Info You Already Know - Exercise Calorie Trackers
04-09-15, 12:31 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Info You Already Know - Exercise Calorie Trackers
EDIT: One is in kcal so the numbers may not be that far off. However I think most people, like I just did, will read it as typically understood Calories. Upper case C and lower case c apparently mean different things....
Original....
Take a look at the below screen capture. It shows the difference in estimated calories burned from the same exercise. I did a 21 mile ride the other night and exported it to another tracker. Each calculates the ride a bit differently as far as distance and time goes but the results are very close. CERTAINLY there is not enough difference to account for the caloric delta.
21 miles easy ride at night.
Tracker 1 = 819 Calories
Tracker 2 = 4,571 Calories
Tracker 2 is 558% more than Tracker 1.
I'm telling you all this so you are aware that even exercise trackers are using incorrect information so you feel better about what you are doing and will then continue to use their product. While none of these trackers are 100% accurate with their estimates some at least TRY.
People make eating decisions based on how much they think they have burned during exercise. Heck I do it myself. If you use Tracker 2 AND BELIEVE IT you will go down a bad path. Most people KNOW they are inaccurate so they say "I'll just halve what it tells me!" You will STILL be wrong.... because they inflate the numbers so much.
So... what numbers to use if the Trackers are not right? Good question! Even though Tracker 1 is much lower than Tracker 2 I don't use those values either. I generally don't use them for caloric estimates AT ALL nor do I try to (mostly) give myself more food because I exercise. I give myself more nutrition to RECOVER, with occasional visits to justifying extra food because I "worked so hard".
What you should do is enough research on your activity and effort you need to do on that activity and figure out what you are burning. It's an estimate of course unless you have some very reliable instrumentation to measure things.
Original....
Take a look at the below screen capture. It shows the difference in estimated calories burned from the same exercise. I did a 21 mile ride the other night and exported it to another tracker. Each calculates the ride a bit differently as far as distance and time goes but the results are very close. CERTAINLY there is not enough difference to account for the caloric delta.
21 miles easy ride at night.
Tracker 1 = 819 Calories
Tracker 2 = 4,571 Calories
Tracker 2 is 558% more than Tracker 1.
I'm telling you all this so you are aware that even exercise trackers are using incorrect information so you feel better about what you are doing and will then continue to use their product. While none of these trackers are 100% accurate with their estimates some at least TRY.
People make eating decisions based on how much they think they have burned during exercise. Heck I do it myself. If you use Tracker 2 AND BELIEVE IT you will go down a bad path. Most people KNOW they are inaccurate so they say "I'll just halve what it tells me!" You will STILL be wrong.... because they inflate the numbers so much.
So... what numbers to use if the Trackers are not right? Good question! Even though Tracker 1 is much lower than Tracker 2 I don't use those values either. I generally don't use them for caloric estimates AT ALL nor do I try to (mostly) give myself more food because I exercise. I give myself more nutrition to RECOVER, with occasional visits to justifying extra food because I "worked so hard".
What you should do is enough research on your activity and effort you need to do on that activity and figure out what you are burning. It's an estimate of course unless you have some very reliable instrumentation to measure things.
Last edited by WonderMonkey; 04-09-15 at 01:00 PM.
04-09-15, 12:43 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Western Maryland - Appalachian Mountains
Posts: 4,024
Bikes: Motobecane Fantom Cross; Cannondale Supersix replaced the Giant TCR which came to an untimely death by truck
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 25 Times
in
9 Posts
Calorie tracker = @Black wallnut PoundSign EpicFail
My calorie tracker is my belt, the scale and my power meter....
My 2 cents U.S.
My calorie tracker is my belt, the scale and my power meter....
My 2 cents U.S.
04-09-15, 12:44 PM
#3
Senior Member
04-09-15, 12:50 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 181
Bikes: 2005 Specialized Sirrus Elite
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I am so happy that someone set me straight with this concept a little bit ago. My results were matching MFP's numbers which probably had less to do with actual numbers and more just that first few weeks/months after a change being very efficient. So even though I knew most calculators were a crap shoot, I started to trust mine. After all I was attempting to lose 2 lbs per week and using it's exercise calculator and coming up about 5000-8000 calories per week below my goal and losing just over 4 lbs per week. That's right on target. 7000 calories represents about 2 lbs of fat. So losing an average of 4.28 lbs means I was losing the 7000 calories I wanted plus another 7980 that I wasn't planning on which could be explained by coming in under my goal which was due to cycling.
But that seems to be something that happens to everyone. Everyone starts losing faster than the math says it should. My best guess is when we start, we are very unhealthy. We breathe more and harder, our hearts pump harder and faster. Just staying alive probably burns more calories than a more fit person at the same weight. Since I started riding my resting heart rate has dropped about 10-20bpm depending on situation (55-61 when I get up, 60-64 when at rest unless I just finished my coffee) and my riding heart rate went from 170s at slow speeds to 130s at moderate speeds.
And then going further and looking at my weight loss graphs, I noticed that I have about a 2 week cycle. I'll lose fast, recover a little, plateau, and then start losing again. Those high weight days are usually right around the times I'd go for my longest rides and then I'd eat back some calories thinking that I could eat whatever I wanted. After all, my normal is 2150/day and that 2 hour ride burned another 2500-3k, right?
I've found that when using an estimated heart rate (going to start using a monitor and cycling computer soon), a calorie calculator has me burning about 1/2 what MFP says. I'd guess most of these apps are accurate under extreme circumstances. A person is so unfit that they are riding at a very high heart rate, and/or are dealing with headwind, and/or hills, etc. So maybe there was a time where it was more accurate for me. But now that 14mph is less of a strain on my cardiovascular system (still a strain on my knees because I'm only down 20-25lbs so I'm still lugging around plenty of weight) it probably just takes less energy to move me.
Had I continued to rely on MFP I know what would've happened. I would've continued to lose weight for a while. If I'm dropping 4.25ish now, that rate would've dropped to 2lbs/week within a few months. And then started going lower. And maybe stopped. I would've ignored it for 1-3 weeks figuring it was a natural plateau cycle. But eventually I would've got frustrated. After all, I'm doing everything right. And maybe the frustration would've lead to me giving up. That is what happened when I used juice to make changes before. The weight kept coming off but the commitment was frustrating. I had to be in the gym constantly to avoid losing muscle (after all, it is almost a crash diet which can be bad for muscle mass), I could never got out with friends to eat, and when the wife needed to eat heavier meals when she was working long days I'd have to cook for her and then snack on produce and drink juice. Eventually I took a month off and then a year, and then 2 years. I didn't regain all the weight (gave up drinking soda FINALLY during that time) but did go from 371.4 to 302 back to about 350 after stopping. It did not teach me any sustainable lifestyles so I went back to old habits except for drinking black coffee instead of pop.
This time I'm using MFP to count calorie intake and have finally found an aerobic activity that I enjoy. I expect this to teach me those habits that juicing never did. So even IF I stall out at some point (maybe regain some when I go to game convention in summer or because we are riding less because it gets too hot here for long rides in the summer) I'll regain less and have a better basis for getting back on the healthier bandwagon. I no longer use MFP or MapMyRide for estimated calories. For now I'm just kind of asking myself if that felt like a zone 1 or zone 2 workout and guessing. Soon as I get an HRM, I'll use that. One day, maybe a power meter. But first I want to be able to afford my road bike next year.
But that seems to be something that happens to everyone. Everyone starts losing faster than the math says it should. My best guess is when we start, we are very unhealthy. We breathe more and harder, our hearts pump harder and faster. Just staying alive probably burns more calories than a more fit person at the same weight. Since I started riding my resting heart rate has dropped about 10-20bpm depending on situation (55-61 when I get up, 60-64 when at rest unless I just finished my coffee) and my riding heart rate went from 170s at slow speeds to 130s at moderate speeds.
And then going further and looking at my weight loss graphs, I noticed that I have about a 2 week cycle. I'll lose fast, recover a little, plateau, and then start losing again. Those high weight days are usually right around the times I'd go for my longest rides and then I'd eat back some calories thinking that I could eat whatever I wanted. After all, my normal is 2150/day and that 2 hour ride burned another 2500-3k, right?
I've found that when using an estimated heart rate (going to start using a monitor and cycling computer soon), a calorie calculator has me burning about 1/2 what MFP says. I'd guess most of these apps are accurate under extreme circumstances. A person is so unfit that they are riding at a very high heart rate, and/or are dealing with headwind, and/or hills, etc. So maybe there was a time where it was more accurate for me. But now that 14mph is less of a strain on my cardiovascular system (still a strain on my knees because I'm only down 20-25lbs so I'm still lugging around plenty of weight) it probably just takes less energy to move me.
Had I continued to rely on MFP I know what would've happened. I would've continued to lose weight for a while. If I'm dropping 4.25ish now, that rate would've dropped to 2lbs/week within a few months. And then started going lower. And maybe stopped. I would've ignored it for 1-3 weeks figuring it was a natural plateau cycle. But eventually I would've got frustrated. After all, I'm doing everything right. And maybe the frustration would've lead to me giving up. That is what happened when I used juice to make changes before. The weight kept coming off but the commitment was frustrating. I had to be in the gym constantly to avoid losing muscle (after all, it is almost a crash diet which can be bad for muscle mass), I could never got out with friends to eat, and when the wife needed to eat heavier meals when she was working long days I'd have to cook for her and then snack on produce and drink juice. Eventually I took a month off and then a year, and then 2 years. I didn't regain all the weight (gave up drinking soda FINALLY during that time) but did go from 371.4 to 302 back to about 350 after stopping. It did not teach me any sustainable lifestyles so I went back to old habits except for drinking black coffee instead of pop.
This time I'm using MFP to count calorie intake and have finally found an aerobic activity that I enjoy. I expect this to teach me those habits that juicing never did. So even IF I stall out at some point (maybe regain some when I go to game convention in summer or because we are riding less because it gets too hot here for long rides in the summer) I'll regain less and have a better basis for getting back on the healthier bandwagon. I no longer use MFP or MapMyRide for estimated calories. For now I'm just kind of asking myself if that felt like a zone 1 or zone 2 workout and guessing. Soon as I get an HRM, I'll use that. One day, maybe a power meter. But first I want to be able to afford my road bike next year.
04-09-15, 01:00 PM
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
EDIT: One is in kcal so the numbers may not be that far off. However I think most people, like I just did, will read it as typically understood Calories. Upper case C and lower case c apparently mean different things....
04-09-15, 01:01 PM
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
One is in kcal so the numbers may not be that far off. However I think most people, like I just did, will read it as typically understood Calories. Upper case C and lower case c apparently mean different things....
04-09-15, 01:20 PM
#7
Senior Member
kcal and Calories (with a upper case "C") are the same thing. It's very confusing though!
04-09-15, 01:23 PM
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
04-10-15, 08:08 AM
#9
Senior Member
From lifting and studying Body Building to use their studies to help reform my heath.
The initial rapid weight loss is from burning glycogen stores, not Body fat. Glycogen really likes water, so with the glycogen you retain a lot of water. The ratio they would cite was 6:1 water to glycogen.
Initial calorie deficit burns mostly the stored glycogen, releasing a LOT of water. Scale goes down fast. Then real fat loss occurs which is much more inline with 3600 calories per pound of fat...
This turns out to be a GREAT thing in disguise. Yes many get disheartened after the initial dramatic results tail off. But once you've reduced your glycogen storage it helps somewhat reduce blood sugar spikes... Not enough to allow you to splurge, but enough to further dampen spikes from healthy eating. Insulin spikes are very effective at adding to your fat stores.
The initial rapid weight loss is from burning glycogen stores, not Body fat. Glycogen really likes water, so with the glycogen you retain a lot of water. The ratio they would cite was 6:1 water to glycogen.
Initial calorie deficit burns mostly the stored glycogen, releasing a LOT of water. Scale goes down fast. Then real fat loss occurs which is much more inline with 3600 calories per pound of fat...
This turns out to be a GREAT thing in disguise. Yes many get disheartened after the initial dramatic results tail off. But once you've reduced your glycogen storage it helps somewhat reduce blood sugar spikes... Not enough to allow you to splurge, but enough to further dampen spikes from healthy eating. Insulin spikes are very effective at adding to your fat stores.
04-10-15, 08:37 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Very N and Very W Ohio Williams Co.
Posts: 2,458
Bikes: 2001 Trek Multitrack 7200, 2104 Fuji Sportif 1.5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Yea Wondermonkey way back like 345 days ago I was walking for some cardio, I was posting up some silly numbers on a discussion board I go on, they were from Mapmywalk. I was not eating them back but people were pretty quick to point out that the calorie burn numbers were wrong.
100 calories per mile is about right for being on two feet. Just one example was walking 5 miles in 86 minutes, it gave me 1106 calories burn for that. 6.4 miles in 109 minutes it gave me 1389 calories for.
I see the same with people starting out biking too, and try to nicely point out that the numbers are wrong, no harm done if your not eating it back, but if you ARE :-)....it may interfere with your goals :-). Cycling on flat ground pretty much should not be weight factored, not to a HUGE extent away, but many calculators DO factor in weight for some reason. People also buy a HRM and treat the data as gospel, when in fact the HRM is a good training aid, and may help show you how effort level on the same ride, same bike, same ride duration, same route, different day (8-14 wind one day) may change.
Some folks are more better at explaining it nicely, or somehow reaching out and explaining the situation.
Then there is the whole "cycling for weight loss, and I started eating better, but I do not log intake" deal, again...all we can do is share our own experiences really. What works for one person at 25 years old may not work for the same person at 50, or for another person. At 22-25 years old I could just not eat over 30 grams of fat a day plus add a little exercise and do GREAT...pretty sure today at 50 that would not work for me.
100 calories per mile is about right for being on two feet. Just one example was walking 5 miles in 86 minutes, it gave me 1106 calories burn for that. 6.4 miles in 109 minutes it gave me 1389 calories for.
I see the same with people starting out biking too, and try to nicely point out that the numbers are wrong, no harm done if your not eating it back, but if you ARE :-)....it may interfere with your goals :-). Cycling on flat ground pretty much should not be weight factored, not to a HUGE extent away, but many calculators DO factor in weight for some reason. People also buy a HRM and treat the data as gospel, when in fact the HRM is a good training aid, and may help show you how effort level on the same ride, same bike, same ride duration, same route, different day (8-14 wind one day) may change.
Some folks are more better at explaining it nicely, or somehow reaching out and explaining the situation.
Then there is the whole "cycling for weight loss, and I started eating better, but I do not log intake" deal, again...all we can do is share our own experiences really. What works for one person at 25 years old may not work for the same person at 50, or for another person. At 22-25 years old I could just not eat over 30 grams of fat a day plus add a little exercise and do GREAT...pretty sure today at 50 that would not work for me.
04-10-15, 08:39 AM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Very N and Very W Ohio Williams Co.
Posts: 2,458
Bikes: 2001 Trek Multitrack 7200, 2104 Fuji Sportif 1.5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I usually use 400 cals an hours a a "rough" number for cycling even though I do not really presently "do" anything with those numbers, but if I see higher ones I become more suspicious of the program, ap, calculator, etc.
There is an Iphone ap called "calculator" that I have used all along as a double check, and IMHO it is decent for a "level ground no wind" calculation, it is pretty even with Cycelemeter-WahooTICKR-WahooBLUE SC-------->Strava
It IS tacking on 140 cals though for a 2 hour effort at 15mph if I change it from 182 (my weight) to 282 (my start weight when I started riding).
2 hour 4 minute ride, 15 mph speed, 282lb rider, "hoods" riding position,0 wind, 0 grade, sea level, 68f, gives me 897 cals.
There is an Iphone ap called "calculator" that I have used all along as a double check, and IMHO it is decent for a "level ground no wind" calculation, it is pretty even with Cycelemeter-WahooTICKR-WahooBLUE SC-------->Strava
It IS tacking on 140 cals though for a 2 hour effort at 15mph if I change it from 182 (my weight) to 282 (my start weight when I started riding).
2 hour 4 minute ride, 15 mph speed, 282lb rider, "hoods" riding position,0 wind, 0 grade, sea level, 68f, gives me 897 cals.
Last edited by Willbird; 04-10-15 at 08:47 AM.
04-10-15, 09:00 AM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,126
Bikes: Steel 1x's
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I just use Strava these days. The auto calculation it does for calories from my ride data is even more conservative than my Edge 1000 when I'm wearing my HRM.
For example:
Rode 19 miles/1 hour:
Edge with HRM data: 806
Strava without HRM data: 718
Rode 30 miles/ 2 hours:
Edge w/HRM data: 1464
Strava without HRM data: 1202
Rode 60 miles/4 hours:
Edge without HRM data: 6068
Strava without HRM data: 2702
So at this point, I just rely on Strava for calories burned on the bike.
For example:
Rode 19 miles/1 hour:
Edge with HRM data: 806
Strava without HRM data: 718
Rode 30 miles/ 2 hours:
Edge w/HRM data: 1464
Strava without HRM data: 1202
Rode 60 miles/4 hours:
Edge without HRM data: 6068
Strava without HRM data: 2702
So at this point, I just rely on Strava for calories burned on the bike.
04-10-15, 09:07 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Very N and Very W Ohio Williams Co.
Posts: 2,458
Bikes: 2001 Trek Multitrack 7200, 2104 Fuji Sportif 1.5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I just use Strava these days. The auto calculation it does for calories from my ride data is even more conservative than my Edge 1000 when I'm wearing my HRM.
For example:
Rode 19 miles/1 hour:
Edge with HRM data: 806
Strava without HRM data: 718
Rode 30 miles/ 2 hours:
Edge w/HRM data: 1464
Strava without HRM data: 1202
Rode 60 miles/4 hours:
Edge without HRM data: 6068
Strava without HRM data: 2702
So at this point, I just rely on Strava for calories burned on the bike.
For example:
Rode 19 miles/1 hour:
Edge with HRM data: 806
Strava without HRM data: 718
Rode 30 miles/ 2 hours:
Edge w/HRM data: 1464
Strava without HRM data: 1202
Rode 60 miles/4 hours:
Edge without HRM data: 6068
Strava without HRM data: 2702
So at this point, I just rely on Strava for calories burned on the bike.
04-10-15, 12:16 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 181
Bikes: 2005 Specialized Sirrus Elite
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
In order to maintain a constant speed (so ignoring acceleration and let's ignore wind and incline), we have to overcome the friction.
Weight as normal force
"The normal force N can be caused by gravity instead of some applied pressure. This would be in situations where you slide a heavy object across the floor or some horizontal surface. Since weight is the force pushing the objects together, the friction equation becomes Fr = μw, where w is the weight of the object.
Thus if a box weighs 100 pounds and the coefficient of friction between it and the ground is 0.7, then the force required to push the box along the floor is 70 pounds.
