Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 86
  1. #1
    C3 H6 O3 ACID jasandalb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Old Peoplesville
    Posts
    1,139
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Can I possibly be shredding this many calories?

    Okay...so I have a heart monitor and have been training for a week with it.
    One thing it measures during my workouts is Kcal's burned (kilocalories)
    The KCal to Cal ratio is 1:1000

    So....my monday night run... 5k
    Time = 23:11
    Max HR = 183
    Avg HR = 171
    KCal Burned = 817
    Converted and that's 8170 calories burned


    Then...did a recovery run last night and worked the weights...
    Last nights stats:
    Time = 48:36
    Max HR = 185
    Avg HR = 143
    KCal burned = 693
    Convert that and last night's workout I burned 6930 calories....

    Surely my math is NOT right....can I really burn that? I'm 31, current weight is 202lbs.

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    First if Kcal and cal was 1:1000 then your conversion is wrong, it would be 817 Kcal = 81,700 cals

    But really the number you want is the Kcal value, there is no conversion. But not only that it is widely excepted that most HRMs will give you a calories burned value higher then it really should be in most cases.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    No Va but ride also in So Md
    My Bikes
    Cervelo SLC-SL, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX
    Posts
    8,885
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    First HRM monitors usually provide a highly inflated calorie burned value. My Garmin showed 4,000 calories on a long ride once. I then used some calculations that showed less than half is the actual.

    Second, with your weight and that pace, you likely burn 150 calories per mile. That's a little over 450 for 5K.

    Finally forget about conversions.
    You're just trying to start an argument to show how smart you are.

  4. #4
    Me!! KyleOndy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central NJ
    My Bikes
    Trek 1500
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It does not seem right to burn >800 calories in a 5k run.

  5. #5
    triathlete? roadie? MTB? caelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bellevue, NE
    My Bikes
    Cannondale Slice One tri bike, Cannondale F300 Hardtail MTB, Bianchi Giro roadie
    Posts
    384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Heh. When you talk about calories in food, and calories burnt via exercising, you are allready talking in kilo calories (kcal's) Read the wikipedia article on calories, kilocaroies, and Calories for a decent explanation.

    Short version is that you burnt 817 Calories on your first run, and 693 Calories on your second run. A bacon cheeseburger has about 500 Calories. The Calories burnt do seem a little high; the average amount of Calories burnt during exercise is anywhere from 1000-1500 per hour. At 817 Calores in 23:11 minutes, you were burning over 2000 Calories per hour, which is rather high, even for your size. For refence, I'm 215 lbs and burn about 1000 Calories in a hour of cycling, about 15000 per hour running.
    Go Fast By Any Means, my triathlon/motor sports blog

  6. #6
    Administrator CbadRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    On the bridge with Picard
    My Bikes
    Specialized Allez, Specialized Sirrus
    Posts
    5,843
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    According to your heart monitor you're burning 35 calories per minute. That is a bit high.
    Quote Originally Posted by toddles View Post
    So Tom only hires people that are nutty? Is part of the requirement to be a moderator on this site is that you have to be nuts??
    Forum Guidelines *click here*

  7. #7
    grilled cheesus aham23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    8675309
    My Bikes
    2010 CAAD9 Custom, 06 Giant TCR C2 & 05 Specialized Hardrock Sport
    Posts
    6,933
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    a very basic guideline for moderate efforts is 40 cals per biking mile and 100 cals per running mile. most HR units give off high numbers. i guess they want you to feel good about working out and buy more of their stuff. later.

  8. #8
    C3 H6 O3 ACID jasandalb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Old Peoplesville
    Posts
    1,139
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    so...why in the heck do they put Kcal's on there?

    I even cross checked my stuff at the gym... got on the treadmill and ran and it followed the same flow as my HR monitor, same increase in KCal burned....

    Oh well... I kind of figured it was way off. But it would be nice to know what I am truly burning.
    Anyone have any way of doing that???

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    No Va but ride also in So Md
    My Bikes
    Cervelo SLC-SL, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX
    Posts
    8,885
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jasandalb View Post
    Oh well... I kind of figured it was way off. But it would be nice to know what I am truly burning.
    Anyone have any way of doing that???
    Do a Google search. There are lots of charts that show calories burned per each type of exercising, speed, your weight, etc. It all varies. For example, someone mentioned running is 100 calories per mile. That's true for someone weighing 150 lbs. Since you weigh 202, your rate is closer to 150 calories. Your pace has an impact, but much smaller. The difference between 7:00/mile and 9:00/mile varies by 20%.
    You're just trying to start an argument to show how smart you are.

  10. #10
    C3 H6 O3 ACID jasandalb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Old Peoplesville
    Posts
    1,139
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Okay..... think I might have figured this out....

    1Kcal = 4184 Joules.
    1 Joule = .000239 calories (nutritional)

    SO......in my monday run:

    817Kcal = 3,418,328 Joules
    3,418,328 Joules x .000239 = calories burned

    Calories burned = 816.9

    That sounds a little more like it.....

  11. #11
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,802
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jasandalb View Post
    so...why in the heck do they put Kcal's on there?

    I even cross checked my stuff at the gym... got on the treadmill and ran and it followed the same flow as my HR monitor, same increase in KCal burned....

    Oh well... I kind of figured it was way off. But it would be nice to know what I am truly burning.
    Anyone have any way of doing that???
    They put Kcals because that's what everybody uses--it's just that what we lay people (and the nutrition labels) commonly call "calories" are really "Calories", which are the same as what scientists call "kilocalories". Confusing, isn't it?

    Your HRM probably gives the most accurate estimate of the calories you burn, as long as it's set up properly. For greater accuracy, you would probably have to go into a laboratory setting.

    Why do you feel it's important to get any estimate of calories burned? If you're trying to lose weight, the scale is the best measuring instrument. Weigh yourself every week. If you weigh more this week, eat a little less next week. Repeat on a weekly basis for the rest of your life. Very simple, very effective, and very cheap.

    Ride your bike for fun and fitness--not for weight loss. Exercise is largely ineffective for weight loss, which is mostly about eating less.


    "Think Outside the Cage"

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    105
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    wiki:

    The unit calorie has historically been used in two major alternate definitions that differ by a factor of 1,000

    The small calorie, gram calorie, or calorie (symbol: cal) is the amount of heat (energy) required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by 1 C.

    The large calorie, kilogram calorie, kilocalorie (symbol: kcal), or Calorie (capital C) is the amount of heat (energy) needed to increase the temperature of one kg of water by 1 C, exactly 1000 small calories, or about 4.184 kJ.

    The second definition is the one commonly used to express food energy

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    105
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Turt99 View Post
    First if Kcal and cal was 1:1000 then your conversion is wrong, it would be 817 Kcal = 81,700 cals

    .
    er... 817,000 ???

  14. #14
    C3 H6 O3 ACID jasandalb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Old Peoplesville
    Posts
    1,139
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

    I am trying to make sure that what I burn I am able to replace.
    Its about staying fit and lean.

    Its not as simple as stepping on the scale each week....if it was then there wouldn't be as big a weight problem as there is. What about when you keep exercising, sticking to the EXACT routine you've done... then 3 wks in a row you weigh the same? Would you not want to dig deeper to find out what's going on??

    I bike and run because I enjoy it....but there is also a purpose to it. I am training for my first TRI and this is the best way....for me....to keep track of my goals.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    5,181
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody View Post
    Ride your bike for fun and fitness--not for weight loss. Exercise is largely ineffective for weight loss, which is mostly about eating less.
    I think you've got that backwards. For me it is much easier to lose weight by exercising than by cutting out food. It's not too hard to burn an extra 3500 calories a week by riding a bike. On top of that you get the ancilliary benefits of being fit.

  16. #16
    C3 H6 O3 ACID jasandalb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Old Peoplesville
    Posts
    1,139
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody View Post
    Exercise is largely ineffective for weight loss, which is mostly about eating less.
    you are not serious are you

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    248
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody View Post
    Ride your bike for fun and fitness--not for weight loss. Exercise is largely ineffective for weight loss, which is mostly about eating less.
    Weight loss is about creating a calorie deficit. This is done by eating fewer calories, increasing physical activity, or both. Its not "mostly" about one or the other.

  18. #18
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,802
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To lose one pound of fat, you have to ride roughly 87 miles. And you have to do that without eating even one additional bite of food. How many people can do this every week, or how many actually will do it?


    "Think Outside the Cage"

  19. #19
    50000 Guatts of power 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,001
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    OP

    you original number are way off


    expect to burn 1000-1200 calories per hour running at a good clip
    your revised number in the 800's is probably quite correct
    I like fat bikes
    and I cannot lie.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    105
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gregf83 View Post
    I think you've got that backwards. For me it is much easier to lose weight by exercising than by cutting out food. It's not too hard to burn an extra 3500 calories a week by riding a bike. On top of that you get the ancilliary benefits of being fit.

    I'm surprised at the negative reactions to this quote. It's becoming more and more accepted in the weight loss community that you cut calories taken in to lose weight. You exercise, preferably resistance exercise, to minimize the percentage of weight lost as muscle.

    The more you need to lose weight the truer it is. A sedentay 300 pounder probably cant run aerobically. Any run is a gasping sprint. They cant bike or do anything else at running colorie expenditures. Unless they dedicate hours a day to walking at a strolling pace or some walking equivalent exercise they cant burn 3500 calories per week. One pound a week average is the absolute minimum to motivate someone to stay on a weight loss program. Counting on exercise also runs the risk of increasing appetite or just giving an excuse to eat more.

    If you do the math then anecdotal stories of exercise based weight loss have to be explained by something beyond straight calorie deficit theory. Like LARGE increases in BMR or decreases in digestive efficiency.

  21. #21
    Freewheelin' Fred dwilbur3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sacramento
    My Bikes
    Surly Cross Check
    Posts
    742
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think it's fair to say that using BOTH calorie restriction and exercise will improve the odds of success of any weight-loss plan.

  22. #22
    Senior Member spunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    473
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The reason why it's most effective to exercise in order to achieve and maintain weight loss is because exercise increases the BMR. Just cutting out calories works to a certain extent. But eventually the body senses the caloric decrease and adjusts it's BMR to offset it....hence it lowers your actual caloric expenditure. Exercise combined with a reduction in caloric intake focuses on both sides of the equation.
    running makes your legs nasty. Cycling makes them look a weird way that i like.

  23. #23
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,802
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gregf83 View Post
    It's not too hard to burn an extra 3500 calories a week by riding a bike.
    I never said it was hard to burn the calories. I said it's hard to lose weight with exercise alone.

    To burn the calories, you only have to ride about 12.5 miles a day on every day of the week. But to lose the weight, you must never eat any extra food because you're riding those miles. No Gatorade, no power bar, no banana or fig newton in the jersey pocket. Just remember, if you do eat only one energy bar (240 calories) in the entire week, you have to ride six more miles to burn it off. That's half a day's extra exercise for just energy bar!

    Maybe not that easy after all?


    "Think Outside the Cage"

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    No Va but ride also in So Md
    My Bikes
    Cervelo SLC-SL, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX
    Posts
    8,885
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 127.0.0.1 View Post
    OP

    you original number are way off


    expect to burn 1000-1200 calories per hour running at a good clip
    your revised number in the 800's is probably quite correct
    I don't think you meant that. His revised number didn't changed - just the caluculation worked out.

    There's no way someone can burn 817 calories in 23 minutes unless they are 350 lbs and capable of six minute miles.
    You're just trying to start an argument to show how smart you are.

  25. #25
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,802
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dwilbur3 View Post
    I think it's fair to say that using BOTH calorie restriction and exercise will improve the odds of success of any weight-loss plan.
    I agree that exercise might help a bit with weight loss maintenence. But then again, I once gained 10 pounds in a couple months while I was riding 100 miles a week. That's because I wasn't paying attention to my portions and I wasn't paying attention to the scales.

    Now I pay attention to both these things. On 10/30/08 I had a bad injury and had to go "cold turkey" from 130 miles/week to zero miles/week. I haven't gained any weight, even with drastically less exercise, because I weigh myself every week and adjust my food intake accordingly. Again, this method of weight control is both easier and more effective than the "calorie equation" that most unsuccessful dieters use: "If you gained weight this week, eat less next week."


    "Think Outside the Cage"

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •