Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Member ElPresidente408's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    35
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I reciently got a Polar A5 and used it on my last ride. I rode in zone for 2hr 13min (2hr 30min total) with an average HR of 146. Anyways the monitor said I had burned 1819kcal, and I'm wondering if that's a reasonable estimate? It asked for my height, age, and weight. I also checked my HR manually and that matched up to the Polar readings.

    I'm 18 years old. 5'9 at 164lbs.

  2. #2
    Omega Fan BryanW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Sussex, UK
    Posts
    479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That sounds very high. From a common sense viewpoint, I'm not sure that heartrate can be a good measure of calorie consumption. The larger and stronger your heart, the more blood it will pump for every beat, and the fewer beats it will need for your body to do a given amount of muscular work. It's this "work" that determines how many calories you burn, not the perceived effort of doing it. A pro tootling along at 23mph will burn off more calories than a newbie of the same age struggling to keep up 18mph, even though the pro will be making less perceived effort and his heartrate will be much lower.

    I think ...

  3. #3
    The Question Man
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ElPresidente408
    I reciently got a Polar A5 and used it on my last ride. I rode in zone for 2hr 13min (2hr 30min total) with an average HR of 146. Anyways the monitor said I had burned 1819kcal, and I'm wondering if that's a reasonable estimate? It asked for my height, age, and weight. I also checked my HR manually and that matched up to the Polar readings.

    I'm 18 years old. 5'9 at 164lbs.
    that sounds kinda high especially with a heart rate that low. Maybe it's just me but when I'm on my hardest level of riding my heart rate is at about 170-175. Maybe your resting heart rate is just that much lower than mine but even if you were struggling to get through for that entire time period, over 1800 calories burned still sounds kinda high. That would be around 900 calories per hour! How much of the ride was up hill and what was your average speed?
    Trek 7200 FX Black
    (just bought her on June 12, 2005)

  4. #4
    Faith-Vigilance-Service Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Port Orchard, WA
    My Bikes
    Trinity, Paradisus, Centurion, Mongoose, Trek
    Posts
    8,333
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That does sound a little high, unless of course you're in really good shape, with a low heart rate. A general rule of thumb, is what I use for me.

    I figured out, that riding about 18mph, at my weight 173#, I generally burn about 1000 calories per hour. So, if you had your avg speed up to that level and your weight being slightly less to mine, then I would agree, that reading would be fairly accurate then.
    President, OCP
    --"Will you have some tea... at the theatre with me?"--

  5. #5
    Name's Ash ...housewares Doctor Morbius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The adult video section
    My Bikes
    Too many to list
    Posts
    798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ElPresidente408
    I reciently got a Polar A5 and used it on my last ride. I rode in zone for 2hr 13min (2hr 30min total) with an average HR of 146. Anyways the monitor said I had burned 1819kcal, and I'm wondering if that's a reasonable estimate? It asked for my height, age, and weight. I also checked my HR manually and that matched up to the Polar readings.

    I'm 18 years old. 5'9 at 164lbs.
    You may want to compare your findings against this web site...

    http://www.primusweb.com/cgi-bin/fpc/actcalc.pl

    I'm not voucing for the accuracy of this site but it may give you some insight as to how your calorie function is working. Both methods are very rough estimates.
    I did not achieve this position in life by having some snot-nosed punk leave my cheese out in the wind. - Ed Rooney


    It's not that I'm lazy. I'm just highly motivated to RELAX!!

  6. #6
    Faith-Vigilance-Service Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Port Orchard, WA
    My Bikes
    Trinity, Paradisus, Centurion, Mongoose, Trek
    Posts
    8,333
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That is a good rough estimate calculator. I put in my weight, 173#, and 60 minutes of duration.

    The cycling 16-19mph came out to about 996 calories, which is about right for me.

    One thing you also need to remember, is that I think you should also add the weight of your bicycle if you want it to be more accurate, since you are dragging along 16-20# of road bike, or 30-35# of MTB along with you, and the weight of the bike can vary greatly.
    President, OCP
    --"Will you have some tea... at the theatre with me?"--

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i've compared what my polar tells me to online calculators and they are always in the same ballpark, usually pretty close, which is impressive since the polar is trying to measure calories in such an indirect manner.

  8. #8
    Member ElPresidente408's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    35
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Haha well actually my resting heart rate is sorta high to begin with and there are no mountains in my area. I was riding near the beach the entire time.

    Bicycling: 12-13.9 mph 1417
    Bicycling: 14-15.9 mph 1771
    Bicycling: 16-19 mph 2125

    That's for my weight and a 135 min duration.

    Although my travel computer wasn't working for most of the trip, I think I averaged around 13-14mph. Another thing that could have thrown it off is that I kept the measurements going while taking a quick break halfway in.

  9. #9
    base training heretic Squint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver, CO
    My Bikes
    Cervelo P3C, many Litespeeds
    Posts
    716
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    1000 kcal/hr requires a power output of around 267W. On flat ground, that's about a 23-24 mph average w/o any aero' equipment.

    Don't use a HRM or a chart to estimate calorie expenditure. The result is almost always way too high. Use a powermeter.

  10. #10
    The Question Man
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Squint
    1000 kcal/hr requires a power output of around 267W. On flat ground, that's about a 23-24 mph average w/o any aero' equipment.

    Don't use a HRM or a chart to estimate calorie expenditure. The result is almost always way too high. Use a powermeter.
    you mean something that measures watts right? But I was on this stationary the other day and it was all screwed up. As I increased resistance, for some reason my speed would go up as well. Even when I stayed at a constant speed and Wattage. Maybe the bike was broken or something.
    Trek 7200 FX Black
    (just bought her on June 12, 2005)

  11. #11
    base training heretic Squint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver, CO
    My Bikes
    Cervelo P3C, many Litespeeds
    Posts
    716
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There really aren't any stationary bikes of the type that you would find in gyms that accurately measure power or work. Even the ones used in labs for research can have problems. Trainers with "power" also have problems. Most of the aforementioned don't actually measure power but back-calculate it from speed and resistance which introduces a lot of variables.

  12. #12
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,322
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Patriot
    ...you are dragging along 16-20# of road bike, or 30-35# of MTB along with you, and the weight of the bike can vary greatly.
    My weight varies greatly; my bike's almost never changes.

  13. #13
    Name's Ash ...housewares Doctor Morbius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The adult video section
    My Bikes
    Too many to list
    Posts
    798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't have access to any power equipment but I found this online wattage calculator ... http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm ... and filled in the information for my particulars. It had me at 243 watts to obtain 17.0 MPH. I don't know how accurate this calculator is though. The calorie function had me at 836 total for 1 hour at that speed. My Polar A5 would have had me at about 1200.

    At 267 watts and zero wind it estimated my speed at 19.5 given my stats.

    Rider's Height: 68.5 inches
    Rider's Weight: 235 lbs
    Bicycle Weight: 23 lbs
    Air Temperature: 69 F
    Height above SeaLevel: 840 (Indianapolis
    Slope of Road %: zero (did a loop)
    Wind Speed: 3 MPH (it was more windy than that but I was doing a loop so I'm estimating crosswinds)
    Pedaling Cadence /min: 80
    I did not achieve this position in life by having some snot-nosed punk leave my cheese out in the wind. - Ed Rooney


    It's not that I'm lazy. I'm just highly motivated to RELAX!!

Posting Permissions

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