Burn 1000 calories or MORE in 60 minutes?
Replies
-
@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 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »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!
Generally good thoughts @FitFamilyGuy, and from your picture this routine has worked well for you. I will disagree a bit on the cardio, as I believe its critical to keep the heart and lungs healthy. Now you don't have to run marathons or ride centuries (but if that's your hobby and you enjoy it great) but there is a need for some cardio work, probably along the lines of the US government recommendations of 150 minutes a week of moderate intensity aerobic exercise. Nice article on the subject from a well respected trainer.
http://robertsontrainingsystems.com/blog/long-duration-low-intensity-cardio/
4 -
A quick diversion from more serious topics related to C2s. One of the rowing coaches I know was telling me that the highest score she's ever seen on the fish game was from a very very new very small junior who had just joined the team (and not really learned how to row) who was only using his arms. So like a very odd and frenetic pick drill. Somehow I don't think that's what C2 had in mind for the use of any of their machinesDoes 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.
1 -
And back to the topic at hand.
Like C2s, I think most people who use power meters do so primarily for training purposes as opposed to for estimating how many calories they've burned. Even though I was trying to lose weight when I bought mine, the primary reason I bought them was because I wanted to be able to apply watts to my training with more accuracy than my ailing smart trainer would allow. Plus there was the was the added benefit of being able to see my power outside. It was also nice because I had had a fourth knee surgery three or four months prior so it was nice to use power as an extra rehab metric. Yes having a fairly accurate measure of calories is great, but that was not the main reason I spent a bunch of money on pedals.2 -
A quick diversion from more serious topics related to C2s. One of the rowing coaches I know was telling me that the highest score she's ever seen on the fish game was from a very very new very small junior who had just joined the team (and not really learned how to row) who was only using his arms. So like a very odd and frenetic pick drill. Somehow I don't think that's what C2 had in mind for the use of any of their machinesDoes 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.
Continuing the digression: I don't see how the fish game is anything but awful for rowing technique. I tried it a couple of times, thought "why?!??!" and haven't been back. I can only hope it's been "improved".0 -
A quick diversion from more serious topics related to C2s. One of the rowing coaches I know was telling me that the highest score she's ever seen on the fish game was from a very very new very small junior who had just joined the team (and not really learned how to row) who was only using his arms. So like a very odd and frenetic pick drill. Somehow I don't think that's what C2 had in mind for the use of any of their machinesDoes 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.
Continuing the digression: I don't see how the fish game is anything but awful for rowing technique. I tried it a couple of times, thought "why?!??!" and haven't been back. I can only hope it's been "improved".
It's the same. We've only played it in practice as a "break" with full knowledge that we shouldn't make a habit of it. I think that was the context that the coach's juniors were playing it as well.
It's like an exercise in how to make your form break down and not row at any sort of even kind of consistent rate.0 -
Oooh, the fish game! Your posts in this thread have shed light on it for me.
Note that I fully acknowledge that not only am I not a rower, I have only ever been shown how to use a C2 machine as part of a 15 minute general gym induction.
But anyway, I've experimented with the fish game, and it seemed to me that to achieve a high score, you needed to keep changing rowing rate. It seemed so counter-intuitive as a game mechanic on a rowing machine that I've been idly wondering if I'm even worse at rowing than I'd previously suspected.1 -
This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE 0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »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!
Generally good thoughts @FitFamilyGuy, and from your picture this routine has worked well for you. I will disagree a bit on the cardio, as I believe its critical to keep the heart and lungs healthy. Now you don't have to run marathons or ride centuries (but if that's your hobby and you enjoy it great) but there is a need for some cardio work, probably along the lines of the US government recommendations of 150 minutes a week of moderate intensity aerobic exercise. Nice article on the subject from a well respected trainer.
http://robertsontrainingsystems.com/blog/long-duration-low-intensity-cardio/
Fair point Theoldguy1. A healthy set of lungs and heart are clearly a big part of overall health. I certainly don't mean to speak for anyone but myself in this regard. First, I would say that as a lean, fit person, I am also active. One of my favorite activities as an 41 year old guy is to jump on the trampoline with my 6 and 4 year old (in summer anyway). I "do things" naturally. Also, I find that my heart races many times per day for short bursts when I do a very intense set. I can appreciate that most people probably do not reach their full potential with resistance training and as a result they never experiences the interval heart pounding effects of weights. But again, I don't wish to suggest that others should do this kind of thing because I do not know their situation and I do not want to provide that kind of specific advice. But for me, wow... the regular interval training seems to keep me in great shape overall. My blood pressure has always been on the low end of normal, my resting heart rate has never been an issue, I've never had a waist above 32 inches, I have more than enough energy to play with my kids... etc.
So should I personally do some aerobic exercise that is scheduled like my weight training? Possibly. The problem is:
a) I don't really enjoy it enough to do it on a scheduled basis,
b) I seem to be active enough without scheduling it,
c) I feel that my habits are already 95% healthier than 95% of the people out there and my time is also limited,
d) I find that my healthy habits may not be perfect but I focus on the biggest bang for the buck so to speak. If I am going to put aside personal time to focus on health, I want to focus on what gets me the most results.
From what I can tell, weights and controlling nutrition for fat loss along with general unplanned activity keeps me in what feels like, by most accounts, great shape.
1 -
Off topic but my obese aunt did elliptical today and said "burned 30,000 calories today". And she won't hear it when I try to educate her or explain to her how impossible that was in less than an hour. But she is so sure because "the machine said I did". *facepalm*0
-
I would have a hard time burning 30000 Calories in a week.
I wonder if the machine calls them kcals and she saw 30 and thinks 30,000 Calories.
There is some unfortunate confusion as what we commonly refer to as Calories are really kcals.
1kcalorie = 1 Calorie with the capital C.
Most laypersons don’t notice and are not careful with expressing the units. I actually had to go back and edit this post. I hope I expressed all instances with the appropriate C or c.Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Off topic but my obese aunt did elliptical today and said "burned 30,000 calories today". And she won't hear it when I try to educate her or explain to her how impossible that was in less than an hour. But she is so sure because "the machine said I did". *facepalm*
0 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Off topic but my obese aunt did elliptical today and said "burned 30,000 calories today". And she won't hear it when I try to educate her or explain to her how impossible that was in less than an hour. But she is so sure because "the machine said I did". *facepalm*
Well, if she turned 30000 calories, she would have lost about 8.5 pounds. So she should have seen that result (or much more if she sweat a lot) immediately afterwards.
I'm probably wrong about that as I don't know all of the factors that would go into such a calculation.1 -
A few more data points. I'm still getting a consistent approximately 20% over expected Calorie burn.
People were telling me I should eat ALL my exercise calories and were critical when I suggested I was only eating back 1/2 of them.
I'd rather leave 200 Calories on the table and eat 2300 Calories instead of 2600 to keep weight loss going than to eat the full 2600 and wonder why I cannot lose weight.
I'm certainly not going to do damage to my metabolism if I leave 200-300 Calories on the table.
I did a similar analysis of yesterday's 45 minute spin class. I took some pictures at intervals just for my record to see my power output over time:
=======================================================
Spin Class - Elisa 5:30am
First Interval 20:24 242 avg watts 354 calories indicated
Second Interval 18:41 227 avg watts 305 calories indicated
Overall with warmup 44:36 212 avg watts 689 calories indicated
Using formula, calories should be 212*.06*44.6 = 567 about 21% error
=======================================================
The image displayed is the final picture, but the values in the text above include the mid-class snapshot.
Just driving home (beating the dead horse) that you may not be able to trust what the bike or other gear is telling you. In my case, I believe the error to be on the order of 20%tbright1965 wrote: »If you have a means of measuring your average watts over the period, then you may have a better chance to come up with a good number. Of course, even that is only as good as the calculation of average watts.
I'm about your size, shorter by 2" but the same weight. Our spin bikes and apps would give me similar numbers. We've recently moved from Keiser to SpinnerChrono bikes that pair with Wahoo RunFit.
I get indicated calorie burns over 50-60 minute classes that range in the 800-1000 calories. For sake of argument, let's assume over a hour, or 60 minutes.
A very simple formula for this is: energy (kcal) = avg power (Watts) X duration (hours) X 3.6
So if I'm burning 1000 calories (kcal) I have to be producing an average of 277 watts during my ride.
If we drop that to 800 calories, I have to be producing an average of 222 watts during my ride.
The values I see when I'm done with my rides fall in the 190-230 watts averaged when the warmup and cool down are considered.
I took a picture of a summary screen after a ride:
Duration 57:51 = .9641 hours
Average Watts = 190
Calories Burned = 790
You should already be able to see the problem. To get to 800 calories/hour, I need to average 222w. Not only did I not average that, but I went less than an hour.
Plugging that into the formula, 190 * .9641 * 3.6 = 659.4 calories. So the calorie burn is already off by almost 130 calories so about 20%
Assuming the bike is reasonably accurate at the average watts figures, that puts me more in the range of 650-800 calories (NET as I suspect the bike is only measuring energy put into it by the rider)
Since I really don't trust the values, if I eat back anything, I only eat back about 1/2 of the indicated calories.
0 -
This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challengehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE
If they were fat *kitten* like me, they would have been done in 3/4s of the time, LOL.1 -
When run for 60 minutes on the treadmill at 7.0 it tells me I've burned 904 calories so I'm sure spinning burns the same or even more. I'm sure if it's off, it's not by much.2
-
When run for 60 minutes on the treadmill at 7.0 it tells me I've burned 904 calories so I'm sure spinning burns the same or even more. I'm sure if it's off, it's not by much.
Problem is that unless you're really fit, you might not be burning 900 calories in that hour. Assuming that you mean 7 mph, then maintaining an 8:30 minute mile pace for 60 minutes is no easy feat. In addition, you'd have to weigh about 205 pounds to burn 900 calories over 7 miles, which makes maintaining that pace even more impressive.
I've generally found that machine estimates are generally 20%-30% too high. I suspect that some might be including the basal burn rate on top of the incremental amount actually burned by the exercise activity.1 -
I've been wondering: a heavier person likely burns a bit more energy cycling outdoors due to the combined bike and body weight that needs to be transported forward. What about indoor cycling or spinning? Would a lighter person creating the same watts burn more as that person would create less down-pressure on the pedal?0
-
I've been wondering: a heavier person likely burns a bit more energy cycling outdoors due to the combined bike and body weight that needs to be transported forward. What about indoor cycling or spinning? Would a lighter person creating the same watts burn more as that person would create less down-pressure on the pedal?
The difference would likely be negligible on a stationary bike. Sure, it'll take more energy to support a heavier body on the bike, etc. but overall it'll take both the heavy and the light person the same amount of work to turn the crank X number of times at Y resistance level.0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challengehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE
If they were fat *kitten* like me, they would have been done in 3/4s of the time, LOL.
Even riding outdoors the weight of the rider has surprisingly little impact on energy expenditure unless you're riding in hilly terrain. Bikes are an incredibly efficient mode of transportation. Acceleration from a stop would take more energy but once you're moving not so much.
0 -
I've been wondering: a heavier person likely burns a bit more energy cycling outdoors due to the combined bike and body weight that needs to be transported forward. What about indoor cycling or spinning? Would a lighter person creating the same watts burn more as that person would create less down-pressure on the pedal?
It's more accurate to say a heavier person likely moves slower due to some reasons.
On flat ground, it doesn't really matter how much weight is involved. It takes a little more energy to accelerate but once you get up to speed, weight makes very little difference. Bikes are one of the most energy efficient forms of transportation that exist.
Anyway, watts to calories, all humans are within 5% of each other. At least on outdoor bikes.1 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »This video from GCN (which I will admit to not having watched through all the way) seems rather apropo:
The 10,000 Calorie Challengehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MmDLHgCKE
If they were fat *kitten* like me, they would have been done in 3/4s of the time, LOL.
Even riding outdoors the weight of the rider has surprisingly little impact on energy expenditure unless you're riding in hilly terrain. Bikes are an incredibly efficient mode of transportation. Acceleration from a stop would take more energy but once you're moving not so much.
I did note the ride in the video looked rather hilly, which is why I commented as I did.
I know my 50" chest isn't as aero as someone with a 32" chest. But I do have the advantage on the downhill
Which is probably more than negated by the extra mass I carry up hill.
One thing to note is the mass advantage downhill more than overcomes the aero disadvantage. That's why we Clydesdales are so good on the downhill. But it's working against us all that much more climbing back up.
But I do agree, on a flat, the differences are minor.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions