Cycling
Options
Replies
-
As far as strava stuff goes there is actually a MFP Strava Group out there.
Individually feel free to add me: https://strava.com/athletes/41818360 -
theedgecoach521 wrote: »I am just curious what does the "starvation" in your sentence "Group would be great, to keep each other held accountable, starvation would be a Hugh plus mean?
Not a cyclist, but just saw it and was wondering... LOL
Was a joke, cyclists after a ride of long distance like I do burn 3-5 thousand calories, Just in one ride. In a normal ride for myself of 4 hours with some climbing, I burn 4k. It's after words that you feel like your starving, even during said ride that's when you crave everything.
4000 calories in 4 hours. That would mean you are putting out an average power of 277 watts for 4 whole hours. Consider me highly skeptical. You are talking about power levels that pro tour riders maintain for that amount of time.
If you use strava's estimation of efficiency, and take 4 hours to be "somewhere in the 4 hour range", that could easily be a 200-240w average ride, which is very reasonable. 280w for 4 hours would be pretty damn good under most circumstances, but for all we know the guy could be 6'8" and 100kg, making that a pretty ordinary output.
Now if he is using HR to get his calorie data...well obviously that can be ALL over the map. Probably not even that much better than trying to calculate calories burned from average speed over a duration (unless it's all a decently sheltered climb, then it works okay to use speed)
Some good points to be had there. I would also imagine that efficiency is somewhat impacted by cadence, as gearsets and load would affect what types of muscle groups you are using more. Wattage through a meter is a great measure, but also not the entire picture IMO.
As for the size and equipment factors, huge impacts on calorie burn. Looking at one of my recent Strava rides, I set a PB for a segment on that route. I output wattage greater than all but the guy the owns the KOM, even though there are dozens of riders faster than me. I also looked at the ride of the guy that has the KOM on that segment. I burned more calories in my 19 mile ride than he did in his 31+ mile ride at a higher speed. Mass and aero efficiency have a great impact.
I'd like to have some better equipment and meters, but really for someone like me it's not a wise investment. I can improve my riding performance using an app, even if the app is flawed with calorie burns. And even though I don't usually ride more than 20-25 miles at a time, I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours. There is a point where it's probably actually easier for a larger person of the right build to do it, vs a smaller and very efficient rider.
As for heart rate, personally on the bike I don't get it much weight, other than using it to figure out where I was wasting energy better suited for use elsewhere. Being around a lot of traffic lights and slowdowns with few places to really spin steady state for more than a couple miles at a time, I found I was wasting a lot of energy with acceleration events. That could raise my heart rate more than slower acceleration events and then just upping pace when I had the space and lack of traffic to do that.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »And even though I don't usually ride more than 20-25 miles at a time, I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
LOL
If you're not using a power meter, you have no idea how many calories you're burning. Strava estimates are going to be way off, except for the case of a long, steady climb.0 -
I figured out my burn by the good ol' trial and error method, and found that if I increase my caloric intake (usually in the form of beer, breakfast burritos and pizza on my longer rides) by about 45 calories per mile ridden, I continue to maintain.0
-
robertw486 wrote: »And even though I don't usually ride more than 20-25 miles at a time, I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
LOL
If you're not using a power meter, you have no idea how many calories you're burning. Strava estimates are going to be way off, except for the case of a long, steady climb.
@jkoch6599
You might try debating something I've actually stated. And understanding that a power meter isn't even close to being the only way to understand calorie burn, especially in the context of my post. Mass and aero drag are huge factors, and the comparison to the posts of wattage output was clear for those that actually read.
But then again, some will assume that basics of understanding require technology.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »And even though I don't usually ride more than 20-25 miles at a time, I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
LOL
If you're not using a power meter, you have no idea how many calories you're burning. Strava estimates are going to be way off, except for the case of a long, steady climb.
@jkoch6599
You might try debating something I've actually stated. And understanding that a power meter isn't even close to being the only way to understand calorie burn, especially in the context of my post. Mass and aero drag are huge factors, and the comparison to the posts of wattage output was clear for those that actually read.
