Burn 1000 calories or MORE in 60 minutes?
Options
Replies
-
I hope this helps you with your ultimate goal to get your weight down. I'm not yet 49 but I'm 41 and I don't do any cardio to stay lean. I've never done performance drugs and I've been more or less in this kind of shape for 26 years straight.
How?
To really, really simplify:
a) Build my metabolism. It takes calories to work muscle, grow muscle and keep muscle. Muscle is my secret weapon.
b) When burning fat, I keep calories in a slight deficit to keep hunger in check and preserver muscle (metabolism)
c) I am very consistent which is one of 4 Fitness Rules I live by. I don't want to be "spammy" and post a link so I'll leave it at that. Can I post a link without some kind of problem with moderators?
Honestly, I always found cardio too boring and a lot of work for little reward. After all of that work if you eat too much food because your hungry, you just lost the calorie burning benefits of the workout. After I lift weights I enjoy Protein Powder in some Skim Milk, Banana and Low Fat Ice-Cream... every day. I don't worry about burning off calories to lose a few pounds, I worry about building up my muscle and metabolism to burn more calories 24 hours a day.
Anyway, I always thought others path to getting lean looked so much harder. I hope my real world examples help others. By the way, this is not advice to anyone specific just some opinions. Good luck!10 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »I
Honestly, I always found cardio too boring and a lot of work for little reward.
I think this is a personal preference. I'd rather run outside for an hour than lift for an hour, but I recognize I need to do both.
5 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »I
Honestly, I always found cardio too boring and a lot of work for little reward.
I think this is a personal preference. I'd rather run outside for an hour than lift for an hour, but I recognize I need to do both.
Well, biking for me.
I can bike 50 miles and make a round trip to a nice coffee shop with friends.
I've yet to figure out how to get anywhere lifting weights.
However, I too recognize the importance of a good mix of resistance and cardio training.2 -
darkmatter661 wrote: »I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.
I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.
In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html
But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.
The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.
Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?
I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.0 -
Shots fired!FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Honestly, I always found cardio too boring and a lot of work for little reward. After all of that work if you eat too much food because your hungry, you just lost the calorie burning benefits of the workout.
4 -
darkmatter661 wrote: »I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.
I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.
In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html
But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.
The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.
Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?
I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.
I can't edit my post for some reason, but based on the MET value for "bicycling, stationary, 201-270 watts, very vigorous effort" (14 METs) it seems totally doable. The MET value is based off of the compendium of physical activities which was/is a study conducted by a number of Universities. I made a calculator a little while back which has about 90 activities from the compendium to choose from. Here's a link if you'd like to check out other MET values for other intensities of bicycling:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit?usp=drivesdk0 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Shots fired!FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Honestly, I always found cardio too boring and a lot of work for little reward. After all of that work if you eat too much food because your hungry, you just lost the calorie burning benefits of the workout.
Haha!.... so funny. I didn't think of it that way. Good post.0 -
@moe0303darkmatter661 wrote: »I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.
I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.
In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html
But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.
The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.
Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?
I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.
I can't edit my post for some reason, but based on the MET value for "bicycling, stationary, 201-270 watts, very vigorous effort" (14 METs) it seems totally doable. The MET value is based off of the compendium of physical activities which was/is a study conducted by a number of Universities. I made a calculator a little while back which has about 90 activities from the compendium to choose from. Here's a link if you'd like to check out other MET values for other intensities of bicycling:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit?usp=drivesdk
The problem with using METS is that it is in relation to a person's weight.
That's fine for many exercises but not for a non-weight bearing exercise like stationary cycling.
A 168lb person like me at 200w would be burning virtually the same net calories as a much heavier (or lighter) person also producing 200w but our MET values are different.
There a difference in gross calories but that's not what you really want to be calculating for exercise calorie burns.
BTW - the Compendium is one of the sources of information that the exercise database here sources. For outdoor cycling they are also pretty useless and a really poor way to estimate.1 -
@moe0303darkmatter661 wrote: »I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.
I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.
In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html
But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.
The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.
Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?
I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.
I can't edit my post for some reason, but based on the MET value for "bicycling, stationary, 201-270 watts, very vigorous effort" (14 METs) it seems totally doable. The MET value is based off of the compendium of physical activities which was/is a study conducted by a number of Universities. I made a calculator a little while back which has about 90 activities from the compendium to choose from. Here's a link if you'd like to check out other MET values for other intensities of bicycling:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit?usp=drivesdk
The problem with using METS is that it is in relation to a person's weight.
That's fine for many exercises but not for a non-weight bearing exercise like stationary cycling.
A 168lb person like me at 200w would be burning virtually the same net calories as a much heavier (or lighter) person also producing 200w but our MET values are different.
There a difference in gross calories but that's not what you really want to be calculating for exercise calorie burns.
BTW - the Compendium is one of the sources of information that the exercise database here sources. For outdoor cycling they are also pretty useless and a really poor way to estimate.
Ok, but what is the margin of error? Do you know of any alternative methods are there to estimate this activity? As far as I am concerned, I take most estimates that we use for the CICO equation as ball park numbers.0 -
@moe0303darkmatter661 wrote: »I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.
I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.
In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html
But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.
The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.
Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?
I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.
I can't edit my post for some reason, but based on the MET value for "bicycling, stationary, 201-270 watts, very vigorous effort" (14 METs) it seems totally doable. The MET value is based off of the compendium of physical activities which was/is a study conducted by a number of Universities. I made a calculator a little while back which has about 90 activities from the compendium to choose from. Here's a link if you'd like to check out other MET values for other intensities of bicycling:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit?usp=drivesdk
The problem with using METS is that it is in relation to a person's weight.
That's fine for many exercises but not for a non-weight bearing exercise like stationary cycling.
A 168lb person like me at 200w would be burning virtually the same net calories as a much heavier (or lighter) person also producing 200w but our MET values are different.
There a difference in gross calories but that's not what you really want to be calculating for exercise calorie burns.
BTW - the Compendium is one of the sources of information that the exercise database here sources. For outdoor cycling they are also pretty useless and a really poor way to estimate.
Ok, but what is the margin of error? Do you know of any alternative methods are there to estimate this activity? As far as I am concerned, I take most estimates that we use for the CICO equation as ball park numbers.
Read my posts on page one.....
Measuring power is by far the most accurate method.
Agree with your comment about ballpark for most activities.
Outdoor rides I use Garmin (sometimes just Strava) and their estimates are reasonable and usable, Garmin tends to underestimate easy paced rides, Strava on its own is about right despite estimating gross calories (it doesn't know how awful my aero is). If I used the METS speed ranges for outdoor riding the estimates tend to be about 50% too high for me as a road cyclist.
For a person with a heavy bike riding off road they might be in that ballpark of reasonable.2 -
@moe0303darkmatter661 wrote: »I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.
I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.
In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html
But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.
The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.
Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?
I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.
I can't edit my post for some reason, but based on the MET value for "bicycling, stationary, 201-270 watts, very vigorous effort" (14 METs) it seems totally doable. The MET value is based off of the compendium of physical activities which was/is a study conducted by a number of Universities. I made a calculator a little while back which has about 90 activities from the compendium to choose from. Here's a link if you'd like to check out other MET values for other intensities of bicycling:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit?usp=drivesdk
The problem with using METS is that it is in relation to a person's weight.
That's fine for many exercises but not for a non-weight bearing exercise like stationary cycling.
A 168lb person like me at 200w would be burning virtually the same net calories as a much heavier (or lighter) person also producing 200w but our MET values are different.
There a difference in gross calories but that's not what you really want to be calculating for exercise calorie burns.
BTW - the Compendium is one of the sources of information that the exercise database here sources. For outdoor cycling they are also pretty useless and a really poor way to estimate.
Ok, but what is the margin of error? Do you know of any alternative methods are there to estimate this activity? As far as I am concerned, I take most estimates that we use for the CICO equation as ball park numbers.
Read my posts on page one.....
Measuring power is by far the most accurate method.
Agree with your comment about ballpark for most activities.
Outdoor rides I use Garmin (sometimes just Strava) and their estimates are reasonable and usable, Garmin tends to underestimate easy paced rides, Strava on its own is about right despite estimating gross calories (it doesn't know how awful my aero is). If I used the METS speed ranges for outdoor riding the estimates tend to be about 50% too high for me as a road cyclist.
For a person with a heavy bike riding off road they might be in that ballpark of reasonable.
ok, I somehow missed the whole first page. Lot of good information in there. I've looked at watts in the past as well, but never pursued looking into the formula.