Likewise if a box weighs 500 newtons is placed on ice with a coefficient of friction of only 0.001, then it would only take 0.5 newtons to move the box."
Wouldn't that mean that the friction (which in this case would that be rolling resistance?) be directly proportional to rider weight? Say the coefficient of friction on a surface is .2 and you are at 180lbs and I'm at 320 lbs. Your friction is 36 while mine is 64. In order to maintain my speed, I'm working nearly twice as hard. Then there's the fact that I'm riding on wider and less slick tires.
Or is it that bicycles get a mechanical advantage which reduces the effect of our weight? Still seems like that would be directly proportional. If the mechanical advantage of the machine is 4 then your friction would not be 9 while mine is 16 still the same ratio. And I'm breathing harder and my heart is beating harder and faster.
I'm not arguing in the least. Far be it from me to ignore advice from someone who has been there and has done what I'm striving for. I'm looking to educate myself because I want to keep losing (goals are 25 lbs by the time we leave for vacation in a couple weeks which should be easy, 50 by summer vacation in late July, and ready to ride a bike with a suggested weight limit of 275 lbs by early next year and hopefully 225 lbs sometime before next May. After that slowing down goals to hopefully drop those last 40ish pounds a year after that). So I want to know what I can expect in the future. I've made it down from 371.4 to 302 once before (rebounded and regained 2/3 of that over 2 years but that was more of a crash diet whereas now I'm just using MFP to control portions which seems far more sustainable) and well on the way now. So I know I'm still in the fast losing time and probably will be for a while still. But I know that will slow down eventually if I eat back too many calories but may burn out if I don't have the info to eat back some of them.
Thanks!
04-10-15, 12:41 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Very N and Very W Ohio Williams Co.
Posts: 2,458
Bikes: 2001 Trek Multitrack 7200, 2104 Fuji Sportif 1.5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
My question is with this. My guess is that the effect of weight is either overstated in calculators OR calculators assume a worst case scenario (really out of shape rider requiring high zone heart rate even for lighter rides, and/or wind and/or hills) but it should have an effect.
In order to maintain a constant speed (so ignoring acceleration and let's ignore wind and incline), we have to overcome the friction.
Weight as normal force
"The normal force N can be caused by gravity instead of some applied pressure. This would be in situations where you slide a heavy object across the floor or some horizontal surface. Since weight is the force pushing the objects together, the friction equation becomes Fr = μw, where w is the weight of the object.
Thus if a box weighs 100 pounds and the coefficient of friction between it and the ground is 0.7, then the force required to push the box along the floor is 70 pounds.
Likewise if a box weighs 500 newtons is placed on ice with a coefficient of friction of only 0.001, then it would only take 0.5 newtons to move the box."
Wouldn't that mean that the friction (which in this case would that be rolling resistance?) be directly proportional to rider weight? Say the coefficient of friction on a surface is .2 and you are at 180lbs and I'm at 320 lbs. Your friction is 36 while mine is 64. In order to maintain my speed, I'm working nearly twice as hard. Then there's the fact that I'm riding on wider and less slick tires.
Or is it that bicycles get a mechanical advantage which reduces the effect of our weight? Still seems like that would be directly proportional. If the mechanical advantage of the machine is 4 then your friction would not be 9 while mine is 16 still the same ratio. And I'm breathing harder and my heart is beating harder and faster.
I'm not arguing in the least. Far be it from me to ignore advice from someone who has been there and has done what I'm striving for. I'm looking to educate myself because I want to keep losing (goals are 25 lbs by the time we leave for vacation in a couple weeks which should be easy, 50 by summer vacation in late July, and ready to ride a bike with a suggested weight limit of 275 lbs by early next year and hopefully 225 lbs sometime before next May. After that slowing down goals to hopefully drop those last 40ish pounds a year after that). So I want to know what I can expect in the future. I've made it down from 371.4 to 302 once before (rebounded and regained 2/3 of that over 2 years but that was more of a crash diet whereas now I'm just using MFP to control portions which seems far more sustainable) and well on the way now. So I know I'm still in the fast losing time and probably will be for a while still. But I know that will slow down eventually if I eat back too many calories but may burn out if I don't have the info to eat back some of them.
Thanks!
In order to maintain a constant speed (so ignoring acceleration and let's ignore wind and incline), we have to overcome the friction.
Weight as normal force
"The normal force N can be caused by gravity instead of some applied pressure. This would be in situations where you slide a heavy object across the floor or some horizontal surface. Since weight is the force pushing the objects together, the friction equation becomes Fr = μw, where w is the weight of the object.
Thus if a box weighs 100 pounds and the coefficient of friction between it and the ground is 0.7, then the force required to push the box along the floor is 70 pounds.
Likewise if a box weighs 500 newtons is placed on ice with a coefficient of friction of only 0.001, then it would only take 0.5 newtons to move the box."