But then again, some will assume that basics of understanding require technology.
What you don't seem to understand is that measuring your power is the only practical way to account for differences in wind resistance, rolling resistance, etc. A bigger, less aero guy burns more calories precisely because he produces more power.
Strava does a very poor job at estimating power output, and therefore calories burned, except for long, steady climbs like I already mentioned. It's almost always overestimated. A Garmin with a HRM will give a better estimate for an average cyclist.
Anway, the only reason I replied is because I find it funny that you have no idea how many calories you're burning, don't ride for more than an hour or two, but you "think" you can burn 4000 in 4 hours despite a bunch of people pointing out that 277 watts average even for a big guy is a very high level cyclist.0 -
The law of conservation of energy states that the change in total internal energy of a system equals the added heat, minus the work performed by the system, where the symbol "d" indicates that heat (Q) and work (W) are inexact differentials.
dE (energy) = dQ - dW
Work is a displacement of the point of application in the direction of the force (net).
W = Fs = (Force x Distance) / Time
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)).
F = Mass x Acceleration
Force is any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object. That is force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force).
Watt is a derived unit of power to express the rate of energy conversion or transfer with respect to time. Joules and calories are two measurements for energy. The SI unit of work is the joule and is defined as the work expended by a force of one newton through a distance of one meter. The calories (small "c") is a measurement for heat or energy content and is amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere. We typically uses the big "C" when talking about Calories and it is 1,000 little c.
In a nutshell, if you apply a force to your cranks and spin them one revolution, it requires power and you’re doing work. The force is your torque input into the pedals, and the time is the single pedal stroke. A Power meter measure this work. To determine how much total energy is generated to do this work, you need to add heat (Q). This gives you the total measure of energy conversion.
Back to that PB on Strava and the work definition. The only variable that is the same is the distance. The force your generated over the duration of the effort is different, thus the work is different (and hence the total energy or Calories).- What would cause work to be different? Fatigue, wind drag (aero), friction, enthusiasm, temperature, weight, you name it.
- Does that change the definition of work? No.
- Can you control all variable? Yes.
- Is it cost effective? No for most and unlikely possible outdoors.
- Is it necessary to measure all the variables when you can measure the work directly? No.
- But how accurate is it? 1-3%.
- How accurately does it measure the energy demand? That depends. As noted we humans are 20-25% efficient (net) at converting potential energy (fats, carbs, proteins, etc) to kinetic energy (work). The rest, 75-80%, is mostly heat. Does all of the work goes to propel you on that bike? Yes, if the measurement is from a power meter. What about the rest? Get your efficiency measured and it's as close as you can get without taking you apart.
When comparing, watts by itself is kind of meaningless in cycling. It needs to be normalized in order to have significance. Dividing by weight, w/kg, is the true measure used.
Hope this helps.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »And even though I don't usually ride more than 20-25 miles at a time, I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
LOL
If you're not using a power meter, you have no idea how many calories you're burning. Strava estimates are going to be way off, except for the case of a long, steady climb.
@jkoch6599
You might try debating something I've actually stated. And understanding that a power meter isn't even close to being the only way to understand calorie burn, especially in the context of my post. Mass and aero drag are huge factors, and the comparison to the posts of wattage output was clear for those that actually read.
But then again, some will assume that basics of understanding require technology.
What you don't seem to understand is that measuring your power is the only practical way to account for differences in wind resistance, rolling resistance, etc. A bigger, less aero guy burns more calories precisely because he produces more power.
Strava does a very poor job at estimating power output, and therefore calories burned, except for long, steady climbs like I already mentioned. It's almost always overestimated. A Garmin with a HRM will give a better estimate for an average cyclist.
Anway, the only reason I replied is because I find it funny that you have no idea how many calories you're burning, don't ride for more than an hour or two, but you "think" you can burn 4000 in 4 hours despite a bunch of people pointing out that 277 watts average even for a big guy is a very high level cyclist.
You'll have to quote where I didn't understand anything. I'm well aware of variances that Strava or any other app would allow and not be able to factor for. But then again, I'm also aware of the limits of strain gauges for use in estimating power as well, and why they have been rejected for quite some time in other applications that aren't space limited and desire higher accuracy.
As for Strava, I've made no claim it is the end all app by any means. But the flaws it uses in estimating remain the same for all riders at all times. And it's not rocket science to know that if I'm 40 pounds heavier, with less aero efficiency, on a bike that is both, that I could easily burn more calories going slower than a lighter more efficient rider would. Then again, that basic principle is so stable that it even applies to things such as walking, as mass and velocity as the primary driving factors.
And if you make assumptions, it might be easy for you to find it funny. I have limited time to ride, but I also own a machine with a true power measure considered by many to be superior to most power meters on bikes. I also have the advantage of knowing my cardio base, how often I train, and my weights and such. You're attempting to play expert, when in reality you have no idea of my fitness level. I really DO find that funny. And once again, if you actually read what I posted rather than immediately question it, I didn't even claim I could hit 4000 in 4 hours, I said I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
Now if you want to play expert, you'll have to break out all of my lab test results, showing the efficiency levels, the calorimetry, the available glycogen stores, muscle mass in my legs, etc. Surely you already know the percentage of my fat allows more energy stores than a real trim efficient rider, so you'll have to let everyone know what that contributes as well. I'll await your technical analysis.
But then again, a person can have a power meter and have a great unit of measure, but have no clue about their efficiency or specifics of their actual calorimetry, since they rely on estimates usually.[*] But how accurate is it? 1-3%.
This was the only question I had in regards to your input. Are you stating the meters are accurate to a 1-3% margin? If so, do you have any links comparing them?When comparing, watts by itself is kind of meaningless in cycling. It needs to be normalized in order to have significance. Dividing by weight, w/kg, is the true measure used.
Hope this helps.
Though I didn't need any help with understanding any of it, my point was that of your last sentence above. Wattage alone means crap. As a larger less efficient rider wattage is my only saving grace. For me to hit 1000 calories per hour actually requires a less physical effort than that of a lighter rider. Power is absolute and in that sense a larger rider has an advantage. Though in any contest of speed the smaller rider (physical characteristics otherwise being the same) would have a great advantage, in a contest of calorie burn that advantage disappears fairly quickly.
It would be similar to comparing VO2max absolute rates without the body weight factor involved. What might seem like a great number could readily suck if attached to a large person0 -
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-comparison-calculator?type=power-meter#select and that's my understanding regarding "claimed error".
Cannot remember which meter(s) had >2% claimed error rate but think it might have been iBike and/or PowerCal, both are not really true power meters in the traditional sense.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »
Though I didn't need any help with understanding any of it, my point was that of your last sentence above. Wattage alone means crap. As a larger less efficient rider wattage is my only saving grace. For me to hit 1000 calories per hour actually requires a less physical effort than that of a lighter rider. Power is absolute and in that sense a larger rider has an advantage. Though in any contest of speed the smaller rider (physical characteristics otherwise being the same) would have a great advantage, in a contest of calorie burn that advantage disappears fairly quickly.
It would be similar to comparing VO2max absolute rates without the body weight factor involved. What might seem like a great number could readily suck if attached to a large person
You should market your ability to break the laws of physics. You would be rich beyond your wildest dreams.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »And even though I don't usually ride more than 20-25 miles at a time, I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
LOL
If you're not using a power meter, you have no idea how many calories you're burning. Strava estimates are going to be way off, except for the case of a long, steady climb.
@jkoch6599
You might try debating something I've actually stated. And understanding that a power meter isn't even close to being the only way to understand calorie burn, especially in the context of my post. Mass and aero drag are huge factors, and the comparison to the posts of wattage output was clear for those that actually read.
But then again, some will assume that basics of understanding require technology.
What you don't seem to understand is that measuring your power is the only practical way to account for differences in wind resistance, rolling resistance, etc. A bigger, less aero guy burns more calories precisely because he produces more power.
Strava does a very poor job at estimating power output, and therefore calories burned, except for long, steady climbs like I already mentioned. It's almost always overestimated. A Garmin with a HRM will give a better estimate for an average cyclist.