So, to reiterate and check what I have learned, the basic idea is that if the exercise is non-weight bearing, then weight should not enter into the equation for energy expenditure. If the power output is available (Watts), you can estimate calories burned with the formula provided by @tbright1965 (Avg Watts * Time in minutes * .06 = Calories burned). Does that sound right?
0 -
@moe0303darkmatter661 wrote: »I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.
I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.
In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html
But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.
The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.
Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?
I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.
I can't edit my post for some reason, but based on the MET value for "bicycling, stationary, 201-270 watts, very vigorous effort" (14 METs) it seems totally doable. The MET value is based off of the compendium of physical activities which was/is a study conducted by a number of Universities. I made a calculator a little while back which has about 90 activities from the compendium to choose from. Here's a link if you'd like to check out other MET values for other intensities of bicycling:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit?usp=drivesdk
The problem with using METS is that it is in relation to a person's weight.
That's fine for many exercises but not for a non-weight bearing exercise like stationary cycling.
A 168lb person like me at 200w would be burning virtually the same net calories as a much heavier (or lighter) person also producing 200w but our MET values are different.
There a difference in gross calories but that's not what you really want to be calculating for exercise calorie burns.
BTW - the Compendium is one of the sources of information that the exercise database here sources. For outdoor cycling they are also pretty useless and a really poor way to estimate.
Ok, but what is the margin of error? Do you know of any alternative methods are there to estimate this activity? As far as I am concerned, I take most estimates that we use for the CICO equation as ball park numbers.
Read my posts on page one.....
Measuring power is by far the most accurate method.
Agree with your comment about ballpark for most activities.
Outdoor rides I use Garmin (sometimes just Strava) and their estimates are reasonable and usable, Garmin tends to underestimate easy paced rides, Strava on its own is about right despite estimating gross calories (it doesn't know how awful my aero is). If I used the METS speed ranges for outdoor riding the estimates tend to be about 50% too high for me as a road cyclist.
For a person with a heavy bike riding off road they might be in that ballpark of reasonable.
ok, I somehow missed the whole first page. Lot of good information in there. I've looked at watts in the past as well, but never pursued looking into the formula.
So, to reiterate and check what I have learned, the basic idea is that if the exercise is non-weight bearing, then weight should not enter into the equation for energy expenditure. If the power output is available (Watts), you can estimate calories burned with the formula provided by @tbright1965 (Avg Watts * Time in minutes * .06 = Calories burned). Does that sound right?
I updated my calculator so that when a non-weight bearing exercise is selected, another field pops up to give the user a chance to enter the avg watts to calculate the calories out.0 -
@moe0303darkmatter661 wrote: »I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.
I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.
In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html
But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.
The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.
Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?
I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.
I can't edit my post for some reason, but based on the MET value for "bicycling, stationary, 201-270 watts, very vigorous effort" (14 METs) it seems totally doable. The MET value is based off of the compendium of physical activities which was/is a study conducted by a number of Universities. I made a calculator a little while back which has about 90 activities from the compendium to choose from. Here's a link if you'd like to check out other MET values for other intensities of bicycling:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit?usp=drivesdk
The problem with using METS is that it is in relation to a person's weight.
That's fine for many exercises but not for a non-weight bearing exercise like stationary cycling.
A 168lb person like me at 200w would be burning virtually the same net calories as a much heavier (or lighter) person also producing 200w but our MET values are different.
There a difference in gross calories but that's not what you really want to be calculating for exercise calorie burns.
BTW - the Compendium is one of the sources of information that the exercise database here sources. For outdoor cycling they are also pretty useless and a really poor way to estimate.
Ok, but what is the margin of error? Do you know of any alternative methods are there to estimate this activity? As far as I am concerned, I take most estimates that we use for the CICO equation as ball park numbers.
Read my posts on page one.....
Measuring power is by far the most accurate method.
Agree with your comment about ballpark for most activities.
Outdoor rides I use Garmin (sometimes just Strava) and their estimates are reasonable and usable, Garmin tends to underestimate easy paced rides, Strava on its own is about right despite estimating gross calories (it doesn't know how awful my aero is). If I used the METS speed ranges for outdoor riding the estimates tend to be about 50% too high for me as a road cyclist.
For a person with a heavy bike riding off road they might be in that ballpark of reasonable.
ok, I somehow missed the whole first page. Lot of good information in there. I've looked at watts in the past as well, but never pursued looking into the formula.
