Calories burned - out of shape vs in shape
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Calories burned - out of shape vs in shape
Say an out of shape fat dude gets on a bike (with a power meter) and rides for 30 min with an average power output of lets say 150 watts and an average heart rate of 160bpm. The same dude trains for a year, gets thin, gets on the bike again for 30 min/150watts average with an average heart rate of 140bpm.
Would the calories burned be approximately the same, since equal work was done, or would they be significantly different? How much different and why?
Would the calories burned be approximately the same, since equal work was done, or would they be significantly different? How much different and why?
#2
grilled cheesus
they would be less because it is now taking less effort to produce the same power. as for how much less, i dont know. later.
__________________
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portland
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#4
NeoRetroGrouch
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Say an out of shape fat dude gets on a bike (with a power meter) and rides for 30 min with an average power output of lets say 150 watts and an average heart rate of 160bpm. The same dude trains for a year, gets thin, gets on the bike again for 30 min/150watts average with an average heart rate of 140bpm.
Would the calories burned be approximately the same, since equal work was done, or would they be significantly different? How much different and why?
Would the calories burned be approximately the same, since equal work was done, or would they be significantly different? How much different and why?
A couple of things that I would think would be likely, though, would be:
- He' going much faster since he's putting out the same wattage and weighs significantly less.
- He has increased his cardio/pulmonary capacity since he is doing the same wattage at a lower heart rate (though with the variability of HR, it could be for dozens of other reasons).
TF
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,794
Bikes: litespeed, cannondale
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Well, if he weighs less, he would burn slightly fewer calories. On flat terrain, the difference in caloric burning though based on weight would be very little. Most of the work is done against wind resistance. If there was significant elevation change, the caloric burn would be more directly proportional to weight.
The shape the person is in has no real effect on calorie burn. He is doing pretty near the same work both times. Getting into better shape allows him to do the same amount of work with less effort.
The shape the person is in has no real effect on calorie burn. He is doing pretty near the same work both times. Getting into better shape allows him to do the same amount of work with less effort.
#6
Senior Member
Since the same amount of work was done in both cases, (75 W-hrs to mix units) the only way to affect how many Calories were burned is through a change in efficiency. There is some controversy about how much an individual's efficiency can change over time (cf. the arguments over Coyle's article on Armstrong's data) I believe it is unlikely there will be an appreciable change over the course of one year. So the Calories consumed will be the same. Speed, perceived effort, and heart rate are another matter.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kent, WA
Posts: 315
Bikes: '07 Specialized Tarmac Pro
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Since the same amount of work was done in both cases, (75 W-hrs to mix units) the only way to affect how many Calories were burned is through a change in efficiency. There is some controversy about how much an individual's efficiency can change over time (cf. the arguments over Coyle's article on Armstrong's data) I believe it is unlikely there will be an appreciable change over the course of one year. So the Calories consumed will be the same. Speed, perceived effort, and heart rate are another matter.
#8
Senior Member
He's moving less weight so he's doing less work so he's burning fewer calories. Equal work is not being done.
Don't know how this translates into HR and how the human body actually works, though, which I suspect is what the OP is looking for. HRM's use HR as a factor in calculating calorie burn. My HR for the same amount of exercise (whatever that means) is lower now that I am in better shape, hence the calculated calories go down, too. Assuming you can trust the calorie calculation on a typical HRM, that is!
Don't know how this translates into HR and how the human body actually works, though, which I suspect is what the OP is looking for. HRM's use HR as a factor in calculating calorie burn. My HR for the same amount of exercise (whatever that means) is lower now that I am in better shape, hence the calculated calories go down, too. Assuming you can trust the calorie calculation on a typical HRM, that is!
#9
Senior Member
#10
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
In addition to the 150W of useful work, the 'fat dude' is having to do a bunch of non-useful work moving his heavier legs around the cranks 90 times/min. Assuming the OP loses weight off his legs he will be more efficient in converting calories into useful work. So where a fit rider might be 25% efficient a non-fit rider may be 20% efficient.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,794
Bikes: litespeed, cannondale
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
In addition to the 150W of useful work, the 'fat dude' is having to do a bunch of non-useful work moving his heavier legs around the cranks 90 times/min. Assuming the OP loses weight off his legs he will be more efficient in converting calories into useful work. So where a fit rider might be 25% efficient a non-fit rider may be 20% efficient.
What the poster is asking is how can there not be a major difference in calories burned because when he was out of shape, he was working like all get out to do the distance at that speed. When he got into shape, he could do the same distance and speed with only moderate effort. The thing is that his body has changed. His muscles are toned up and his heart delivers blood to the muscles efficiently. He is probably burning about 90% of the calories as he did before but at a much lower intensity of effort.
It is amazing what getting into shape can do.