Anway, the only reason I replied is because I find it funny that you have no idea how many calories you're burning, don't ride for more than an hour or two, but you "think" you can burn 4000 in 4 hours despite a bunch of people pointing out that 277 watts average even for a big guy is a very high level cyclist.
You'll have to quote where I didn't understand anything. I'm well aware of variances that Strava or any other app would allow and not be able to factor for. But then again, I'm also aware of the limits of strain gauges for use in estimating power as well, and why they have been rejected for quite some time in other applications that aren't space limited and desire higher accuracy.
As for Strava, I've made no claim it is the end all app by any means. But the flaws it uses in estimating remain the same for all riders at all times. And it's not rocket science to know that if I'm 40 pounds heavier, with less aero efficiency, on a bike that is both, that I could easily burn more calories going slower than a lighter more efficient rider would. Then again, that basic principle is so stable that it even applies to things such as walking, as mass and velocity as the primary driving factors.
And if you make assumptions, it might be easy for you to find it funny. I have limited time to ride, but I also own a machine with a true power measure considered by many to be superior to most power meters on bikes. I also have the advantage of knowing my cardio base, how often I train, and my weights and such. You're attempting to play expert, when in reality you have no idea of my fitness level. I really DO find that funny. And once again, if you actually read what I posted rather than immediately question it, I didn't even claim I could hit 4000 in 4 hours, I said I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
Now if you want to play expert, you'll have to break out all of my lab test results, showing the efficiency levels, the calorimetry, the available glycogen stores, muscle mass in my legs, etc. Surely you already know the percentage of my fat allows more energy stores than a real trim efficient rider, so you'll have to let everyone know what that contributes as well. I'll await your technical analysis.
But then again, a person can have a power meter and have a great unit of measure, but have no clue about their efficiency or specifics of their actual calorimetry, since they rely on estimates usually.[*] But how accurate is it? 1-3%.
This was the only question I had in regards to your input. Are you stating the meters are accurate to a 1-3% margin? If so, do you have any links comparing them?When comparing, watts by itself is kind of meaningless in cycling. It needs to be normalized in order to have significance. Dividing by weight, w/kg, is the true measure used.
Hope this helps.
Though I didn't need any help with understanding any of it, my point was that of your last sentence above. Wattage alone means crap. As a larger less efficient rider wattage is my only saving grace. For me to hit 1000 calories per hour actually requires a less physical effort than that of a lighter rider. Power is absolute and in that sense a larger rider has an advantage. Though in any contest of speed the smaller rider (physical characteristics otherwise being the same) would have a great advantage, in a contest of calorie burn that advantage disappears fairly quickly.
It would be similar to comparing VO2max absolute rates without the body weight factor involved. What might seem like a great number could readily suck if attached to a large person
What are we disagreeing about again? You're doing a bunch of hand waving to try to get around the fact that you basically need to do 277W for an hour to burn 1000 calories, and 4 hours at 277W is really hard even if you're a big guy. Power meters are +/- 2% accurate. Metabolic efficiency doesn't vary that much among individuals. So sure...you personally may have to do 267 watts rather than 277...or even 257, but that doesn't really change the story. It's a real stretch to say you could do that for four hours without ever having tried.
I'm 175 pounds, kind of big for a cyclist, and 230W for just under for hours is the closest I've come based on a quick look at my Strava.
https://www.strava.com/activities/370473905
Now show me a Strava file as evidence that you might be able to do it.0 -
230 watts for 4 hours is DAMN solid.
Just did a quick check back. My last Ironman I rode at only 190 watts for 5.5hrs, but that came off a 51min swim and followed up with a 3:24 marathon.0 -
Low efficiency (20%) would help but we are still talking about a FTP of 233ish which begs the question why the efficiency is so low (one hour mark). Is it even possible anyone with that low of an efficiency, an indication of fitness, capable of cranking that wattage for one hour? With n=1, NO. Four hours at that wattage would of course demand that the rider have a much higher FTP. Assuming steady state, average power = nominal power, it is a FT of 290w @ 0.8 IF to FTP of 335w @ 0.7 IF. At these wattages, anyone that has a 20% efficiency must be a sample of one or thereabouts. Given 105% of FTP is roughly at VO2Max and definition of FTP is max output for one hour, it is impossible (very very unlikely) to ride one hour at VO2Max; either FTP is off and/or we have NP buster. (Defined here to avoid confusion from jumping between terms). I would love to see the dataset.0
-
230 watts for 4 hours is DAMN solid.
Just did a quick check back. My last Ironman I rode at only 190 watts for 5.5hrs, but that came off a 51min swim and followed up with a 3:24 marathon.
Thank you. Being able to ride for 5.5 hours in an aero position at any wattage...and then run a whole marathon is impressive to me.0 -
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-comparison-calculator?type=power-meter#select and that's my understanding regarding "claimed error".
Cannot remember which meter(s) had >2% claimed error rate but think it might have been iBike and/or PowerCal, both are not really true power meters in the traditional sense.
Thanks for the link. For the record, I was just curious, not questioning you. I have read some of his comparisons, but I've also looked and had a hard time finding ANY power meters that are tested against known accurate measure, on dynos or the like. To be honest, these days I think the accelerometer type devices are getting almost as good as the strain gauges and pressure type setups.
I would love to find some links comparing meters to dyno readings, or eddy current brake systems.robertw486 wrote: »
Though I didn't need any help with understanding any of it, my point was that of your last sentence above. Wattage alone means crap. As a larger less efficient rider wattage is my only saving grace. For me to hit 1000 calories per hour actually requires a less physical effort than that of a lighter rider. Power is absolute and in that sense a larger rider has an advantage. Though in any contest of speed the smaller rider (physical characteristics otherwise being the same) would have a great advantage, in a contest of calorie burn that advantage disappears fairly quickly.
It would be similar to comparing VO2max absolute rates without the body weight factor involved. What might seem like a great number could readily suck if attached to a large person
You should market your ability to break the laws of physics. You would be rich beyond your wildest dreams.
Well poor wording on my part for sure. But I'm assuming you as just busting my chops due to that and understood the context I intended. In this sense, I used the word "work" as effort as a percentage, not absolute, and assuming the riders were of similar fitness levels/build but with the weight discrepancies.
And impressive numbers that you are putting out on your example. I know I'm not there, but think I'm getting close on the bike to the numbers being tossed out.robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »And even though I don't usually ride more than 20-25 miles at a time, I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
LOL
If you're not using a power meter, you have no idea how many calories you're burning. Strava estimates are going to be way off, except for the case of a long, steady climb.
@jkoch6599
You might try debating something I've actually stated. And understanding that a power meter isn't even close to being the only way to understand calorie burn, especially in the context of my post. Mass and aero drag are huge factors, and the comparison to the posts of wattage output was clear for those that actually read.
But then again, some will assume that basics of understanding require technology.
What you don't seem to understand is that measuring your power is the only practical way to account for differences in wind resistance, rolling resistance, etc. A bigger, less aero guy burns more calories precisely because he produces more power.
Strava does a very poor job at estimating power output, and therefore calories burned, except for long, steady climbs like I already mentioned. It's almost always overestimated. A Garmin with a HRM will give a better estimate for an average cyclist.
Anway, the only reason I replied is because I find it funny that you have no idea how many calories you're burning, don't ride for more than an hour or two, but you "think" you can burn 4000 in 4 hours despite a bunch of people pointing out that 277 watts average even for a big guy is a very high level cyclist.
You'll have to quote where I didn't understand anything. I'm well aware of variances that Strava or any other app would allow and not be able to factor for. But then again, I'm also aware of the limits of strain gauges for use in estimating power as well, and why they have been rejected for quite some time in other applications that aren't space limited and desire higher accuracy.
As for Strava, I've made no claim it is the end all app by any means. But the flaws it uses in estimating remain the same for all riders at all times. And it's not rocket science to know that if I'm 40 pounds heavier, with less aero efficiency, on a bike that is both, that I could easily burn more calories going slower than a lighter more efficient rider would. Then again, that basic principle is so stable that it even applies to things such as walking, as mass and velocity as the primary driving factors.
And if you make assumptions, it might be easy for you to find it funny. I have limited time to ride, but I also own a machine with a true power measure considered by many to be superior to most power meters on bikes. I also have the advantage of knowing my cardio base, how often I train, and my weights and such. You're attempting to play expert, when in reality you have no idea of my fitness level. I really DO find that funny. And once again, if you actually read what I posted rather than immediately question it, I didn't even claim I could hit 4000 in 4 hours, I said I think I could reach the 1000 calories per hour or close for 4 hours.
Now if you want to play expert, you'll have to break out all of my lab test results, showing the efficiency levels, the calorimetry, the available glycogen stores, muscle mass in my legs, etc. Surely you already know the percentage of my fat allows more energy stores than a real trim efficient rider, so you'll have to let everyone know what that contributes as well. I'll await your technical analysis.
But then again, a person can have a power meter and have a great unit of measure, but have no clue about their efficiency or specifics of their actual calorimetry, since they rely on estimates usually.[*] But how accurate is it? 1-3%.
This was the only question I had in regards to your input. Are you stating the meters are accurate to a 1-3% margin? If so, do you have any links comparing them?When comparing, watts by itself is kind of meaningless in cycling. It needs to be normalized in order to have significance. Dividing by weight, w/kg, is the true measure used.
Hope this helps.
Though I didn't need any help with understanding any of it, my point was that of your last sentence above. Wattage alone means crap. As a larger less efficient rider wattage is my only saving grace. For me to hit 1000 calories per hour actually requires a less physical effort than that of a lighter rider. Power is absolute and in that sense a larger rider has an advantage. Though in any contest of speed the smaller rider (physical characteristics otherwise being the same) would have a great advantage, in a contest of calorie burn that advantage disappears fairly quickly.
It would be similar to comparing VO2max absolute rates without the body weight factor involved. What might seem like a great number could readily suck if attached to a large person
What are we disagreeing about again? You're doing a bunch of hand waving to try to get around the fact that you basically need to do 277W for an hour to burn 1000 calories, and 4 hours at 277W is really hard even if you're a big guy. Power meters are +/- 2% accurate. Metabolic efficiency doesn't vary that much among individuals. So sure...you personally may have to do 267 watts rather than 277...or even 257, but that doesn't really change the story. It's a real stretch to say you could do that for four hours without ever having tried.
I'm 175 pounds, kind of big for a cyclist, and 230W for just under for hours is the closest I've come based on a quick look at my Strava.
https://www.strava.com/activities/370473905
Now show me a Strava file as evidence that you might be able to do it.
My disagreement was that people without meters are clueless about how calorie burns take place. I think it's quite an arrogant statement.
And though my knowledge base of physiology isn't at a really high level, I do know enough about it to expose a great number of flaws in many test methods. I also know that even the high level sports labs account for error.
As for the later claims, once again I think it's arrogant to assume you know a persons level of fitness, especially when you twist a statement of "thinking I could get close" so an absolute and then ask for evidence via a specific app or method.
Not that you might be correct that I'm farther away from that goal than I think, maybe I am. And being you're somewhat local, I'd even buy beer if we found a way to go out and test it in the area. As with the meters, it doesn't take a long history of using an app to have an idea of the cardio base, heart rates, or pain threshold it takes to put out a big effort for a period of time. I've only had Strava for a few months, but have other methods to know my output levels.0 -
A novice to fair rider can produce about an FT of 2-3W/kg which suggests that @ 110-130 kg - a rider could hit that magical 1000 cals/hr.0
-
robertw486 wrote: »My disagreement was that people without meters are clueless about how calorie burns take place. I think it's quite an arrogant statement.
And though my knowledge base of physiology isn't at a really high level, I do know enough about it to expose a great number of flaws in many test methods. I also know that even the high level sports labs account for error.
As for the later claims, once again I think it's arrogant to assume you know a persons level of fitness, especially when you twist a statement of "thinking I could get close" so an absolute and then ask for evidence via a specific app or method.
Not that you might be correct that I'm farther away from that goal than I think, maybe I am. And being you're somewhat local, I'd even buy beer if we found a way to go out and test it in the area. As with the meters, it doesn't take a long history of using an app to have an idea of the cardio base, heart rates, or pain threshold it takes to put out a big effort for a period of time. I've only had Strava for a few months, but have other methods to know my output levels.
Well, I didn't mean that people without a power meter don't know how calorie burns take place. If you're relying on Strava for an estimate though, it's likely you're way off. I've done the same route on the same bike with and without a power meter. Sometimes the Strava wattage estimate is in the ballpark, and sometimes it's 25% or more off. According to BikeCalculator.com to ride 20 mph in the drops with no wind, it would take a 175 guy about 175 watts or 600 calories per hour. Just a 5 mph headwind would increase that to about 250 watts and 850 calories per hour. See why it's so hard to estimate?
If you want to try to test or just ride some time if you're in the area, let me know.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »A novice to fair rider can produce about an FT of 2-3W/kg which suggests that @ 110-130 kg - a rider could hit that magical 1000 cals/hr.
And a novice to fair rider can ride at 100% of FTP for how many hours?0 -
robertw486 wrote: »My disagreement was that people without meters are clueless about how calorie burns take place. I think it's quite an arrogant statement.
And though my knowledge base of physiology isn't at a really high level, I do know enough about it to expose a great number of flaws in many test methods. I also know that even the high level sports labs account for error.
As for the later claims, once again I think it's arrogant to assume you know a persons level of fitness, especially when you twist a statement of "thinking I could get close" so an absolute and then ask for evidence via a specific app or method.
Not that you might be correct that I'm farther away from that goal than I think, maybe I am. And being you're somewhat local, I'd even buy beer if we found a way to go out and test it in the area. As with the meters, it doesn't take a long history of using an app to have an idea of the cardio base, heart rates, or pain threshold it takes to put out a big effort for a period of time. I've only had Strava for a few months, but have other methods to know my output levels.
Well, I didn't mean that people without a power meter don't know how calorie burns take place. If you're relying on Strava for an estimate though, it's likely you're way off. I've done the same route on the same bike with and without a power meter. Sometimes the Strava wattage estimate is in the ballpark, and sometimes it's 25% or more off. According to BikeCalculator.com to ride 20 mph in the drops with no wind, it would take a 175 guy about 175 watts or 600 calories per hour. Just a 5 mph headwind would increase that to about 250 watts and 850 calories per hour. See why it's so hard to estimate?
If you want to try to test or just ride some time if you're in the area, let me know.
Completely understood on the flaws of apps, and short of a rolling weather station they all have flaws. In my case I take them with a grain of salt and understand the role of weather and wind influence. But as a note, I've used some of the other online calculators such as the one you mention, and short of major weather influences both Strava and Endomondo seemed fairly accurate on pace, acceleration, and wind profile calorie burns. Endomondo grossly overestimated RMR, but once corrected for that was very close to Strava in calorie burn estimations.
BUT, having more background in power measures with machines other than human, I've also become aware of the flaws many meters could have. Though not as great as apps, the digging I've done shows much more potential for error than most assume. As an example, many meters estimate force and cadence, but with the maximum force used for the calculation. In reality, it's much more with an internal combustion engine, with max pressures only taking place for a very short time, and lower pressures filling the curve of the power stroke with varied efficiency/output. I've also seen examples of mountain bikers using strain gauge type meters that registered some output will going over rough terrain due to the flex of the crank arms while essentially freewheeling or no real output.
But at any rate, maybe I just took your initial comment as more insulting than I should have. There is a chance I'll get up that way this warm season, as myself and a few others wanted to hit the long trails along the river. Down here getting away from traffic for more than a couple miles is a major hassle. And I'll tell you now we have no real hills here, the only training for that comes from occasional strong winds. So I'd fully expect to suffer more up that way, or at least give my shifters a lot more work.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions