cyclists - i keep getting fatter and fatter
Replies
-
Charlene_72385 wrote: »How many calories would I be burning? I'm 140lbs, female, 30. My bike is 18lbs and I ride an old rail line so generally no more than a 2-3% grade in some places. I ride around 17mph. I was estimating about 25/mile just to keep the math easy. Is that too high? Thx.
I think I slept through that portion of high school algebra class...0 -
I bike too but I only go 50 miles a week. Try this, eat light before your ride. Then snack lightly while you ride (ie, granola bar or energy product). Then after the ride have a meal. For my 50 mile ride I can burn 3000-5000 calories depending on terrain and cadence. I consume about 300-500 calories before my ride and about 400-500 calories during. Afterwards I resume normal eating according to my plan. If I'm hungry late night I consume a casein protein drink and that fills and holds me over til the next morning. My goal is to drop body fat and maintain muscle or maintain my weight. You shouldn't be starving after your "after ride meal." Eat normal and avoid feasting at night...easier said then done:)
The bold is highly unlikely. Likely way less than half that.
I hear you guys! Not to take the convo away from Cinflo...my apologies.
Today I rode 30 miles at a 20mph average on rolling hills. I ran Strava, map my walk and ride GPS all in parallel on my phone. At the end of the run they all guesstimated I burned just shy of 3000cal. I've eaten right up to my plan of 3000cal but there's no way I can "eat back" another 3000 for the ride. I only ride once a week and do a lot of other work throughout the week. For example, In my pic (hard to see) im doin a 505lb deadlift for reps. I think I have another pic of me pushing 1400lbs on the leg press. So, eating 3000 a day gives me the opportunity to "eat back" later in the week. I know these numbers sound really high but eating 3000cal a day keeps me right at 230-235lbs with lowish BF. About 15%. I used to ride a tri bike at 5000 foot elevation and got just about the same figures. Someone made the comment of if it works keep at it which is the plan. However, if someone can point me in a better direction as to how to better measure calorie expenditures I'd greatly appreciate it.0 -
Charlene_72385 wrote: »How many calories would I be burning? I'm 140lbs, female, 30. My bike is 18lbs and I ride an old rail line so generally no more than a 2-3% grade in some places. I ride around 17mph. I was estimating about 25/mile just to keep the math easy. Is that too high? Thx.
Like I said before ... I use the formula 100 calories for every 5 km, and that might even be just a little bit high now that I've lost weight. In the old imperial system that works out to 100 cal/3 miles or so ... 33 cal/mile. If you went with 25/mile, you're probably in the right ballpark.
(I'm a 49-year old female who is a little lighter than you ... and my real first name is Charlene too.
) 1 -
Charlene_72385 wrote: »How many calories would I be burning? I'm 140lbs, female, 30. My bike is 18lbs and I ride an old rail line so generally no more than a 2-3% grade in some places. I ride around 17mph. I was estimating about 25/mile just to keep the math easy. Is that too high? Thx.
Honestly, I have no idea.
A quick google search yielded this article. Not as sciency as some, but it's probably a reasonable starting point given that all this talk is just about estimates and approximations.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/135430-calories-burned-biking-one-mile/
Personally, I use 10cals per minute as my sanity check. That's based of years of Garmin and Suunto HRM-based estimates, and it lines up well with how I log and the weight changes I see as a result.
It's really hard for me to sustain that kind of effort over longer stretches of time. A quick 45 minute mountain bike ride at high exertion could very well be 10cals per minute. A 4hr road ride, not so much.
It's all just guessing, and that type of guessing is good enough for me.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »On that note: I find I need about 2/3 more watts to hold the same speed on dirt or very light gravel as I do on pavement. Obviously that depends a lot on the specifics (chip seal requires more power for the same speed, and there are a billion flavors of dirt). What happens for me is that I go a slower on dirt, but not enough slower, so I work harder and burn more calories at the end of the day.
@SingingSingleTracker, @Hornsby - are you noticing the same thing?
Yes, average speeds drop way down, and wattage - well, we all have a limited amount of power that we can put out and sustain no matter if it is pavement or dirt. If I could hold the same speed on dirt as I do on pavement, I wouldn't be here posting. I'd be racing for $$$ on the MTB Circuit. Gravel - depending on if it is fresh drop or not - is much closer to pavement riding, but the rolling resistance difference does lower the speed for the same wattage. Best benefit - few cars/trucks, more dogs to chase you, and peaceful scenery.
Singletrack with tight twisty, ups and downs, short steep power climbs, screaming descents, switchbacks, technical sections, hellish climbs - has wattage jumping all over the map. That's why "over under" intervals are a great preparation for the pain involved in racing mountain bikes as you go over and under threshold so many times on the dirt.0 -
I know these numbers sound really high but eating 3000cal a day keeps me right at 230-235lbs with lowish BF. However, if someone can point me in a better direction as to how to better measure calorie expenditures I'd greatly appreciate it.
That partially helps explain your massive calorie burn. You're a big fella.
Most of us cyclist types are whippets that are 65 - 85 pounds less than you with much less muscle to fuel than you are carrying around.
0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »Singletrack with tight twisty, ups and downs, short steep power climbs, screaming descents, switchbacks, technical sections, hellish climbs - has wattage jumping all over the map. That's why "over under" intervals are a great preparation for the pain involved in racing mountain bikes as you go over and under threshold so many times on the dirt.
I bought Garmin's pedal based power meter instead of a PowerTap wheel with the idea that I could put it on a MTB and see what my output looks like on the trail. Actually renting a MTB a few times showed me what a dumb idea that was... Sadly, it's about a 100 mile drive to the nearest good single track that bikes are allowed on, so I have a gravel bike and occasionally rent a mountain bike on trips.0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »I know these numbers sound really high but eating 3000cal a day keeps me right at 230-235lbs with lowish BF. However, if someone can point me in a better direction as to how to better measure calorie expenditures I'd greatly appreciate it.
That partially helps explain your massive calorie burn. You're a big fella.
Most of us cyclist types are whippets that are 65 - 85 pounds less than you with much less muscle to fuel than you are carrying around.
So that's why I get funny looks at organized bike rides!!! Most folks haven't seen circus animals on bikes before!!! LMAO1 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »I know these numbers sound really high but eating 3000cal a day keeps me right at 230-235lbs with lowish BF. However, if someone can point me in a better direction as to how to better measure calorie expenditures I'd greatly appreciate it.
That partially helps explain your massive calorie burn. You're a big fella.
Most of us cyclist types are whippets that are 65 - 85 pounds less than you with much less muscle to fuel than you are carrying around.
That still can't account for that massive of a calorie burn.
I don't know how long that 50 mile ride takes, but if we assume a modest 3 hours (16ish mph) then 3000 calories would require a 277 watt average. Even a larger guy is not going to be able to put out that much power, sustained, for 3 hours without being a well-trained cyclist.
Granted I only weigh 145lbs but my FTP is 290. I can sustain around that 277w mark for an hour (well, lets back that off to 260w for an hour) and still run a sub-40:00 10k coming off the bike, but at 277 watts I am rolling 25-26mph sustained. No matter how you slice it 3000 calories for 50 miles doesn't make sense no matter how big the cyclist is 2 -
This is all good...and forced me to do some reading. Most websites on the topic have 2 consensus. 1. There are to many variables in biking to accurately give a definitive answer. 2. To gain weight eat more, to loose eat less. Doesn't get any simpler than that. At livestrong and bicycling.Com I plugged my info in and they said the same thing as the aps I'm using. Around 3000 cal for that 30 mile bike run at 16-19mph. Livestrong, in an article, said a 180lb male typically burns about 1070 cal per hour at the 16-19mph average. No guesses as to how much a 235 pounder burns. Expotential increase maybe? Livestrong said a 145lb male burns half to 2/3s of what the 180 pounder burns. The bigger the body the more the burn at a given rate is what ive read. But in my reading, cal burn estimates are all over the place. I talked to a nutrionist friend today and she thinks my cal burn is probably higher than what the aps say. I guess there is a lot of research going into biking vs cal burn. All I know for sure is that 3000 cal a day intake supports and maintains my body in the training I am doing. I'm gonna buy a power meter and HR monitor and delve deeper.0
-
There are a lot of variables that make it hard to estimate how much energy you need for cycling. A tail wind makes you faster but doesn't use more energy; a head wind makes you slower for the same effort. Traffic will do the same. Obviously so will hills. So will your position on the bike, how aerodynamic are you? Wind resistance is usually the #1 thing slowing most people down. Even the width and pressure of your tires matter because of rolling resistance - the reason it's harder to pedal on dirt than on pavement.
But it can be measured easily and precisely.
A power meter is a device that measures the torque and speed/RPMs that the torque is applied. It gives you a very objective measure of how much effort you put into the bike. From that, it's easy to narrow it down to a very small calorie range because humans have about the same efficiency on a bike for turning fats into mechanical work.
You have to average about 125 watts to burn 500 kCal per hour on a bike. It doesn't matter how big or small you are or what gender or who you voted for. Your muscles must do a specific amount of work to burn a specific amount of calories. To burn 1,000 kCal per hour on a bike you have to average 250 watts for an hour which most people are not capable of.
Asking a bunch of apps for a guess might be simpler but it does not get much more accurate than what I've just said.0 -
Got it NC! Thanks for the info. I'm Def gonna invest some money in a power meter and HR monitor and see what I come up with!
0 -
Something is off. Here is my last solo ride at endurance pace (Z2). I have a Stages power meter (zero reset prior to the ride) so the calories burnt is some what accurate assuming 25% efficiency (which I'm no where near)."Might" have hit 1k if it was an actual 50.
OP, I'm the opposite: hungry on days I don't ride. I been on the last 10 pounds for the last two years, lol.0 -
I have not lost even a pound since I started running! However, heart and lung fitness is great, muscle tone much improved too and mental health, confidence and mood great. Still need to be in calorie deficit in order to lose and that is the hard part,mi deserve bacon and egg after running all that distance LOL0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »To burn 1,000 kCal per hour on a bike you have to average 250 watts for an hour which most people are not capable of.
Amazing the power that TdF riders put out each day for so many hours.
Each day participants ride, on average, about 110 miles and burn some 6,071 calories
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/tour-de-france/pro-power-analysis-stages-18-19-at-the-tour-de-france_296653
http://www.bicycling.com/training/2015-tour-de-france/you-versus-tour-de-france-pro
As you mention, power meter gizmos are the most accurate.
0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »To burn 1,000 kCal per hour on a bike you have to average 250 watts for an hour which most people are not capable of.
Amazing the power that TdF riders put out each day for so many hours.
That's why they can ride the TdF ... and we can't.
0 -
Something is off. Here is my last solo ride at endurance pace (Z2). I have a Stages power meter (zero reset prior to the ride) so the calories burnt is some what accurate assuming 25% efficiency (which I'm no where near)."Might" have hit 1k if it was an actual 50.
OP, I'm the opposite: hungry on days I don't ride. I been on the last 10 pounds for the last two years, lol.
Yea, I have no idea. I'm not using a power meter. Just the Garmin and HRM. Strava had me at 1900 calories for the same ride, but I always assumed that was nuts. Average estimated power 1749 output and average of 230 watts. Not sure how accurate that stuff is and don't much care. I'm not a cyclist, I just like to ride bikes 0 -
do you snack throughout the ride? If you eat as you go (nothing big, but something filling) you might find you fight off the hunger at the end.
I personally finish and eat something purposefully small but know it'll help recovery (e.g. a protein shake and a slice of malt loaf or something) and wait 60-90 minutes before having a big meal. I used to do the same wtih rowing to ensure I wasn't overeating immediately post exercise when you feel like you could complete a Man vs Food challenge.0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »To burn 1,000 kCal per hour on a bike you have to average 250 watts for an hour which most people are not capable of.
Amazing the power that TdF riders put out each day for so many hours.
That's why they can ride the TdF ... and we can't.
Yup. It's humbling. So too is any professional sport and what the athletes can do compared to "us" who play the same game/sports.
I'm just supporting the above thread of what it actually takes to push 250 watts or more for an hour.
Handy dandy chart of "us" vs. the "pros" is right here:
With years of training, I scratched and clawed my way into the Good Weekend Racer realm and without obtaining new genetics, that's where I have remained.0 -
I ride 3 or 4 times a week - typical do sprints on trails for 60 to 90 minutes. Sometimes I go through a few day period where I am very hungry (or is it hangry) - more so than usual. I usually let the scale tell me how much I can indulge.
And of course - more protein in your diet can help assuage some of the hunger issues.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »You have to average about 125 watts to burn 500 kCal per hour on a bike. It doesn't matter how big or small you are or what gender or who you voted for. Your muscles must do a specific amount of work to burn a specific amount of calories. To burn 1,000 kCal per hour on a bike you have to average 250 watts for an hour which most people are not capable of.
Asking a bunch of apps for a guess might be simpler but it does not get much more accurate than what I've just said.
Technically its 277 watts for an hour to burn 1000 cal. Even a larger person is going to have a hard time getting there. At a certain point watts are watts. Just because someone is 230lbs doesn't mean they can actually sustain that amount of power.
277 watts for an hour is close to the limit of my capabilities. My FTP was last measured at 290w. At 145lbs that puts me at 4.4W/kg at FTP. I am fast on the bike, but there are plenty of guys who simply kick my butt all day.
0 -
1 watt = 1 Joule/second
1 hour = 3,600 seconds
277 w * 3,600 sec = 997,200 kJ
kJ * 1.1 to 1.15 ~= kC
The last step is factoring in your efficiency at turning the calories into kiloJoules.
At least that's how I do it in my head. My Garmin (Fenix 3) just takes the kJ I did and changes the label to calories. My other Garmin (Edge 800) does something else, I'm not sure what.
But in any case it's not a huge difference and to your point, 277w is even harder to maintain than 250w.0 -
Maybe you need to add some cross training? Try jump rope or something like kick boxing or something that seems fun to you and see if a shorter duration a couple times a week shows improvement. I just wonder if you might have reached some sort of fitness threshold with cycling. Completely unscientific there.
That or some changes in macros and micro nutrients and such.It's odd but cycling, even long distance, doesn't make me particularly hungry despite large calorie burns.
Strength training is the opposite, low calorie burn but very hungry.
When I'm cutting weight I tend to have a mixture of maintenance days and deficit days to keep my energy levels high but still achieve an overall weekly calorie deficit.
Yeah this is more me. Especially, my guess, in recovery time from lifting.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions