for useful work as the way we're calculating it, which is power to the bike divided by total calories used. Hmmm, maybe all that effort wasted thinking and balancing is why I'm only 15% power efficient???Dwayne Barry said:
It could be the chemical efficiency is 23% on power, and the other body power overhead is reducing useful work efficiency to 15% or so. In any case 1500 calories/hour for the TdF riders is not an unreasonable rate for the serious work they do, say in climbing hills fast, taking the point, sprints, and other high peak power operations that could also be less efficient at the higher output they do.
Joined
·
1,164 Posts
No, I didn't enter anything wrong, your Polar may do a better job of estimating calories from HR than my Sigma. It's hard to say HR is a perfect indicator due to external factors that may affect HR. Mine may have been higher due to having just flown back across 2 time zones and not getting enough sleep... Just because my HR was higher doesn't mean I was really doing more work.BigLarry said:
My average HR was 140 but like I said that may have been elevated due to being tired.
Joined
·
143 Posts
Right, 23% is the muscle's efficiency in converting the biochemical energy into work. The value of knowing your power output to determine calories burned would be for weight loss or how much food to eat.
All those other things you talk about would fall into your basal metabolic rate (BMR), so you'd be burning them whether cycling or not. I still suspect that figuring your calories based on your power output would still underestimate how many additional calories you burn during an hour of cycling since I suspect the ancillary muscle activity not captured in your power output probably exceeds whatever is considered normal for calcualting your BMR.
All those other things you talk about would fall into your basal metabolic rate (BMR), so you'd be burning them whether cycling or not. I still suspect that figuring your calories based on your power output would still underestimate how many additional calories you burn during an hour of cycling since I suspect the ancillary muscle activity not captured in your power output probably exceeds whatever is considered normal for calcualting your BMR.
21 - 40 of 53 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