So, to reiterate and check what I have learned, the basic idea is that if the exercise is non-weight bearing, then weight should not enter into the equation for energy expenditure. If the power output is available (Watts), you can estimate calories burned with the formula provided by @tbright1965 (Avg Watts * Time in minutes * .06 = Calories burned). Does that sound right?
Yep but remember that's just for cycling as the efficiency ratio will vary between different non-weight bearing exercises.2 -
Swimming is in the same boat (ah! ok, not funny) - standard formula's use weight, which really isn't that much of a factor.
If heavier and from muscle yes a harder workout staying afloat, if from fat easier workout floating easier.
Bike watts - not really an estimate as you might mean by estimate - the narrow range of human efficiency is what can make a tight estimate range. The kicker is it's purely the energy put into the pedals (or rear wheel or drive train) - not other energy expended from upper body or base metabolism.
But that should not matter on short rides - ultra distance and needing to eat enough - then important.
energy (kcal) = avg power (W) X duration (hours) X 3.6 (or indeed min x 0.06)
http://mccraw.co.uk/powertap-meter-convert-watts-calories-burned/1 -
Does anybody know of a source for efficiency ratios for other exercises?
Rower for instance?0 -
Does anybody know of a source for efficiency ratios for other exercises?
Rower for instance?
Have a read of the calorie calculator on the Concept2 website - the readout on the monitor assumes a 175lbs person and the calculator allows you to adjust for your own bodyweight.
https://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/calorie-calculator
I'm only an occasional rower but would surmise that the actual efficiency ratio would have a far wider spread as the movement is far more complex than cycling.
It's not unusual to see some truly awful rowing techniques in general gyms.0 -
Does anybody know of a source for efficiency ratios for other exercises?
Rower for instance?
Have a read of the calorie calculator on the Concept2 website - the readout on the monitor assumes a 175lbs person and the calculator allows you to adjust for your own bodyweight.
https://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/calorie-calculator
I'm only an occasional rower but would surmise that the actual efficiency ratio would have a far wider spread as the movement is far more complex than cycling.
It's not unusual to see some truly awful rowing techniques in general gyms.
I'd also point out, just as thought-fodder, that the C2 engineers think about this like rowers (because they are): They care about power applied at the flywheel. Their primary focus is not assessing calorie burn from ridiculously inefficient rowing; it's on getting people to row efficiently.
I don't think they're going to provide a lot of calculating insight about anything but what hits the flywheel. In practice, I agree that most people I see at the gym are probably burning more calories than the C2 measures as watts, possibly significantly more.
In one way, it ought to be self-evident that C2's main focus is rowing efficiently and estimating calories from doing that only; but MFP's group-think can occasionally skew oddly: The number of posts I've seen here implicitly assuming that the whole point of HRM is to estimate (or even measure!) calories . . . jeesh.
2 -
Does anybody know of a source for efficiency ratios for other exercises?
Rower for instance?
Have a read of the calorie calculator on the Concept2 website - the readout on the monitor assumes a 175lbs person and the calculator allows you to adjust for your own bodyweight.
https://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/calorie-calculator
I'm only an occasional rower but would surmise that the actual efficiency ratio would have a far wider spread as the movement is far more complex than cycling.
It's not unusual to see some truly awful rowing techniques in general gyms.
I'd also point out, just as thought-fodder, that the C2 engineers think about this like rowers (because they are): They care about power applied at the flywheel. Their primary focus is not assessing calorie burn from ridiculously inefficient rowing; it's on getting people to row efficiently.
I don't think they're going to provide a lot of calculating insight about anything but what hits the flywheel. In practice, I agree that most people I see at the gym are probably burning more calories than the C2 measures as watts, possibly significantly more.
In one way, it ought to be self-evident that C2's main focus is rowing efficiently and estimating calories from doing that only; but MFP's group-think can occasionally skew oddly: The number of posts I've seen here implicitly assuming that the whole point of HRM is to estimate (or even measure!) calories . . . jeesh.
I'd be happy with a baseline. If an efficient rower has a factor of .06, it would serve as a minimum calorie burn for the rowing activity.0 -
@moe0303darkmatter661 wrote: »I'm a 49 year old male, 6'1", roughly 220lbs, needing to lose about 20-30 to be 'fit'. I've been doing indoor cycling classes now for 5+ years and over this time, have developed a pretty good endurance capability despite my being technically overweight.
I use MFP now to track my eating habits and weight and iCardio with a Mio Alpha 2 HRM.
In the last few months, I've been able to break the 1000 calorie an hour barrier in a class. The most I've recorded is 1094 cals in 60 mins: https://my.fitdigits.com/site/share/workout/111240b3f9d311e8bcd4cf9372c5c167.html
But can consistently get to or break 1000 in any given class.
The question I have is whether these numbers are accurate or not. Clearly I know I'm working VERY hard, leaving a pool of sweat on the floor, both sides of the bike (I know, gross, sorry lol). I keep up with instructors and my flat gears are above avg - but yet with all this I don't know if what I'm seeing in numbers is to be trusted, especially as I sync with MFP and it takes in the calorie deficit count.
Any other hardcore 'spinners' out there that can chime in and corroborate this data?
I think it is very possible. I'll see if I can find the MET value it would require. It would require you to exercise at an intensity of 9.5 METs the entire time...which isn't totally crazy.
I can't edit my post for some reason, but based on the MET value for "bicycling, stationary, 201-270 watts, very vigorous effort" (14 METs) it seems totally doable. The MET value is based off of the compendium of physical activities which was/is a study conducted by a number of Universities. I made a calculator a little while back which has about 90 activities from the compendium to choose from. Here's a link if you'd like to check out other MET values for other intensities of bicycling:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEexb8IvXv1m9Z6irkwrBggxOg9b8GKdrLA0mKDVE8/edit?usp=drivesdk
The problem with using METS is that it is in relation to a person's weight.
That's fine for many exercises but not for a non-weight bearing exercise like stationary cycling.
A 168lb person like me at 200w would be burning virtually the same net calories as a much heavier (or lighter) person also producing 200w but our MET values are different.
There a difference in gross calories but that's not what you really want to be calculating for exercise calorie burns.
BTW - the Compendium is one of the sources of information that the exercise database here sources. For outdoor cycling they are also pretty useless and a really poor way to estimate.
Ok, but what is the margin of error? Do you know of any alternative methods are there to estimate this activity? As far as I am concerned, I take most estimates that we use for the CICO equation as ball park numbers.
On a bike, you can just change the label from kJ to kCal and you'll be within 2.5% in either direction (for a maximum possible error of 5%, putting you in the middle of that range).
Watts are a measure of power (rate of work). Although they can be estimated, they can be measured to within +/- 1% and commonly are. The larger potential error "converting" to calories comes from the fact that humans riding bikes vary by up to 5% in efficiency at turning stored days and carbs into mechanical work. I would have expected more variation too, but cycling is pretty constrained, we sit on a saddle and turn circles with our legs, with our feet clipped to the pedals. It's not like how some runners waste a lot of energy bouncing too much.
All the numbers are from Joe Friel.1 -
Does anybody know of a source for efficiency ratios for other exercises?
Rower for instance?
Have a read of the calorie calculator on the Concept2 website - the readout on the monitor assumes a 175lbs person and the calculator allows you to adjust for your own bodyweight.
https://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/calorie-calculator
I'm only an occasional rower but would surmise that the actual efficiency ratio would have a far wider spread as the movement is far more complex than cycling.
It's not unusual to see some truly awful rowing techniques in general gyms.
I'd also point out, just as thought-fodder, that the C2 engineers think about this like rowers (because they are): They care about power applied at the flywheel. Their primary focus is not assessing calorie burn from ridiculously inefficient rowing; it's on getting people to row efficiently.
I don't think they're going to provide a lot of calculating insight about anything but what hits the flywheel. In practice, I agree that most people I see at the gym are probably burning more calories than the C2 measures as watts, possibly significantly more.
In one way, it ought to be self-evident that C2's main focus is rowing efficiently and estimating calories from doing that only; but MFP's group-think can occasionally skew oddly: The number of posts I've seen here implicitly assuming that the whole point of HRM is to estimate (or even measure!) calories . . . jeesh.
This is how it is with cycling too. Power meters are expensive and most people don't buy them for calories.
I assume rowing is like this too: every time you push the pedal down, you apply a different amount of force. Which is half of what's important, along with rate. Being able to measure power is like having numbers on the weights at the gym.
What you said about getting more efficient especially rings true. A lot of cyclists are using power meters with speed sensors an advanced math, to create portable wind tunnels to refine their position and gear/clothing choices. It's called the Chung Virtual Elevation method. It works because speed = power / all opposing forces, and it's not like your coefficient of rolling resistance changes much during a ride.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