Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) Looking to lose that spare tire? Ideal weight 200+? Frustrated being a large cyclist in a sport geared for the ultra-light? Learn about the bikes and parts that can take the abuse of a heavier cyclist, how to keep your body going while losing the weight, and get support from others who've been successful.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-16-13, 04:15 PM   #51
contango 
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
Posts: 3,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveSC View Post
Went for a ride on some actual MTB trails today, Much harder than the other stuff I have been riding, 1600 calories in 5.7mi due to all the elevation changes. 5.7mi offroad was much harder than 13 on pavement.

I wouldn't believe 1600 calories - if you go there you'll start thinking you're burning 300-odd calories per mile which is way over the odds.

I weigh about the same as you and work on a ballpark figure of 40 calories per mile and still have people saying that's too high. Mountain biking is harder than road cycling and obviously we heavier folks burn more energy than a lighter rider when climbing, but even so 300 calories per mile seems spectacularly high.

Energy figures aside, good job on the ride, some trails on gradients can be seriously hard work. I remember the feeling of elation the first time I defeated a hill that had defeated me multiple times previously, and that sense of wondering how much further it was to the top only to realise I was at the top.
__________________
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
contango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-13, 07:24 PM   #52
DaveSC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Not Road biking, plenty of climb.
DaveSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-13, 06:58 AM   #53
DaveSC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Pictures from some of our rides:


Attached Images
File Type: jpg V__2E87.jpg (71.2 KB, 28 views)
File Type: jpg V__A3BD.jpg (103.4 KB, 29 views)
File Type: jpg WP_20130322_001-DWykofka-W7.jpg (98.2 KB, 25 views)
File Type: jpg WP_20130322_003.jpg (100.5 KB, 24 views)
DaveSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-13, 07:21 AM   #54
DaveSC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So I finally started riding during the week when I get home from work, been tough to commit the time but I am enjoying it.

This weekend I did my longest ride yet 16.6mi which isn't too bad on a mountain bike with a bit of climb:
DaveSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-13, 07:47 AM   #55
contango 
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
Posts: 3,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cplager View Post
A 20% grade is monster. The biggest hill in the US is something like 32% or 33%. I'm guessing your definition of grade is slightly different (standard is rise over run or tangent of the angle).
One of the trails I like to hike in PA is pretty brutal - the grade indicator on my GPS topped out at something like 42%. Not one I'd attempt to ride (and I don't think mountain bikers are allowed on that trail)

There's another trail that I had to use both hands to get up. Ironically it's called Little Flat Trail, and the local mountain bikers go down it. Based on the picture of gradients I'd estimate it at 100% and maybe more.
__________________
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
contango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-13, 07:50 AM   #56
contango 
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
Posts: 3,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveSC View Post
Not Road biking, plenty of climb.
300 calories per mile still seems way over the top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveSC View Post
So I finally started riding during the week when I get home from work, been tough to commit the time but I am enjoying it.

This weekend I did my longest ride yet 16.6mi which isn't too bad on a mountain bike with a bit of climb:
Good effort. Be pleased with yourself for setting a new personal record - no need for the justification with the "mountain bike with a bit of climb" bit. You set a new personal best and that's something to be proud of. When you beat it (and sooner or later you will), that's something else to be proud of too
__________________
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
contango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-13, 07:51 AM   #57
cplager
The Recumbent Quant
 
cplager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Norwalk, CT
Bikes: 2012 Cruzbike Sofrider, 2013 Cruzigami Mantis
Posts: 3,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by contango View Post
One of the trails I like to hike in PA is pretty brutal - the grade indicator on my GPS topped out at something like 42%. Not one I'd attempt to ride (and I don't think mountain bikers are allowed on that trail)

There's another trail that I had to use both hands to get up. Ironically it's called Little Flat Trail, and the local mountain bikers go down it. Based on the picture of gradients I'd estimate it at 100% and maybe more.
Trails are much more likely to have ridiculous grades than roads I'll also mention that I wouldn't put too much faith in local elevation gain reporting (although I've seen 45 degree trails which would be 100% grades).
cplager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-13, 08:01 AM   #58
DaveSC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I hear you on the calories, but this ride was less climb/mile (what I meant by a bit of climb) and it gauged me at 190/mile. My wife went with me using the same meter and came up with half the calories/mile. Kind of fits considering she is dragging around half the weight.
DaveSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-13, 08:17 AM   #59
contango 
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
Posts: 3,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveSC View Post
I hear you on the calories, but this ride was less climb/mile (what I meant by a bit of climb) and it gauged me at 190/mile. My wife went with me using the same meter and came up with half the calories/mile. Kind of fits considering she is dragging around half the weight.
190/mile still sounds way over the top. I weigh about 250 and to get to 190 calories per mile I reckon I'd have to be sprinting up huge hills.

