Do you eat your fitness calories part 2

Options
System
System Posts: 1,950 MFP Staff
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
This discussion was created from replies split from: Do you eat your fitness calories?.

Replies

  • andysport1
    andysport1 Posts: 592 Member
    @ninerbuff I'm interested to have feed back regarding exercise calories. Yesterday I group cycled for 90 mins+ = 1143 cals and did a masters swim set at approx 750 cals (I'm a fast swimmer). 1. I don't believe these calorie burns are accurate, are they? 2. So yesterday I ate about 300 of my exercise calories, that's about normal. I do approx 10 hours a week of serious training. Do I need to eat more calories?
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,369 Member
    andysport1 wrote: »
    @ninerbuff I'm interested to have feed back regarding exercise calories. Yesterday I group cycled for 90 mins+ = 1143 cals and did a masters swim set at approx 750 cals (I'm a fast swimmer). 1. I don't believe these calorie burns are accurate, are they? 2. So yesterday I ate about 300 of my exercise calories, that's about normal. I do approx 10 hours a week of serious training. Do I need to eat more calories?
    Assuming that you're not trying to lose weight, do you notice issues with recovery and/or significant drop off in performance from eating this much? Have you tried increasing it and seeing if there's a difference? Also, what is your pre exercise intake like? Because there are so many variables, sometimes you have to trial and error on a personal basis to see what works.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    andysport1 wrote: »
    @ninerbuff I'm interested to have feed back regarding exercise calories. Yesterday I group cycled for 90 mins+ = 1143 cals and did a masters swim set at approx 750 cals (I'm a fast swimmer). 1. I don't believe these calorie burns are accurate, are they? 2. So yesterday I ate about 300 of my exercise calories, that's about normal. I do approx 10 hours a week of serious training. Do I need to eat more calories?
    Assuming that you're not trying to lose weight, do you notice issues with recovery and/or significant drop off in performance from eating this much? Have you tried increasing it and seeing if there's a difference? Also, what is your pre exercise intake like? Because there are so many variables, sometimes you have to trial and error on a personal basis to see what works.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png


    I'd also ask what your weight is doing, that's really the best way to test calorie burn accuracy. That along with the bonking/performance/recovery monitoring.
  • andysport1
    andysport1 Posts: 592 Member
    edited August 2017
    Oops hadn't thought about starting a thread just thought I'd add some sense back into the other thread.
    Anyways, I used to drink and snack a little due to the alcohol but I've given up alcohol so I now have a serious defecit. I am losing weight though nothing major, if I log foods I lose more, therefore when I'm not logging I must snack more. I never really feel hungry, I'd say I always have dry lips but not quite thirsty, I drink approx 3 liters of water on a rest day and between 4-6 liters on a normal day, I've always drank this much, I don't overly use the toilet but I do over sweat. I'm a fat club level athlete. Probably could achieve more if I lost a few pounds. I'm a pesco vegetarian.
    As for bonking I've been married 20 years = doesn't happen.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    andysport1 wrote: »
    @ninerbuff I'm interested to have feed back regarding exercise calories. Yesterday I group cycled for 90 mins+ = 1143 cals and did a masters swim set at approx 750 cals (I'm a fast swimmer). 1. I don't believe these calorie burns are accurate, are they? 2. So yesterday I ate about 300 of my exercise calories, that's about normal. I do approx 10 hours a week of serious training. Do I need to eat more calories?

    A power meter is the way to measure (not estimate) calorie usage in a bike. They're expensive, but less do every day, and can be rented. Somebody in your group may have one and let you use it for a few hours or days.
  • andysport1
    andysport1 Posts: 592 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    andysport1 wrote: »

    A power meter is the way to measure (not estimate) calorie usage in a bike. They're expensive, but less do every day, and can be rented. Somebody in your group may have one and let you use it for a few hours or days.
    I have a wattbike though I've never took notice of the calories on that
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    andysport1 wrote: »
    @ninerbuff I'm interested to have feed back regarding exercise calories. Yesterday I group cycled for 90 mins+ = 1143 cals and did a masters swim set at approx 750 cals (I'm a fast swimmer). 1. I don't believe these calorie burns are accurate, are they? 2. So yesterday I ate about 300 of my exercise calories, that's about normal. I do approx 10 hours a week of serious training. Do I need to eat more calories?

    A power meter is the way to measure (not estimate) calorie usage in a bike. They're expensive, but less do every day, and can be rented. Somebody in your group may have one and let you use it for a few hours or days.

    I'm a bit unclear on this. So two people of different weights generating the same work burn the same amount of calories? It sounds a bit counterintuitive to me because in addition to generating power for the device used the heavier person would need to generate additional power to move their heavier limbs, so in theory they would need to be working harder and burning more calories. Does the power meter take weight into account? Just trying to understand how it works.
  • ccruz985
    ccruz985 Posts: 646 Member
    Sometimes I do, if I'm super hungry or I did resistance training the day before. Even if I do, I still maintain my overall deficit.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    andysport1 wrote: »
    @ninerbuff I'm interested to have feed back regarding exercise calories. Yesterday I group cycled for 90 mins+ = 1143 cals and did a masters swim set at approx 750 cals (I'm a fast swimmer). 1. I don't believe these calorie burns are accurate, are they? 2. So yesterday I ate about 300 of my exercise calories, that's about normal. I do approx 10 hours a week of serious training. Do I need to eat more calories?

    A power meter is the way to measure (not estimate) calorie usage in a bike. They're expensive, but less do every day, and can be rented. Somebody in your group may have one and let you use it for a few hours or days.

    I'm a bit unclear on this. So two people of different weights generating the same work burn the same amount of calories? It sounds a bit counterintuitive to me because in addition to generating power for the device used the heavier person would need to generate additional power to move their heavier limbs, so in theory they would need to be working harder and burning more calories. Does the power meter take weight into account? Just trying to understand how it works.

    a power meter takes weight into account - when you do a FTP (functional threshold power) test - which is like a modern day torture test - you get an overall score- to figure out power to weight ratio you divide your FTP score by weight to calculate watts - so its a common measure

    so say 2 people did an FTP test with an output of 200 - one person weights 60kg and the other 80kg
    200/60 = 3.33w/kg
    200/80 = 2.5w/kg

    you can use the w/kg to calculate calorie burn:
    energy (kcal) = avg power (W) X duration (hours) X 3.6

    so person a
    energy = 3.33x60x3.6 = 720kcal

    person b
    energy = 2.5x60x3.6 = 540kcal

    so even though person b weights more, they have a lower power output, which equates to less calories burned
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Interesting calculations, and what is more interesting is if person C achieved an output of 200 they're going to have an even higher energy output, that's why it's counterintuitive to me, because calories go up the lower the weight is unlike all other methods. I'm just not very familiar with cycling so all of this is fascinating.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    edited August 2017
    its kind of cool - I'm sure @NorthCascades can weigh in more - I only do limited power training since I do virtual on the trainer, don't have specifically on my bike

    which also tells me I need to work on my power because my last half ironman bike sucked based on estimated calories/time - using the kcal formula)
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    I guess this kind of makes sense because any work put into lifting a heavier leg translates into more momentum on the pushdown so it cancels out. Fascinating.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Interesting calculations, and what is more interesting is if person C achieved an output of 200 they're going to have an even higher energy output, that's why it's counterintuitive to me, because calories go up the lower the weight is unlike all other methods. I'm just not very familiar with cycling so all of this is fascinating.

    Imagine I have a kid. When you stop despairing for the world, we'll continue. :smile:

    I go for a walk with my kid. I'm an adult, he's a child, we go the same distance, but I burn more calories, because I weigh more. I'm using my muscle power to move my weight, and to hold myself up against gravity. Sitting down, we're burning closer to the same (small) number of calories.

    You sit down to ride a bike, your weight is supported by your wheels.

    Riding a bike on flat ground really doesn't involve gravity. Heavier "Clydesdale" cyclists do best on the flat because of this.

    Riding a bike up hill means fighting gravity. Heavy people require more power for this, and that burns more calories. But riding up hill is something a lot of people try to avoid, so it doesn't make up a big part of day to day cycling.

    Short answer: not a worthy bearing activity.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    That makes a lot of sense. I've always been interested in cycling, but the streets are just not cycling friendly and my back would punish me if I kept it bent for more than a few minutes. Because it's not an option for me I don't know much about it, so this is all interesting and fascinating.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories