Thread: Numbnuts!
View Single Post
Old 05-10-08, 08:39 PM
  #10  
Nihilistic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by merlinextraligh
And what calcualter are you using for that? Using a powertap, which is actually measuring energy expended at the hub, I'd get more like 600-700 for that workout. Even factoring in your weight, unless, there's a whole lot a vertical, you'll still be under 1,000 calories.

I don't mean to say that your average ride is not a good workout, and a meaningful part of a weight loss program, but I would definitely not figure your intake based on that 2,000 calorie output.

The formula I use is (METS * 3.5 *(Body Weight in lbs/2.2)/200) * Minutes = Calories Burned. Here's where I got the formula. http://www.drgily.com/exercise-calorie-counter.php

I got the METS value from an online compendium available in .pdf form at

http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/d...compendium.pdf

According to their list, cycling at an average speed of 16-19 MPH is 12 METS. Plug my weight of 288 lbs in, and a duration of 79 minutes, and you get 2,171 calories.

I've plugged my stats into various online calculators, like the one at calorie-count.com, and got similar figures.

But, you may be right...these calculators may be absurdly optimistic. Others have commented that the calories burned seemed high. If anyone can shed some light on how to accurately estimate calories burned during exercise, please join the discussion

Cycling is certianly helping me lose weight, in any case. But it would be very helpful to know how much I'm burning with greater precision, because the key to losing weight is to burn between 500-1000 calories more than you take in daily. Too great a deficit causes your body to go into starvation mode and plateau, and not enough obviously also doesn't help.
Nihilistic is offline