If you're interested in calories burned try taking your bike on the road, looking for the flattest circuit you can find, and see what figures it reports. It seems to be a recurring theme that a lot of estimates of calories burned are way over the top. Which is a shame, especially if you think you've burned 1000 calories and feel you've earned 400 calories worth of refuelling at the end of a ride if you only actually burned 300.
__________________
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
contango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-13, 11:29 AM   #60
IBOHUNT
Senior Member
 
IBOHUNT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Western Maryland - Appalachian Mountains
Bikes: Motobecane Fantom Cross; Cannondale Supersix replaced the Giant TCR which came to an untimely death by truck
Posts: 3,729
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by contango View Post
190/mile still sounds way over the top. I weigh about 250 and to get to 190 calories per mile I reckon I'd have to be sprinting up huge hills.
I agree. To get to 190 calories/mi would take a herculean effort.
Best I have in me on a good day is ~15.4Kj / min. I believe, and correct me if I am wrong here, a Kj is roughly equal to a food calorie. I'd have to be putting out some serious power to get to 190 calories/mile

I say find a power meter, do a test and compare the numbers to the device you are using. I know my Garmin Edge 500 is REAL(!) bad at calculating calories if I look at my powermeter data. The numbers are ~35% off.
IBOHUNT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-13, 01:31 PM   #61
cplager
The Recumbent Quant
 
cplager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Norwalk, CT
Bikes: 2012 Cruzbike Sofrider, 2013 Cruzigami Mantis
Posts: 3,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBOHUNT View Post
I agree. To get to 190 calories/mi would take a herculean effort.
Best I have in me on a good day is ~15.4Kj / min. I believe, and correct me if I am wrong here, a Kj is roughly equal to a food calorie. I'd have to be putting out some serious power to get to 190 calories/mile

I say find a power meter, do a test and compare the numbers to the device you are using. I know my Garmin Edge 500 is REAL(!) bad at calculating calories if I look at my powermeter data. The numbers are ~35% off.
A powermeter itself is going to measure how much energy your muscles are producing. Not how much energy it took the human body to make the energy (and the human body is far from 100% efficient and different people have different efficiencies).

That isn't to say that I wouldn't trust a what a power meter reads over a Garmin (mine lies to me horribly - I don't think I burned over 4,000 calories in just over two hours).

In general, I'd only use the numbers to compare different workouts against each other. If you are going to go out and eat as (half) many calories as it claims you burned, you're not going to be pleased.
cplager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-13, 01:42 PM   #62
DaveSC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I agree with that, I am not a calorie counter but it does make a good yardstick. The numbers I pay the most attention to are miles, and climb.
DaveSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-13, 06:52 PM   #63
IBOHUNT
Senior Member
 
IBOHUNT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Western Maryland - Appalachian Mountains
Bikes: Motobecane Fantom Cross; Cannondale Supersix replaced the Giant TCR which came to an untimely death by truck
Posts: 3,729
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cplager View Post
A powermeter itself is going to measure how much energy your muscles are producing. Not how much energy it took the human body to make the energy (and the human body is far from 100% efficient and different people have different efficiencies).

That isn't to say that I wouldn't trust a what a power meter reads over a Garmin (mine lies to me horribly - I don't think I burned over 4,000 calories in just over two hours).

In general, I'd only use the numbers to compare different workouts against each other. If you are going to go out and eat as (half) many calories as it claims you burned, you're not going to be pleased.
Understand that the powermeter is only going to measure work.

My understanding of the math for getting food calorie expenditure is you multiply the average power in W by the time in seconds to get Joules; divide by the kcal/kJ conversion of 4.184; then divide by your metabolic efficiency for cycling (generally in the range 20-25%) to figure out the number of food calories you burned to get from A to B then multiply that mess by .001 to get rid of the messy k bit.

therfore, on tonight's 63 min 15 second ride where I went a whopping 15 miles on the road bike

Avg power was 227 Watts

3795 seconds * 227 / 4.184 / .25 (efficiency)* .001 = 823 food calories. If I use normalized power of 258 watts then the figure is 936 food calories. Not a bad workout at 13 calories/min

The "work" reported by Garmin was 860kJ where the calorie expenditure reported was 630.

Even if I add my basil metabolic rate to the Garmin figure that only gets me to 700; a far cry from what the powermeter math tells me.

At the end of the day I'm just saying ain't a chance I can ever get to 190 calories/mile much less 300 calories a mile. My legs and lungs wouldn't support it and I couldn't digest as many calories to keep me from bonking at that rate.
IBOHUNT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-13, 07:07 AM   #64
DaveSC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Bikes:
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
New Rule: when the people you are riding with tell you to run 40PSI even though your tire says 65PSI don't listen...... If you did listen and then finally tried 60PSI feel really dumb about how much harder you made all your previous rides.
DaveSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-13, 07:46 AM   #65
contango 
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
Posts: 3,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveSC View Post
New Rule: when the people you are riding with tell you to run 40PSI even though your tire says 65PSI don't listen...... If you did listen and then finally tried 60PSI feel really dumb about how much harder you made all your previous rides.
General principle: Don't take what anyone says without considering why it might work or not work
__________________
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
contango is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:16 PM.