Recommendation for dealing with long distance cycling in calorie counting.
Replies
-
caloriemuse wrote: »All of the conversation about the accuracy of calorie calculations from exercise aside, the real question here in my mind is how does one absorb into a calorie restricted diet very large energy burns. Again without getting into what it takes to create a negative net calorie count for the day, let's all basically agree that it's possible.
OK, no we are on solid ground. Using me as an example; I'm a 215 pound 53 year old guy with a calorie goal of 1600 a day. On a typical 2-3 hour 30+ mile mtn bike ride with 2500-3000 ft of elevation gain, including eating 3-4 shot blocks and a cliff bar during the ride, I believe that I could easily find myself in negative territory for the day. Again, without getting into how many calories from which flavor cliff bar, etc... let just agree that it's not unlikely that under these conditions I'd be negative for calorie count for the day.
So, the question becomes what's a good rule of thumb for eating back into the positive?
I'm going to toss out there that the two extremes of the spectrum probably are off limits, which would be do nothing, stick to your 1600 consumed calorie goal and at the other end eat back all your exercise burn to reach your net calorie goal of 1600. Those are the easy parts of the rule, there's a lot of room in between.
Thoughts?
I agree concerning the conversation. The accuracy issue is more of a technology issue, but regardless, runners and cyclists are putting in some massive calorie burns and not replacing those calories is dangerous. For a 2-3 hour bike ride, start about thirty minutes before the ride and eat about 30g of carbs. During the ride, eat near (but not more than) 60g of carbs per hour. Then within the thirty minutes after the ride, eat some protein. This would give you near 1,000 calories. The rest of the day, eat at least the 1,600 calories as if you didn't go for a bike ride. That brings you up to 2,600 calories. That would leave you about 1,000 calories unaccounted for. Assuming you have an accurate calorie count, you really should eat those calories and you will probably want to, but since you are trying to lose weight, it isn't as critical that you consume all of your calories as it would be if you have a low body fat percentage and you are trying not to kill yourself with your fitness activities.0 -
MFP cycling estimates do seem to come out very high - at least for road cycling. The 16-20mph band is also ridiculously wide as there's a hell of a difference between 16.1 and 19.9mph!
Once you get to ">20ph racing" they get astronomical.
Don't forget that once you hit about 15mph air resistance becomes an ever-increasing problem that must be overcome just to maintain your speed. Assuming no wind on flat ground the per-minute calorie expenditure for a 160-pound rider is approximately
2.9 at 15mph
3.5 at 16 mph
4.2 at 17 mph
4.9 at 18 mph
5.8 at 19 mph
6.8 at 20 mph
(From Science of Cycling)0 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
Get a lab test to determine your GE and power meter will be more or less spot on. Your GE generally don't change much. Once per year for first three years is probably more than enough from couch to general fitness. Besides for most people using 25% your caloric expenditure is either under reporting or at par. Moving 1% down from that point takes many years of hard work.
For sports other than cycling, I would agree on trying different methods. Given how expensive cycling is, a ~$500 for a power meter (single sided, double that for both sides) is peanuts. That's about my yearly budget for wear and tear (tires, tubs, chains, and, cable and housing). I didn't get it to count calories (that was a bonus) but for training and as a pacing aid.0 -
You don't really need to eat for under 2 hour ride and with saddle time 3 hours is doable if the ride is mostly under 90ish% of functional threshold power. And, I haven't noticed much of a change in appetite (more suppressed than an increase in general).0
-
You don't really need to eat for under 2 hour ride and with saddle time 3 hours is doable if the ride is mostly under 90ish% of functional threshold power. And, I haven't noticed much of a change in appetite (more suppressed than an increase in general).
I think that depends on the person, but most of the guidelines I've seen say that you should eat if the ride exceeds 90 minutes. Some even say 60 minutes. For me, 90 minutes at 90% FTP would be 1,350 calories, which is just under the 1,400 - 2,000 calories of glycogen that is stored in the muscles. While that means I'm not in danger at that point, the reality is that I can't guarantee that a ride will stay under 90 minutes or that I won't push beyond 90% FTP. By the time I can answer that question with any certainty, I need to have already been eating.0 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
With a power meter, you'll never be more than 5 % off from the gods' honest truth. I'd say 95 % or better accuracy is pretty good.0 -
You don't really need to eat for under 2 hour ride and with saddle time 3 hours is doable if the ride is mostly under 90ish% of functional threshold power. And, I haven't noticed much of a change in appetite (more suppressed than an increase in general).
I rarely eat on a ride that's going to be less than 3 hours. Longer than that, and I have a bag of peanut M&Ms. Can dispense a few at a time with one hand on the bars, and close the bag up so they don't spill out. The sugar absorbs very quickly and the peanuts are a little bit of satisfying.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I think that depends on the person, but most of the guidelines I've seen say that you should eat if the ride exceeds 90 minutes. Some even say 60 minutes. For me, 90 minutes at 90% FTP would be 1,350 calories, which is just under the 1,400 - 2,000 calories of glycogen that is stored in the muscles. While that means I'm not in danger at that point, the reality is that I can't guarantee that a ride will stay under 90 minutes or that I won't push beyond 90% FTP. By the time I can answer that question with any certainty, I need to have already been eating.
You use some glycogen while in an aerobic state (don't recall where this is from but 5%-30% is from glycogen and rest from fat depending on the intensity) but nothing that would exhaust that supply in a 2-3 hour ride. Glycogen becomes the primary source of energy when you hit above critical power which is somewhere between 5%-10ish% above your FTP. Ability to stay in that intensity for up to three hours is a completely different subject. I guess if one can push there 95% of 20 minutes best average power to over 60 minutes, that becomes academic. I'm still struggling to hold threshold past 40 minutes on the best of days. Energy-wise there's plenty in the tank but I just can't deal with the fatigue buildup.
See:
http://jpansy.at/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/racing-by-power.pdf (specifically, page 16-18 on training zone and durations)
http://www.owascoveloclub.com/Education_files/EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY.pdf
Info on anaerobic work capacity:
Skiba,et al. Modeling the Expenditure and Reconstitution of Work Capacity Above Critical Power” Medicine & Science in Sport and Exercise, 2012; 1526 – 1534
Gastin, PB. Energy system interaction and relative contribution during maximal exercise” Sports Medicine, 2001: 31(10): 725-41
Noordhoof et al. “Determining Anaerobic Capacity in Sporting Activities” Intl Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2013, 8, 475-4820 -
jondthompson wrote: »So, I went and rode 76 miles at a 16.5 MPH average, which isn't abnormal for me. My cyclo computer estimates a 3766 calorie burn, during which I ate roughly 1232 calories. My normal daily intake, as prescribed by MFP, is 1630 pre exercise.
Anyhow, its saying I have 4164 calories to consume today... that's almost two large pizzas. I have no interest in consuming that much food, nor do I really need to. So.. is it ok to run a large caloric deficit when I ride a long distance such as this?
Depending on your fitness computer, the 3766 may include the calories required for your basal metabolism during the duration of your 76 miles, in which case your target for the day isn't 4164, but 3766 plus [(hours not cycling/24 hours) x 1630] - 1232 calories eaten.
You are not obligated to eat back all your exercise calories if you are trying to lose weight, only if you are trying to bulk.0 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
This is one of the reasons that people that understand how the process works rarely recommend HRMs as a method of establishing calorie expenditure. It's a reasonable corroboration mechanism when using other tools though.
0 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »Btw: awesome riding!
MFP does not give highly accurate calorie estimates for everything.
This ^
Case in point - I use a stationary bike at the gym for cardio a lot of days when my legs are too fatigued to run on the treadmill or my knee is giving me fits. On my steady state cardio days, I tend to ride for about 45 minutes and will generally log about 7-8 miles in that time frame. MFP tells me I burned 407 calories doing this, whereas the machine (which calculates calories burned using my HR and weight) will tell me I burned around 215 calories. I always log that lower number. MFP also calculates my cycling calories on the high side. I rode about 2 hours yesterday, but logged it as one hour. Why? Because a cycling website has a calories burned calculator that uses the speed/intensity of your ride as well as your weight to calculate estimated calorie burn. It was about half of what MFP listed. MFP had me at around 600 calories burned, whereas the other site had me at around 367.0 -
I guess if one can push there 95% of 20 minutes best average power to over 60 minutes, that becomes academic.
It's not "academic" when it is the definition. Functional Threshold Power is defined to be your highest possible power output over 60 minutes. If it isn't possible for a person to average their FTP for 60 minutes then it isn't their FTP, something lower is.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »It's not "academic" when it is the definition. Functional Threshold Power is defined to be your highest possible power output over 60 minutes. If it isn't possible for a person to average their FTP for 60 minutes then it isn't their FTP, something lower is.
Wrong, "ABOUT" an hour. Coggen has publicly cited it was a misprint in "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" and been correcting the misnomer for the last 7 or so years. FTP is anywhere from 40-60 minutes depending on one's fitness and ability to process/tolerate fatigue. Author's words. 60 minutes is taken from upper bounds, elite athletes, where it is roughly the time needed to complete a 40km TT on flat ground. It's a training matrix, not a physiological one.0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »I do find on my long ride/run days if I neglect to eat enough after - that the next two days are going to be horrible because it will be like I can't eat enough
This.
I don't force myself to consume food after a long ride if I'm not that hungry -- focus more on rehydrating. On Saturday after a long ride, I might try to eat more of the deficit at night because I don't like to eat much before riding (on Sunday am). However, I'll know I got it wrong if Monday at work I'm a bottomless pit. I know I can go over on Monday if I had a significant deficit over the weekend. I just have to watch that it doesn't continue on Tuesday.0 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »Btw: awesome riding!
MFP does not give highly accurate calorie estimates for everything.
This ^
Case in point - I use a stationary bike at the gym for cardio a lot of days when my legs are too fatigued to run on the treadmill or my knee is giving me fits. On my steady state cardio days, I tend to ride for about 45 minutes and will generally log about 7-8 miles in that time frame. MFP tells me I burned 407 calories doing this, whereas the machine (which calculates calories burned using my HR and weight) will tell me I burned around 215 calories. I always log that lower number. MFP also calculates my cycling calories on the high side. I rode about 2 hours yesterday, but logged it as one hour. Why? Because a cycling website has a calories burned calculator that uses the speed/intensity of your ride as well as your weight to calculate estimated calorie burn. It was about half of what MFP listed. MFP had me at around 600 calories burned, whereas the other site had me at around 367.
When it comes to stationary bikes (and actually all the exercise I log in MFP), I choose the low/light/slow options ... even if I feel like I've done a really strenuous workout. I find the low/light/slow options are more accurate.
I also tend to round down my time. So if I've walked briskly at a 5 km/h pace (according to Strava) for 64 minutes, I'll enter my exercise at a 4 km/h pace for 60 minutes.
0 -
Just a quick note...The answer to get your calories in on the long distance days...beer. Lots of it.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »It's not "academic" when it is the definition. Functional Threshold Power is defined to be your highest possible power output over 60 minutes. If it isn't possible for a person to average their FTP for 60 minutes then it isn't their FTP, something lower is.
Wrong, "ABOUT" an hour. Coggen has publicly cited it was a misprint in "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" and been correcting the misnomer for the last 7 or so years. FTP is anywhere from 40-60 minutes depending on one's fitness and ability to process/tolerate fatigue. Author's words. 60 minutes is taken from upper bounds, elite athletes, where it is roughly the time needed to complete a 40km TT on flat ground. It's a training matrix, not a physiological one.
None of this has anything to do with the original post.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions