Cycling
Replies
-
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 -
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
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
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions