Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Calories and cycling

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Calories and cycling

Old 08-11-21, 05:57 AM
  #376  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 177 Posts
Originally Posted by mschwett
i’m curious is anyone has seen studies on the “efficiency” of one cyclist to another. is a well trained cyclist much more efficient - less calories per watt? all the references to the figure I’ve seen are pretty absolute, and it surprises me that it wouldn’t be highly variable.
Studies I recall are most cyclists fall in the 18-24% range and it’s not well correlated to fitness.
gregf83 is offline  
Old 08-11-21, 06:33 AM
  #377  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2332 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times in 1,314 Posts
[QUOTE=david101;22179326]
Originally Posted by GhostRider62

Thanks for writing something in a less confrontational manner. So in the same vein....

Believe it or not, I didn't come into this thread for a fight. All my other interactions on this forum have been very civilised and pleasant. This experience came as a bit of a shock
What fight?

Being told you are wrong is not a fight.

When you put yourself into a hole, just stop digging.

I apologized for hurting your feelings and even offered that your shock could be due to generational differences. Next time, instead of snapping off with, "did you read my post"; perhaps, re-read your own especially when it goes against what others wrote, aside from some basic physics. Then, just let it go or write, "Oops, I wrote that poorly or that is not what I mean". Reaching for the shovel and doubling, tripling down usually doesn't work.
GhostRider62 is offline  
Likes For GhostRider62:
Old 08-11-21, 10:28 AM
  #378  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by gregf83
Studies I recall are most cyclists fall in the 18-24% range and it’s not well correlated to fitness.

Yes, I think the 25% efficiency figure is used because it makes the math easier, not because it really reflects what's going on. It's actually quite a bit above average.

If I recall correctly, the only way to accurately measure calories burned involves capturing all of the exhaled breath of the subject during the activity. That could be done during a stationary bike ride, but not realistically under real road conditions.
I'm also suspicious of using average speed because I think you'd have to do some pretty tough calculating based on the actual speeds during the ride. Someone with better math skills than I would probably need to weigh in on it, but the cubing of air resistance means that the farther above mean the speed is, the greater the divergence from the mean energy requirement, correct? So, if the average speed is 17 mph, the higher speed values will have a bigger difference from calorie burn at mean speed than speeds below the mean. Thus the total calorie burn per minute curve should skew somewhat to the right of the speed curve (or something, my stats are several decades out of practice).
livedarklions is offline  
Old 08-11-21, 10:39 AM
  #379  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 177 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
Yes, I think the 25% efficiency figure is used because it makes the math easier, not because it really reflects what's going on. It's actually quite a bit above average.

If I recall correctly, the only way to accurately measure calories burned involves capturing all of the exhaled breath of the subject during the activity. That could be done during a stationary bike ride, but not realistically under real road conditions.
I'm also suspicious of using average speed because I think you'd have to do some pretty tough calculating based on the actual speeds during the ride. Someone with better math skills than I would probably need to weigh in on it, but the cubing of air resistance means that the farther above mean the speed is, the greater the divergence from the mean energy requirement, correct? So, if the average speed is 17 mph, the higher speed values will have a bigger difference from calorie burn at mean speed than speeds below the mean. Thus the total calorie burn per minute curve should skew somewhat to the right of the speed curve (or something, my stats are several decades out of practice).
Turns out my memory wasn't correct, Differences in efficiency between trained and recreational cyclists found experienced cyclists were more efficient.
gregf83 is offline  
Likes For gregf83:
Old 08-11-21, 10:46 AM
  #380  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by gregf83
Turns out my memory wasn't correct, Differences in efficiency between trained and recreational cyclists found experienced cyclists were more efficient.

More importantly, though, those averages are significantly less than 25%, Only one guy even got close to that number.

What's the source?
livedarklions is offline  
Old 08-11-21, 10:55 AM
  #381  
Newbie racer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,406

Bikes: Propel, red is faster

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1575 Post(s)
Liked 1,569 Times in 974 Posts
Recently on the lines of the speeds and power and such above.........I finally hit a silly goal I'd had for years. 20mph on a ride that gets 100ft per mile elevation, for an hour. The speed was on, I was short by a couple feet elevation. It "only" took me about 235w. The key was to have the skills to take corners at pace and constantly meter out the power evenly. No freewheeling unless totally unavoidable. Could have gone faster but lots of neighborhood curves and such. Meter might read low also, no idea. Seems low for curvy stuff and 1940ft in 20mi at 20mph.
burnthesheep is offline  
Likes For burnthesheep:
Old 08-11-21, 11:07 AM
  #382  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by burnthesheep
Recently on the lines of the speeds and power and such above.........I finally hit a silly goal I'd had for years. 20mph on a ride that gets 100ft per mile elevation, for an hour. The speed was on, I was short by a couple feet elevation. It "only" took me about 235w. The key was to have the skills to take corners at pace and constantly meter out the power evenly. No freewheeling unless totally unavoidable. Could have gone faster but lots of neighborhood curves and such. Meter might read low also, no idea. Seems low for curvy stuff and 1940ft in 20mi at 20mph.

That's a good day! Mazel tov, silly goals are fun.
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 08-11-21, 01:09 PM
  #383  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 177 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
More importantly, though, those averages are significantly less than 25%, Only one guy even got close to that number.

What's the source?
The source is in my earlier post, just click on the name of the paper. The figures in the paper are for Gross Efficiency (GE) and are useful for comparing trained and untrained athletes. Using gross efficiencies will give you the total calories burned during an activity which will include calories from your Base Metabolic Rate (BMR). To determine the 'extra' calories associated only with exercise and not include BMR they normally would use a 'delta' efficiency number which is a little higher than GE. I think 25% is probably close enough given the variability seen between individuals.
gregf83 is offline  
Likes For gregf83:
Old 08-12-21, 09:11 AM
  #384  
Senior Member
 
pgjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 4,128

Bikes: Rossetti Vertigo

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Liked 119 Times in 70 Posts
Don't know if this video has already been posted, but it really makes things pretty easy to understand. Calories in, calories out.

pgjackson is offline  
Old 08-12-21, 09:27 AM
  #385  
Senior Member
 
pgjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 4,128

Bikes: Rossetti Vertigo

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Liked 119 Times in 70 Posts
pgjackson is offline  
Old 08-12-21, 09:52 AM
  #386  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Thank you for sharing this! I'm also in the boat to lose about 20 lbs and this video was helpful!
ssedha is offline  
Old 08-12-21, 10:52 AM
  #387  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 525 Post(s)
Liked 456 Times in 252 Posts
Originally Posted by pgjackson
Don't know if this video has already been posted, but it really makes things pretty easy to understand. Calories in, calories out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fne9-LW0ivc
I would agree to a large extent on the importance of calories, however just like everything else in life it isn't just black and white.

Last edited by RH Clark; 08-12-21 at 10:57 AM.
RH Clark is offline  
Likes For RH Clark:
Old 08-12-21, 11:51 AM
  #388  
Senior Member
 
pgjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 4,128

Bikes: Rossetti Vertigo

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Liked 119 Times in 70 Posts
Originally Posted by RH Clark
I would agree to a large extent on the importance of calories, however just like everything else in life it isn't just black and white.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuds0Y-FPcI
I didn't watch the entire 30 minutes, but nothing in the first 10 minutes refutes the idea that to lose weight your caloric intake must be less than your caloric expenditure. Can anyone cite examples of diets that recommend eating MORE calories and expended? Yes, what you eat matters...but weight loss is still about calorie reduction.
pgjackson is offline  
Old 08-12-21, 12:47 PM
  #389  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times in 204 Posts
Originally Posted by pgjackson
I didn't watch the entire 30 minutes, but nothing in the first 10 minutes refutes the idea that to lose weight your caloric intake must be less than your caloric expenditure. Can anyone cite examples of diets that recommend eating MORE calories and expended? Yes, what you eat matters...but weight loss is still about calorie reduction.
The title of the video is misleading. The person in the video is arguing in support of calories in vs calories out. He's refuting someone who says hormones are what matter.
OBoile is offline  
Likes For OBoile:
Old 08-12-21, 02:10 PM
  #390  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,028

Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1272 Post(s)
Liked 1,382 Times in 707 Posts
Originally Posted by burnthesheep
Recently on the lines of the speeds and power and such above.........I finally hit a silly goal I'd had for years. 20mph on a ride that gets 100ft per mile elevation, for an hour. The speed was on, I was short by a couple feet elevation. It "only" took me about 235w. The key was to have the skills to take corners at pace and constantly meter out the power evenly. No freewheeling unless totally unavoidable. Could have gone faster but lots of neighborhood curves and such. Meter might read low also, no idea. Seems low for curvy stuff and 1940ft in 20mi at 20mph.
that's a great ride. one of the things i like about my "main" route is that i've done it so many times that the limitations are now more about true cardiac or muscle output as opposed to not knowing how fast a turn can be taken, what the conditions up ahead are, what the timing of a light is, etc. and it's super satisfying to ride for an hour and a half without freewheeling

235w suggests you're very aero and are turning all the energy used getting up the hill into productive motion going down rather than braking! i know that it would take me WAY more power than that to achieve the same result.... but of course i'd burn more calories lol.
mschwett is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.