Do I really burn 1640 calories in a workout?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Greece
Posts: 293
Bikes: None at the moment
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Do I really burn 1640 calories in a workout?
Hello guys!
Ever since I started cycling on my new bike, I seem to not lose any weight. I must be building muscle or something. Today I went ahead and dropped a visit to a dietitian so that she can provide me with an eating plan. I told her I ride 5-6 times a week for about 1 hour. I hope she gets the counting right.
Well, my last workout went like this:
Did I burn anything close to 1600 calories? I've set the HRM right (it's a Sigma Onyx Classic with a chestband), but is it counting right? I weigh 260 lbs.
What do you guys think? How should I estimate my calorie expenditure during my workout?
Ever since I started cycling on my new bike, I seem to not lose any weight. I must be building muscle or something. Today I went ahead and dropped a visit to a dietitian so that she can provide me with an eating plan. I told her I ride 5-6 times a week for about 1 hour. I hope she gets the counting right.
Well, my last workout went like this:
Code:
Cycle Computer HRM Trip Distance: 14.17 miles Total Time: 1:25:00 Moving Time: 1:20:58 Calories: 1640 Avg Speed: 10.50 mph HRavg: 147 bpm Max Speed: 14.18 mph Avg Cadence: 69 rpm
What do you guys think? How should I estimate my calorie expenditure during my workout?
Last edited by DOOM_NX; 07-14-11 at 09:46 AM.
#3
runnin' down a dream
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere out there
Posts: 2,767
Bikes: Turner Flux, Orbea Onix Dama.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'd say divide that number by two & it will be closer to accurate. They say "vigorous" cycling burns around 700 kcal per hour. You might burn more than that based on your weight, but I doubt it's that high. It's better to underestimate calories burned than over estimate.
#4
Senior Member
HRMs, cardio machines at the gym, and websites are notoriously inaccurate ways to estimate the number of calories burned. Numbers from a power meter are more accurate, though I'd take even those with a grain of salt!
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Brodhead, WI - south of Madison
Posts: 2,928
Bikes: 2009 Trek 1.2
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
1 Post
I'm around 185lbs at the moment. My power meter suggests I burn 500-550 calories an hour. That's at an average pace of 17mph, which means that I'm seeing mostly 19-20mph on the speedometer except when I slow down to 12-14mph to climb hills or stop completely for traffic. A significantly heavier rider would probably burn slightly more calories.
HRMs, cardio machines at the gym, and websites are notoriously inaccurate ways to estimate the number of calories burned. Numbers from a power meter are more accurate, though I'd take even those with a grain of salt!
HRMs, cardio machines at the gym, and websites are notoriously inaccurate ways to estimate the number of calories burned. Numbers from a power meter are more accurate, though I'd take even those with a grain of salt!
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 11,375
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
All equipment calculates caloric expenditure on the same formula, and that formula is based on user input of AGE and WEIGHT, plus the variable input of HEART RATE. The key element in the formula is POWER at a given speed and resistance level, which is estimated. Cycles and ellipticals are the worst because there is variability in resistance levels (most are electromagnetically controlled) not only between manufacturers, but from unit to unit of the same company. The voltage tolerances on these things aren't that tight, and the mfg tolerance of flywheel to magnet distance will also vary the resistance level at the same voltage potential.
So, that power calculation carries an initial slop factor. Compound that with every company using a different multiplier for "mechanical inefficiency" from 20 - 25% and you've got some companies saying that Resistance Level 5 for a 35yo, 170lb user = 250cal/hr, and another telling you it's 380cal/hr.
__________________
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 2,401
Bikes: 2012 Surly LHT, 1995 GT Outpost Trail
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
My Garmin edge 500 (no power input) says I burned 971 for a 1:25 commute this morning, 19 miles @ 13.5mph. I weigh 362.
I was concerned *that* sounded too high. You're more than likely not burning 1600 calories in the same amount of time, especially at 10mph.
I was concerned *that* sounded too high. You're more than likely not burning 1600 calories in the same amount of time, especially at 10mph.
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Greece
Posts: 293
Bikes: None at the moment
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Sorry guys, I used the metric system. I corrected the original post to show values in imperial system. I weigh 260 lbs.
Regarding the power meters, don't they just cound the watts spent on the bicycle? And then converting to calories spent on it? I think they don't consider your overall energy spent, but only the energy spent on the bike.
Regarding the power meters, don't they just cound the watts spent on the bicycle? And then converting to calories spent on it? I think they don't consider your overall energy spent, but only the energy spent on the bike.
#9
Retired C.O.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Central Kali'
Posts: 202
Bikes: REI 2009 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I may not know any better.... perhaps ignorance IS bliss.
- BUT -
I have chosen to disregard amount of calories used... as claimed by my pedometer.
I ignore the various scales that claim to know what thirty minutes of any particular exercise will burn.
I'm not sure, but I think my bicycle computer may even claim to know how many calories I've burned as well.
Each of them can vary by a rather significant amount, and though I know "calories burned" may be an academic assertion based on a mathematical formula, I can't help but think that it may be information no more applicable to one person as it is the next. Bodies and their metabolic rates differ, and some bodies are VERY good at finding a way to do exercise while expending as little energy as possible.
I've only recently taken an interest in calories that I might eat, but I don't put much stock into indicated calories burned.
- BUT -
I have chosen to disregard amount of calories used... as claimed by my pedometer.
I ignore the various scales that claim to know what thirty minutes of any particular exercise will burn.
I'm not sure, but I think my bicycle computer may even claim to know how many calories I've burned as well.
Each of them can vary by a rather significant amount, and though I know "calories burned" may be an academic assertion based on a mathematical formula, I can't help but think that it may be information no more applicable to one person as it is the next. Bodies and their metabolic rates differ, and some bodies are VERY good at finding a way to do exercise while expending as little energy as possible.
I've only recently taken an interest in calories that I might eat, but I don't put much stock into indicated calories burned.
#10
The Fat Guy In The Back
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 2,533
Bikes: '81 Panasonic Sport, '02 Giant Boulder SE, '08 Felt S32, '10 Diamondback Insight RS, '10 Windsor Clockwork, '15 Kestrel Evoke 3.0, '19 Salsa Mukluk
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 320 Post(s)
Liked 178 Times
in
116 Posts
I weigh 224. Yesterday morning I ran 8.19 miles in 122 minutes. By my calculations, I burned 1153 calories during that time. To estimate my running calorie expenditure I use the following formula which I got off of some running site several years ago: weight * distance * .63
Comparing that with a person cycling at an easy pace for roughly the same amount of time, I too think that 1640 calorie count is quite inaccurate (on the high side.)
Comparing that with a person cycling at an easy pace for roughly the same amount of time, I too think that 1640 calorie count is quite inaccurate (on the high side.)
__________________
Visit me at the Tundra Man Workshop
Visit me at the Tundra Man Workshop
#11
Senior Member
Too high. Way too high. They almost are always too high. At my size I would have burned about 300 or a bit more calories per hour at that speed. At your weight maybe you'd burn close to 700 calories for one hour at 10 to 12 mph.
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Greece
Posts: 293
Bikes: None at the moment
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It was 1640 cal for almost an hour and a half guys... So how can I estimate and be in the safe side? I need to calculate the calories I burn. Only with lab testing?
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 11,375
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
A question for everyone out there who is interested in all these numbers:
What's with the recent push in the fitness world for all the picky analytic data? Just in the past month I've had to explain the concept of caloric calculation to a dozen customers, and in the prior 8 or 9 months no one could care.
Additional question:
By what provocation does someone see a Watts measurement on their equipment, a Calories measurement on their equipment, and then complain to my service department that "you're wrong, because when I put X Watts to calories into Google it told me this super low amount, not what your bike tells me" (ignorant of the fact that the direct calculation of Watts to calories per the mathematics they've provided accounts for a 100% efficient system).
Then they have the gall to refute the maths I provide to them, because the infallible almighty Google told them otherwise.
Sorry, just ranting really. Being in the fitness industry I deal with this crap all day long. I start wondering when "if your pants are tight, eat less and exercise more" stopped being good enough, and people who have difficulty remembering how to tie their shoes* decided that they need PhD thesis grade quantitative data about every bit of their food and exercise.
*Not a reference to anyone here on BF. Reference to customers on our support line, who likely couldn't figure out how to operate a computer and join this forum in the first place.
What's with the recent push in the fitness world for all the picky analytic data? Just in the past month I've had to explain the concept of caloric calculation to a dozen customers, and in the prior 8 or 9 months no one could care.
Additional question:
By what provocation does someone see a Watts measurement on their equipment, a Calories measurement on their equipment, and then complain to my service department that "you're wrong, because when I put X Watts to calories into Google it told me this super low amount, not what your bike tells me" (ignorant of the fact that the direct calculation of Watts to calories per the mathematics they've provided accounts for a 100% efficient system).
Then they have the gall to refute the maths I provide to them, because the infallible almighty Google told them otherwise.
Sorry, just ranting really. Being in the fitness industry I deal with this crap all day long. I start wondering when "if your pants are tight, eat less and exercise more" stopped being good enough, and people who have difficulty remembering how to tie their shoes* decided that they need PhD thesis grade quantitative data about every bit of their food and exercise.
*Not a reference to anyone here on BF. Reference to customers on our support line, who likely couldn't figure out how to operate a computer and join this forum in the first place.
__________________
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
#15
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Greece
Posts: 293
Bikes: None at the moment
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Soooo... Are these way off? Why would they include such measurements if they're so off? I mean every other measurement in these devices is fairly accurate. Why would they include such a faulty feature?
#16
Senior Member
[QUOTE=CliftonGK1;12927665]What's with the recent push in the fitness world for all the picky analytic data? Just in the past month I've had to explain the concept of caloric calculation to a dozen customers, and in the prior 8 or 9 months no one could care.QUOTE]
Blame it on Dr. Oz.
Blame it on Dr. Oz.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mount Juliet, TN
Posts: 480
Bikes: T1K
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The numbers are probably very accurate under a certain set of assumptions. Say 150 lb person, exercising at an even effort, etc. We just don't know what assumptions each manufacturer is using in their formula and if you are not matching those assumptions then the formula fails, often badly. Also for exercise equipment I'm sure there is some juicing the Cal burned count because it makes customers feel good and maybe buy more equipment.
#18
2 Fat 2 Furious
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,996
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport RIP
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
14 miles @ 1640 calories means more than 110 calories per mile. If you were going up the side of a mountain, perhaps. If you weighed double what you do, even then I'd say it's a bit high unless you did some serious climbing.
I'm around 250 and reckon on around 40-50 calories per mile on average as a very rough-and-ready figure, which would give you a guesstimate figure of more like 600 calories. If you're taking on calories assuming 1600 then you're potentially miscalculating by 1000 calories per day. Over a week that could total 7000 calories, equivalent to two pounds of fat.
Personally I'd rather estimate low and lose a bit more weight than expected than estimate high and struggle.
I'm around 250 and reckon on around 40-50 calories per mile on average as a very rough-and-ready figure, which would give you a guesstimate figure of more like 600 calories. If you're taking on calories assuming 1600 then you're potentially miscalculating by 1000 calories per day. Over a week that could total 7000 calories, equivalent to two pounds of fat.
Personally I'd rather estimate low and lose a bit more weight than expected than estimate high and struggle.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose (Willow Glen) Ca
Posts: 9,850
Bikes: Kirk Custom JK Special, '84 Team Miyata,(dura ace old school) 80?? SR Semi-Pro 600 Arabesque
Mentioned: 107 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2341 Post(s)
Liked 2,835 Times
in
1,546 Posts
A question for everyone out there who is interested in all these numbers:
What's with the recent push in the fitness world for all the picky analytic data? Just in the past month I've had to explain the concept of caloric calculation to a dozen customers, and in the prior 8 or 9 months no one could care.
.
What's with the recent push in the fitness world for all the picky analytic data? Just in the past month I've had to explain the concept of caloric calculation to a dozen customers, and in the prior 8 or 9 months no one could care.
.
__________________
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 11,375
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
Now it's become so common, people expect it to be there. Even if you were the dead-set-honest company that advertised "We don't have calorie count because the Wattage estimation is crap!", people would buy the competitor's stuff because it has more doodads. (The recent doodad is integrated televisions, because treadmills are so boring you need to watch TV when you could just go outside and enjoy the RealLife-3D experience.)
__________________
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
#22
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Greece
Posts: 293
Bikes: None at the moment
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The numbers are probably very accurate under a certain set of assumptions. Say 150 lb person, exercising at an even effort, etc. We just don't know what assumptions each manufacturer is using in their formula and if you are not matching those assumptions then the formula fails, often badly. Also for exercise equipment I'm sure there is some juicing the Cal burned count because it makes customers feel good and maybe buy more equipment.
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 11,375
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
You can see why the "assumptive" formula in something like a Quick Start mode where you enter no user data would fail horribly if you're 47 years old and weigh 265 pounds.
__________________
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mount Juliet, TN
Posts: 480
Bikes: T1K
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Lets say for the calibration test they accurately measured a runner or cyclist used 100 calories in 15 mins, and say they weighed him at 150 lbs and his average heart rate was 130 bpm, so they do the test a bunch of times get a scatter plot and try and fit a formula to the data. Basically they end up with something like A(15mins)+B(150lbs)+C(130 bpm)+ D(age)+ etc = 100 Cal. But most likely the scatter plot didn't come close to looking like a function at all but just a random placing of points. So the Constants (A,B,C,D....) are of questionable accuracy.
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 785
Bikes: Too many to count
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I have a cheap Bell computer. Today I rode 59 miles with a 12.5 average speed.
It shows I burned 3362 calories.
I am 65 years old and the computer thinks I weigh 220, lost some since is was set.
On a scale of one to five for fitness, I entered 3.
That is 56 calories per mile.
It shows I burned 3362 calories.
I am 65 years old and the computer thinks I weigh 220, lost some since is was set.
On a scale of one to five for fitness, I entered 3.
That is 56 calories per mile.