Wouldn't that mean that the friction (which in this case would that be rolling resistance?) be directly proportional to rider weight? Say the coefficient of friction on a surface is .2 and you are at 180lbs and I'm at 320 lbs. Your friction is 36 while mine is 64. In order to maintain my speed, I'm working nearly twice as hard. Then there's the fact that I'm riding on wider and less slick tires.
Or is it that bicycles get a mechanical advantage which reduces the effect of our weight? Still seems like that would be directly proportional. If the mechanical advantage of the machine is 4 then your friction would not be 9 while mine is 16 still the same ratio. And I'm breathing harder and my heart is beating harder and faster.
I'm not arguing in the least. Far be it from me to ignore advice from someone who has been there and has done what I'm striving for. I'm looking to educate myself because I want to keep losing (goals are 25 lbs by the time we leave for vacation in a couple weeks which should be easy, 50 by summer vacation in late July, and ready to ride a bike with a suggested weight limit of 275 lbs by early next year and hopefully 225 lbs sometime before next May. After that slowing down goals to hopefully drop those last 40ish pounds a year after that). So I want to know what I can expect in the future. I've made it down from 371.4 to 302 once before (rebounded and regained 2/3 of that over 2 years but that was more of a crash diet whereas now I'm just using MFP to control portions which seems far more sustainable) and well on the way now. So I know I'm still in the fast losing time and probably will be for a while still. But I know that will slow down eventually if I eat back too many calories but may burn out if I don't have the info to eat back some of them.
Thanks!
Most of the drag on the non existent glass smooth perfectly flat road would be air resistance ??...And a 100lb heavier rider will generally be bigger maybe ??
I will grab the Iphone and run the numbers real quick and see what it gives us. These numbers have no real world meaning to me, just exploring the calculator ap and it's output.
I will use 1 hour for simplicity.
182 lb rider, hoods, 0 wind, 0 gradient, 0 elevation,68F, 30lb bicycle(my hybrid was 30, never changed it), 68" tall rider, wide high pressure slick tire
10mph 181 calories
15mph 430
20mph 887
282 lb rider
10 217cals
15 507cals
20 1034cals
382 lb rider
10 250cals
15 579 cals
20 1167 cals
OK lets swap stuff for my Fuji Sportiff 1.5
182 lb rider, 68" tall,medium wide high pressure slick tires, 23lb bike
10mph 175 calories
15mph 408
20mph 833
282 lb rider
10 213cals
15 488 cals
20 984cals
382 lb rider
10 248 cals
15 562 cals
20 1120 cals
04-10-15, 12:47 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 181
Bikes: 2005 Specialized Sirrus Elite
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks. Fun info if nothing else. I've always enjoyed numbers (which probably why this idea of counting calories and exercising is sticking. I feel like with the right info I can "game the system" which basically means be healthy but feels like a form of taking advantage 
)
I was messing with this
Bike Calculator
And found that it ignored heart rate but did consider other things. In the end I guess I'll have to learn to use several sources if I really want to keep hitting my daily goal but not add too many exercising calories. Really to me all that matters is that I keep dropping 2/week for a while. Been more than double that so even when the eventual slowdown happens, it won't hurt that badly for a while. And most days I find myself feeling fine in the 1800-2100 calorie days. So I'm only eating back my calories under some circumstances. Amazing how much food 2500+ calories looks like after a month of being more careful.
Edit: Looks like from your numbers I'd be at about 25% higher per hour than you. So when in doubt I can assume 500/hr, maybe 550/hr on a windless day. Probably 600/hr when we are pushing the pace or dealing with some wind. AKA about 1/2 what MFP was giving. Heart rate monitor was giving about 2/3 what MFP does. So my guess is that the truth is somewhere in between there. Which is probably a different of 50-100 per riding day. So in terms of simplicity I can probably just take MFP and cut it in half probably until I hit 300 lbs and then check again and see if results are matching estimates.
One day I may grab a powermeter but I figure in terms of losing weight the carrot of a nice carbon bike and then having a nice carbon bike and pushing for hundreds of miles per month is more valuable than the info. So getting good estimates and having a bike I love to ride as often as possible is probably better than getting 98% accurate info that most powermeters advertise.
)I was messing with this
Bike Calculator
And found that it ignored heart rate but did consider other things. In the end I guess I'll have to learn to use several sources if I really want to keep hitting my daily goal but not add too many exercising calories. Really to me all that matters is that I keep dropping 2/week for a while. Been more than double that so even when the eventual slowdown happens, it won't hurt that badly for a while. And most days I find myself feeling fine in the 1800-2100 calorie days. So I'm only eating back my calories under some circumstances. Amazing how much food 2500+ calories looks like after a month of being more careful.
Edit: Looks like from your numbers I'd be at about 25% higher per hour than you. So when in doubt I can assume 500/hr, maybe 550/hr on a windless day. Probably 600/hr when we are pushing the pace or dealing with some wind. AKA about 1/2 what MFP was giving. Heart rate monitor was giving about 2/3 what MFP does. So my guess is that the truth is somewhere in between there. Which is probably a different of 50-100 per riding day. So in terms of simplicity I can probably just take MFP and cut it in half probably until I hit 300 lbs and then check again and see if results are matching estimates.
One day I may grab a powermeter but I figure in terms of losing weight the carrot of a nice carbon bike and then having a nice carbon bike and pushing for hundreds of miles per month is more valuable than the info. So getting good estimates and having a bike I love to ride as often as possible is probably better than getting 98% accurate info that most powermeters advertise.
Last edited by ChrisZog; 04-10-15 at 12:53 PM.
04-10-15, 12:55 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Very N and Very W Ohio Williams Co.
Posts: 2,458
Bikes: 2001 Trek Multitrack 7200, 2104 Fuji Sportif 1.5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Thanks. Fun info if nothing else. I've always enjoyed numbers (which probably why this idea of counting calories and exercising is sticking. I feel like with the right info I can "game the system" which basically means be healthy but feels like a form of taking advantage )
I was messing with this
Bike Calculator
And found that it ignored heart rate but did consider other things. In the end I guess I'll have to learn to use several sources if I really want to keep hitting my daily goal but not add too many exercising calories. Really to me all that matters is that I keep dropping 2/week for a while. Been more than double that so even when the eventual slowdown happens, it won't hurt that badly for a while. And most days I find myself feeling fine in the 1800-2100 calorie days. So I'm only eating back my calories under some circumstances. Amazing how much food 2500+ calories looks like after a month of being more careful.
Edit: Looks like from your numbers I'd be at about 25% higher per hour than you. So when in doubt I can assume 500/hr, maybe 550/hr on a windless day. Probably 600/hr when we are pushing the pace or dealing with some wind. AKA about 1/2 what MFP was giving. Heart rate monitor was giving about 2/3 what MFP does. So my guess is that the truth is somewhere in between there. Which is probably a different of 50-100 per riding day. So in terms of simplicity I can probably just take MFP and cut it in half probably until I hit 300 lbs and then check again and see if results are matching estimates.
One day I may grab a powermeter but I figure in terms of losing weight the carrot of a nice carbon bike and then having a nice carbon bike and pushing for hundreds of miles per month is more valuable than the info. So getting good estimates and having a bike I love to ride as often as possible is probably better than getting 98% accurate info that most powermeters advertise.
)I was messing with this
Bike Calculator
And found that it ignored heart rate but did consider other things. In the end I guess I'll have to learn to use several sources if I really want to keep hitting my daily goal but not add too many exercising calories. Really to me all that matters is that I keep dropping 2/week for a while. Been more than double that so even when the eventual slowdown happens, it won't hurt that badly for a while. And most days I find myself feeling fine in the 1800-2100 calorie days. So I'm only eating back my calories under some circumstances. Amazing how much food 2500+ calories looks like after a month of being more careful.
Edit: Looks like from your numbers I'd be at about 25% higher per hour than you. So when in doubt I can assume 500/hr, maybe 550/hr on a windless day. Probably 600/hr when we are pushing the pace or dealing with some wind. AKA about 1/2 what MFP was giving. Heart rate monitor was giving about 2/3 what MFP does. So my guess is that the truth is somewhere in between there. Which is probably a different of 50-100 per riding day. So in terms of simplicity I can probably just take MFP and cut it in half probably until I hit 300 lbs and then check again and see if results are matching estimates.
One day I may grab a powermeter but I figure in terms of losing weight the carrot of a nice carbon bike and then having a nice carbon bike and pushing for hundreds of miles per month is more valuable than the info. So getting good estimates and having a bike I love to ride as often as possible is probably better than getting 98% accurate info that most powermeters advertise.
So I guess if I had to guess anything ?? The calorie burn from riding offset a metabolism slowdown from an extended cut ?? Never really felt hungry at the MFP setting of lose 2 until fairly recently, and I knocked it back to lose 1. Kinda stalled right now at 182 and 5'8" tall but the weather is just now opening back up to ride more :-).
Bill
04-10-15, 12:57 PM
#18
Senior Member
Here's the thing @ChrisZog. Bicycles have wheels, they're not boxes you slide along the ground. Simple friction measurements don't really work. What they have instead is a thing called "rolling resistance",
Rolling resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which gets worse the more the tire is deformed. Heavier people tend to deform tires more (not helps as they also like to run at lower PSI), so have more rolling resistance.
Rolling resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which gets worse the more the tire is deformed. Heavier people tend to deform tires more (not helps as they also like to run at lower PSI), so have more rolling resistance.
04-10-15, 01:01 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Very N and Very W Ohio Williams Co.
Posts: 2,458
Bikes: 2001 Trek Multitrack 7200, 2104 Fuji Sportif 1.5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Here's the thing @ChrisZog. Bicycles have wheels, they're not boxes you slide along the ground. Simple friction measurements don't really work. What they have instead is a thing called "rolling resistance",
Rolling resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which gets worse the more the tire is deformed. Heavier people tend to deform tires more (not helps as they also like to run at lower PSI), so have more rolling resistance.
Rolling resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which gets worse the more the tire is deformed. Heavier people tend to deform tires more (not helps as they also like to run at lower PSI), so have more rolling resistance.
04-10-15, 01:05 PM
#20
Senior Member
Overall the calculators IMHO are optimized for an "average" cyclist....some of them thrive on advertising, but their algorithm might start to fall apart if you "stress" the system too much....IMHO have not spent a LOT of effort calculating exactly how Clyde calorie burn works.
04-10-15, 01:10 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 181
Bikes: 2005 Specialized Sirrus Elite
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Comes back to that argument I made against clothing companies using size as a marketing tool. I really like how easy MFP is. And since it is popular, it is even not worthless at restaurants (plenty of people have uploaded nutrition info and they have downloaded plenty of nutrition info from restaurant websites). But it really seems like in terms of exercise they (along with most calculators) are getting people to want to use them which means being logged in more often which means more likely to upgrade to pro or see more ads.
I want tools that work, not lie to make me feel good. Because as good as it feels to say I came in 8k calories under goal this week, it'll feel 10x worse when I think I'm doing everything right and stuck at 250lbs next winter/spring. Which is why I really enjoy the BF/clyde forums. So much great info and not just from bikes. I would not have second guessed MFP until it go to the point where I was getting annoyed at it and MAY have given up. I'd like to think that I would not have. But I was making progress once before and gave up then when things got too hard to maintain. And the worst part is if I was eating back calories assuming MFP numbers were right, I would not have learned appropriate portion size. So say an average day I was taking in 2800 (2100 on no ride days, 2500 on light ride days, and 3000-3500 on heavy ride days), 2800 would've felt natural. That means that when the stall out point happened I'd have to learn to cut another 500-1000 calories out of my diet to get back on track instead of cutting about 10 calories every few weeks and being used to it as I go.
I want tools that work, not lie to make me feel good. Because as good as it feels to say I came in 8k calories under goal this week, it'll feel 10x worse when I think I'm doing everything right and stuck at 250lbs next winter/spring. Which is why I really enjoy the BF/clyde forums. So much great info and not just from bikes. I would not have second guessed MFP until it go to the point where I was getting annoyed at it and MAY have given up. I'd like to think that I would not have. But I was making progress once before and gave up then when things got too hard to maintain. And the worst part is if I was eating back calories assuming MFP numbers were right, I would not have learned appropriate portion size. So say an average day I was taking in 2800 (2100 on no ride days, 2500 on light ride days, and 3000-3500 on heavy ride days), 2800 would've felt natural. That means that when the stall out point happened I'd have to learn to cut another 500-1000 calories out of my diet to get back on track instead of cutting about 10 calories every few weeks and being used to it as I go.
04-10-15, 01:14 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Very N and Very W Ohio Williams Co.
Posts: 2,458
Bikes: 2001 Trek Multitrack 7200, 2104 Fuji Sportif 1.5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
And Chris your caution is a very prudent one...and it is exactly why I try to curb some of the enthusiasm for fantastic burn numbers I see sometimes :-). I see people on my MFP friends list who do killer burns on paper every day, 2000 calories or more and eat it back, or eat it first probably then burn it off to make the numbers balance.
Last edited by Willbird; 04-10-15 at 01:18 PM.
04-10-15, 01:44 PM
#23
Senior Member
Calorie tracker = @Black wallnut PoundSign EpicFail
My calorie tracker is my belt, the scale and my power meter....
My 2 cents U.S.
My calorie tracker is my belt, the scale and my power meter....
My 2 cents U.S.
__________________
Sir Mark, Knight of Sufferlandria
Sir Mark, Knight of Sufferlandria
04-10-15, 01:48 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 181
Bikes: 2005 Specialized Sirrus Elite
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm drooling over a Domane 4.3 or 4.5. For the cost of one those + powermeter I can probably go to 5.2 and future proof. And now I want venison. Thanks a lot. Going to have to fly home and get my wife to smile sweetly to her dad I'm sure he's got some in his freezer.
I'm sure he's got some in his freezer.
04-10-15, 01:49 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Very N and Very W Ohio Williams Co.
Posts: 2,458
Bikes: 2001 Trek Multitrack 7200, 2104 Fuji Sportif 1.5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Woodchuck's should be up and around now :-). I have never ate one but people swear if you pressure cook a young one you will never throw another one away, should be like a big squirrel :-).
