Cycling
Options
Replies
-
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.
How many people weighting 110-130kg are capable of even riding a bike for an hour, let alone at 277 watts, let alone for more than an hour?
I don't think I would even be going out on a limb to say that someone who is that heavy is going to even be capable of producing consistent power at any amount, let alone 277w, for that length of time.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.
How many people weighting 110-130kg are capable of even riding a bike for an hour, let alone at 277 watts, let alone for more than an hour?
I don't think I would even be going out on a limb to say that someone who is that heavy is going to even be capable of producing consistent power at any amount, let alone 277w, for that length of time.
It's probably proportional to the number of professional bike riders that could lift an unloaded olympic weight bar. Which is to say many more than stereotypes would suggest.
I know some big guys that are cardio monsters and very fit. I also know a lot of big people out of shape for riding that could easily ride and put down decent numbers for an hour or more. And though I'm not a cycling nut, there have been pro riders putting down pro level outputs in relation to weight that were still competing and winning stages at the 90+ KG weights.
Naturally those people suffer in time trials and certain aspects of riding due to the size hindering them, but to suggest that anyone not the optimal sizes for biking is lacking in cardio or strength is quite a stretch IMO.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.
How many people weighting 110-130kg are capable of even riding a bike for an hour, let alone at 277 watts, let alone for more than an hour?
I don't think I would even be going out on a limb to say that someone who is that heavy is going to even be capable of producing consistent power at any amount, let alone 277w, for that length of time.
Really?
So again, looking at Coggan's tables we see an FT of 2-3 W/ kg for a novice.
A quick look at Power to Weight tables tells us what...
So a novice 95kg rider is hitting somewhere in the 270w for FT effort.
Anyway, it would seem you are confusing power and physiological calories - a larger person can burn significantly more calories per hour. From what I've read on studies, it is related to the movement of a larger mass in the limbs in motion, hence a much lower mechanical efficiency. My own opinion is that there is also likely a higher thermal flux for heat dissipation, but I haven't seen research on that.
For example, the top heavy TdF rider, Swedish (Magnus Backstedt) rides at an estimated 450w FT since he weighs 95kg.0 -
I am confusing nothing. The theory you state is sound. I am saying someone weighing 110-130kg is probably (not certainly, just probably) too out of shape to accomplish the task of sustaining 277 watts for an hour.0
-
Your table has nothing to do with novice riders. It is simply a table showing power to weight.0
-
-
Are you purposely ignoring my assertion that at a certain size of human you have passed being just naturally larger and are crossing into "too out of shape to do it" territory?0
-
For the record, I have a 130 kilo guy I worked with who rides a lot and is very "cycling" fit (has completed some century rides and prob averages 100 per week or so) but overweight with high body fat. He is hard pressed to average 140 watts an hour and that's if he pushes it.
Means nothing. Just throwing it out there.0 -
Are you purposely ignoring my assertion that at a certain size of human you have passed being just naturally larger and are crossing into "too out of shape to do it" territory?
Nope, was busy. I'm pretty sure that someone like Michael Bennet (NFL running back), who cycles and hits the upper end of your scale, can probably provide the endurance levels you talk about.
The average overweight dude? Probably not, because he got to that point by being inactive, which is the point of the thread.
But personally I know of cyclists at 110 kg that have the endurance to ride for hours. Are they burning 1000 cals per hr? Some? Maybe. My own brother, when fit (on and off), could keep up on rides for 3 hrs. Certainly hits that perimeter.0 -
Funny, saw the same assertion with NBA and NFL players in another (cycling) forum. Wondering if similar assertions are made in runner forums that they can do as well as elite (collegiate, regional, and state level competitors) marathon runner in a marathon.
Guess it's a fundamental misunderstanding difference between power and strength. They're are not the same. Incidentally, cyclists have strength in spades compared to power.0 -
Are you purposely ignoring my assertion that at a certain size of human you have passed being just naturally larger and are crossing into "too out of shape to do it" territory?
I ride metric centuries all the time and I am in the morbidly obese range. It's just a matter of training. For sure it would be easier if I lost weight, but it is possible to ride well as a fatty.0 -
According to the calculation that MFP did when importing my last trainer ride I burned 1,780 calories in 80 minutes. I must be awesome. Think I'll celebrate with a whole pie. Cause, you know... Math.0
-
Jan 30 - 200.2 km
This was the Campbell Town Canter 200K put on by my club, Audax Tasmania.
I haven't ridden a 200K since March 2012, and getting back into randonneuring again was one of the main reasons I decided to come here and lose weight and get fit. This was one of my goals for 2016 and I'm so pleased to have successfully completed the ride with my husband!
The ride report:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Machka9/view/campbell-town-canter-200-2-km-802156
Oh and ... I would have burned about 3500 calories doing that.
0 -
The proverbial Christmas Goose is walking all over this thread.
0 -
So what wattage are you pushing? Just finished a 80 minute trainers (Kurt Kinetic Road Machine) ride tonight at 220 average power, 232 nominal power, intensity factor of 0.843, and 18.1 mph (a few intervals so speed is lower than at steady state) for total calories expenditure of 930 Calories at 25% efficiency factor.
No one is saying it not possible to ride long distances. Incidentally 2.5-3 hours ride is just starting to target physiological adaptation for endurance. What is in dispute is 1,000 Calories per hour which is equivalent of pushing 277 watts per hour as common place. At 165 lbs, that wattage puts me going at approximately 25-26mph on flat road with no wind. It is also just above my FTP of 270. Furthermore, the assertion is that a novice can do that and hold that for four hours. So how fast are you pedaling for one hour and over four hours? I'm a novice, Cat 4 territory after a year of riding (just over 7k miles last year) with respect to wattage I'm putting out for VO2Max and lactate threshold range but pitiful in the upper power ranges. I don't race although did in college some 25 years ago, collegiate Bs. I have no illusions of holding my FTP for an one hour; it hurts too much. 30 minutes is best I can do for now. I'll be hard pressed to accept the current assertion on face value especially over four hours when I know that level of effort is what top amateur and pro level are doing.0 -
Funny, saw the same assertion with NBA and NFL players in another (cycling) forum. Wondering if similar assertions are made in runner forums that they can do as well as elite (collegiate, regional, and state level competitors) marathon runner in a marathon.
Guess it's a fundamental misunderstanding difference between power and strength. They're are not the same. Incidentally, cyclists have strength in spades compared to power.
How are you gauging power and strength @kcjchang ?
Most measures of power in mechanical devices would suggest the opposite of what you are stating. Strength is more a measure of torque (or force applied to the pedals) in this case. Power (specifically horsepower) is the relationship between torque and RPM (cadence in this case). Though one does not exist without the other, really only horsepower trumps overall as long as plenty of gearsets are in the picture.
It may well be defined or discussed differently in the cycling crowd, but I don't follow the terminology as much as many.0 -
Funny, saw the same assertion with NBA and NFL players in another (cycling) forum. Wondering if similar assertions are made in runner forums that they can do as well as elite (collegiate, regional, and state level competitors) marathon runner in a marathon.
Guess it's a fundamental misunderstanding difference between power and strength. They're are not the same. Incidentally, cyclists have strength in spades compared to power.
Guess it's a fundamental misunderstanding between calories burned and energy output. They aren't the same. You've assumed a minimum efficiency that isn't true for the overweight cyclist.
And I have yet to see anyone in this thread comparing NBA/NFL players to doing as well as elite cyclists, or marathon runners. In fact, the premise is basically the opposite - as fit individuals with endurance they do NOT do as well as cyclists - but still burn significant amount of calories due to greater weight inefficiencies.
But, hey, nothing like a drive-by misconstruing.0 -
That is actually exactly what was being said - "fatties" can't have that endurance. Hence the discussion of higher weight athletes that do have high endurance.No one is saying it not possible to ride long distances. Incidentally 2.5-3 hours ride is just starting to target physiological adaptation for endurance. What is in dispute is 1,000 Calories per hour which is equivalent of pushing 277 watts per hour as common place.At 165 lbs, that wattage puts me going at approximately 25-26mph on flat road with no wind. It is also just above my FTP of 270. Furthermore, the assertion is that a novice can do that and hold that for four hours. So how fast are you pedaling for one hour and over four hours? I'm a novice, Cat 4 territory after a year of riding (just over 7k miles last year) with respect to wattage I'm putting out for VO2Max and lactate threshold range but pitiful in the upper power ranges. I don't race although did in college some 25 years ago, collegiate Bs. I have no illusions of holding my FTP for an one hour; it hurts too much. 30 minutes is best I can do for now. I'll be hard pressed to accept the current assertion on face value especially over four hours when I know that level of effort is what top amateur and pro level are doing.
Again. At 165 lbs you are a relatively efficient cyclist. I know that the calculations upstream were based on human efficiency of 20-25%. I believe you used 20%. In reality, for the large rider I'm pretty sure we are approaching a lower efficiency. At 10% efficiency (ref: http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R061.pdf) the calorie burn of the heavier cyclist will burn more calories at lower watt ranges.
Furthermore, but minor, it's likely that a person stating that they burn xxx during the time of exercise is talking about gross effort and not net. Remember that they already have a head start at 100-130 cals / hr vs 70-80 cals / hr for the lighter person.0 -
You guys might find this interesting.
Graphs below show a review of Gross Efficiencies, Metabolic Rates at External Power (mostly from research papers done with endurance athletes, haven't gone through all the references) - (ref: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gertjan_Ettema/publication/24027428_Efficiency_in_cycling_a_review/links/54649f870cf2cb7e9daac2fe.pdf)d Same data as in b, but depicting a possible error of measurement of 5%, e, f Same diagrams as c and d, respectively, but now showing all reported values for different cadences at one particular power.
Couple of things to note - the reported Gross Efficiency of 20%-25% really only holds for average for these individuals at 200 W and above. The spread for GEs for 150W output is closer to 15% to 25% for most, with a few outliers (again, mostly non obese data?).
Metabolic Rate reported is interesting this is what we call "calories burned". Graph B shows ranges from about 500 to 1500 W which corresponds 432 to 1270 cals/hr.
At a 1000 cals/hr burned (about a 1163W Metabolic Rate) we can see external power clustered around 230W to 270W which results in efficiencies of sub 18% to 22%.
It is certainly reasonable to consider lower efficiencies in heavier individuals (inertial limb mechanics being only part of it). Based on this, if you take an individual with an output of 180W and an efficiency of 15%, that corresponds to about 1030 cals/hr. Not unreasonable given that research data.
0 -
Are you purposely ignoring my assertion that at a certain size of human you have passed being just naturally larger and are crossing into "too out of shape to do it" territory?
I ride metric centuries all the time and I am in the morbidly obese range. It's just a matter of training. For sure it would be easier if I lost weight, but it is possible to ride well as a fatty.
You misunderstood - I didn't say you couldn't ride well, but putting out the power numbers we are talking about are a bit out of reach for most people even if larger people are capable of putting out more power than smaller people. The argument here is one of degree. Someone is asserting it is possible to burn 1000kcal/hr and we are trying to use raw numbers to say why that is not probably for a typical person. Or even a very fit person.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions