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


Go Back   > >

Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-23-05, 05:16 PM   #1
dog.breath
ex.oris.canis
Thread Starter
 
dog.breath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ
Bikes: 1992 Bridgestone MB3, 198x Fuji cross fixed-gear conversion, 2003 Fuji Absolute, 2003 Kona Unit, 2005 Kona Caldera
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Fitness and Calorie Burning

Where I live it's fairly hilly, though until recently I lived in a town where it wasn't. As time has gone by, the hills here have gotten much easier to climb. On my daily commute (~3 miles each way), I can now sprint up even the biggest hills, whereas at first it was a major workout just pedaling to stay upright. It seems obvious that I'm becoming more fit and in tune with my environment. I'm wondering what this means in terms of calorie burning? As I get in better shape, does it take the same number of calories for me to climb the same hill, or is my increased fitness actually causing greater efficiency and therefore a reduction in the number of calories required to climb?
dog.breath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-05, 05:21 PM   #2
trayer350
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Gabriel Mountains
Bikes: Vortex, Proteus,Tuscany, Victoire
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wouldn't think it would cause a reduction in calories burned. But it might mean less perspiration, less gasping for air, less pain in the leg muscles--that sort of thing.
trayer350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-05, 05:27 PM   #3
dog.breath
ex.oris.canis
Thread Starter
 
dog.breath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ
Bikes: 1992 Bridgestone MB3, 198x Fuji cross fixed-gear conversion, 2003 Fuji Absolute, 2003 Kona Unit, 2005 Kona Caldera
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by trayer350
I wouldn't think it would cause a reduction in calories burned. But it might mean less perspiration, less gasping for air, less pain in the leg muscles--that sort of thing.
That's kind of what I was thinking - except the "less perspiration" part (it being summer in Georgia, after all).
dog.breath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-05, 06:45 PM   #4
Patriot
Faith-Vigilance-Service
 
Patriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Bikes: Trinity, Paradisus, Centurion, Mongoose, Trek
Posts: 8,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The laws of physics are very strict. To climb a hil from point A to point B, it takes the same amount of energy (calories) regardless of how fast you are going. Now if you do it faster, your body may be producing more Work, but that's a differant equation based on efficiency.
So, If you burned 300 calories to go to work at 12mph, you are also burning 300 calories to go to work on the same route going 15mph, because even though you are going faster you are doing it in less time. This is of course, if all other variables are the same, such as total bike and body weight, temperature, wind speed and direction, etc.
__________________
President, OCP
--"Will you have some tea... at the theatre with me?"--
Patriot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-05, 08:44 PM   #5
juf2m
Senior Member
 
juf2m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Maryland
Bikes: Serotta Fierte Steel
Posts: 369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am very glad to hear this! I am also getting better at hills, and find my overall heart rate lowering, which was beginning to worry me in terms of calories, because I still have a good 10lbs to lose!
juf2m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-05, 09:27 PM   #6
jedi_rider
Nut Job
 
jedi_rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Bikes:
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriot
The laws of physics are very strict. To climb a hil from point A to point B, it takes the same amount of energy (calories) regardless of how fast you are going. Now if you do it faster, your body may be producing more Work, but that's a differant equation based on efficiency.
So, If you burned 300 calories to go to work at 12mph, you are also burning 300 calories to go to work on the same route going 15mph, because even though you are going faster you are doing it in less time. This is of course, if all other variables are the same, such as total bike and body weight, temperature, wind speed and direction, etc.
isn't this all true only in a frictionless environment?
jedi_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-05, 09:31 PM   #7
jedi_rider
Nut Job
 
jedi_rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Bikes:
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedi_rider
isn't this all true only in a frictionless environment?
sorry, not frictionless...never mind what i said---i was thinking of something else in my delirious state of mind.

you're assuming the same path, so yes, what you said is true...i think.
jedi_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-05, 10:03 PM   #8
filtersweep
Senior Member
 
filtersweep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 2,615
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriot
The laws of physics are very strict. To climb a hil from point A to point B, it takes the same amount of energy (calories) regardless of how fast you are going. Now if you do it faster, your body may be producing more Work, but that's a differant equation based on efficiency.
So, If you burned 300 calories to go to work at 12mph, you are also burning 300 calories to go to work on the same route going 15mph, because even though you are going faster you are doing it in less time. This is of course, if all other variables are the same, such as total bike and body weight, temperature, wind speed and direction, etc.
No. It takes the same amount of work, but not the same calories. A fitter cyclist can do the same work using less oxygen and burning fewer calories.

Let's say two cyclists are the same weight and age and have identical bikes, but are of different fit. If they ride the same hill, the fitter cyclist will do it burning fewer calories- and at a lower avg. heart rate. It is no different than having a more fuel efficient car- they can do the same amount of actual work, but they use different amounts of energy.

You might want to rethink your laws of physics.

Also, the faster you climb a hill, the more energy (and calories) it takes. If you don't believe me, strap on a HRM and get back to us.

Your theories are a bit wet...
filtersweep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-05, 10:58 PM   #9
PatWasha
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it may be a number of things, your body is in better shape, if you lose a little weight, but maintain the same speed/distance, the formulas may show a lower calorie burn.

According to my calorie burn program that I use, I burn less calories now at 220 pounds riding for an hour at 16mph, than I did when I weighed 240 pounds. The main difference is now, I can ride for a longer period of time, I don't feel afraid of hills, I'm more aggressive on them. To me it just means I'm developing a more effective calorie burning machine.
PatWasha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-05, 08:03 AM   #10
juf2m
Senior Member
 
juf2m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Maryland
Bikes: Serotta Fierte Steel
Posts: 369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh that's what I was afraid of. It's so unfair, the harder you work and the fitter you get, the more you are punished by burning fewer calories. I guess I'm going to have to push myself up those hills until I practically get a heart attack to get this weight off!
juf2m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-05, 10:48 AM   #11
joelpalmer
Back after a long absence
 
joelpalmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bay Area CA
Bikes: 1974 Schwinn Speedster 3-speed, Raleigh Super Course
Posts: 603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatWasha
I think it may be a number of things, your body is in better shape, if you lose a little weight, but maintain the same speed/distance, the formulas may show a lower calorie burn.

According to my calorie burn program that I use, I burn less calories now at 220 pounds riding for an hour at 16mph, than I did when I weighed 240 pounds. The main difference is now, I can ride for a longer period of time, I don't feel afraid of hills, I'm more aggressive on them. To me it just means I'm developing a more effective calorie burning machine.
Agreed, I'm working on a program from my Dr and he gave a sheet with the formulas (if anyone is interested in details let me know) Basically as you lose weight your basal metabolic need (how many calories you burn just being alive) drops, and that is the greatest amount of calories you burn in a day. So the more weight you lose the fewer calories you burn RESTING, you can overcome the dropoff to a degree by increasing time/intensity of the workout, but only to a point.
joelpalmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-05, 10:56 AM   #12
cgosse
Member
 
cgosse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Spencer, WI
Bikes: Surly Crosscheck
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just one other thing to throw into the mix is that lean body mass tends to correspond with a higher BMR (basal metabolic rate), therefore comparing someone weighing 200 lbs that is flabby vs. fit, the fit person burns more energy at rest while not working out resulting in an increase in calories burned throughout the day. Keep in mind that working out is a great way to burn calories, but truthfully is only a drop in the bucket when compared to the amount of energy your body burns on a daily basis just to keep itself running.
cgosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-05, 05:57 PM   #13
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i (RIP), 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 10,375
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgosse
Just one other thing to throw into the mix is that lean body mass tends to correspond with a higher BMR (basal metabolic rate), therefore comparing someone weighing 200 lbs that is flabby vs. fit, the fit person burns more energy at rest while not working out resulting in an increase in calories burned throughout the day. Keep in mind that working out is a great way to burn calories, but truthfully is only a drop in the bucket when compared to the amount of energy your body burns on a daily basis just to keep itself running.
Depends on how much you ride. Even if I halve what my HRM says for my calories burned, I'm still burning around 500 calories per hour and I ride at least an hour every day. I don't consider 20% (remember that's using my 50% conservative estimation) of my daily caloric consumption a drop in the bucket.
joejack951 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 05:59 AM.