Twice a Day
Replies
-
I appreciate everyone’s feedback. The ultimate answers were less working out, but watch/monitor what you eat.
I am getting a little discouraged with the numbers not dropping on the scale. However, I appreciate the feedback.2 -
This has been fun but I think it's been beaten into the ground. I high jacked the OP's topic and ran off with it. This has been too much to read as of now.
Perhaps after I get some sleep, I can come back with a fresh mind and dive into this more with you guys but I think it's all been covered.1 -
Spoilascanb wrote: »I appreciate everyone’s feedback. The ultimate answers were less working out, but watch/monitor what you eat.
I am getting a little discouraged with the numbers not dropping on the scale. However, I appreciate the feedback.
Sorry for high jacking your post.2 -
Spoilascanb wrote: »I appreciate everyone’s feedback. The ultimate answers were less working out, but watch/monitor what you eat.
I am getting a little discouraged with the numbers not dropping on the scale. However, I appreciate the feedback.
yes weight loss happens in the kitchen. all you need is to eat at a calorie deficit regularly over time. But not simply "monitor" what you eat. really KNOW how many calories you are eating.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10634517/you-dont-use-a-food-scale/p1
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10697068/how-i-stopped-kidding-myself/p1
Exercise can help you by adding more calories to your day and for overall health. So an extra workout means you can eat more.
not sure if you've taken the time to read these yet:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10636388/free-customized-personal-weight-loss-eating-plan-not-spam-or-mlm/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1399829/step-by-step-guide-to-losing-weight-with-myfitnesspal3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁
That would be assuming that your body is equally as efficient at producing the 200 watts of force needed..... If your heart rate increases over the second hour, it would take more energy to beat and push blood through to the muscles.....
You are still providing the same force to the bike, but the energy requirement changes....
The energy that has passed through the bike doesnt change, but the energy used by your body does.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁
That would be assuming that your body is equally as efficient at producing the 200 watts of force needed..... If your heart rate increases over the second hour, it would take more energy to beat and push blood through to the muscles.....
You are still providing the same force to the bike, but the energy requirement changes....
The energy that has passed through the bike doesnt change, but the energy used by your body does.
If there's any such factor, it would be of inconsequential magnitude compared to the energy requirement of the work itself (the biking). Not a meaningful difference, when it comes to calorie burn.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁
That would be assuming that your body is equally as efficient at producing the 200 watts of force needed..... If your heart rate increases over the second hour, it would take more energy to beat and push blood through to the muscles.....
You are still providing the same force to the bike, but the energy requirement changes....
The energy that has passed through the bike doesnt change, but the energy used by your body does.
This has been studied extensively, with high quality research, and repeated many times. The variance in metabolic efficiency (turning fats and carbs into mechanical work) on a road bike is 5%.
When you run, you can waste a lot of energy on poor running economy, but when you're sitting down and your feet are attached to pedals that limit your movement to exactly what's needed, you don't have this. You can waste energy by sitting upright, using bad tires, or if your brakes rub, but a power meter will see (the result of) all of that.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁
That would be assuming that your body is equally as efficient at producing the 200 watts of force needed..... If your heart rate increases over the second hour, it would take more energy to beat and push blood through to the muscles.....
You are still providing the same force to the bike, but the energy requirement changes....
The energy that has passed through the bike doesnt change, but the energy used by your body does.
This has been studied extensively, with high quality research, and repeated many times. The variance in metabolic efficiency (turning fats and carbs into mechanical work) on a road bike is 5%.
When you run, you can waste a lot of energy on poor running economy, but when you're sitting down and your feet are attached to pedals that limit your movement to exactly what's needed, you don't have this. You can waste energy by sitting upright, using bad tires, or if your brakes rub, but a power meter will see (the result of) all of that.
Oh nice. I really had no idea about any details on studies on that, I was just thinking that there couldn't be an exactttttttt comparison. Could definitely see a greatly smaller variance in a bike compared to running. Sounds like we are on the same page
My idea is that if someone who is very conditioned on a bike (you) compared to someone who is very unconditioned on a bike (me) went on a ride together, assuming our bikes are the exact same and we ride the exact same path, you're saying that our calorie burn would be within 5% of each other....? I find that hard to believe..... I am not contesting your studies or your truth behind it.... I just find that tough to fathom.
ETA: assuming all other relevant factors are held constant; age, weight, height, gender, everything. Assuming the exact same person, only difference is conditioning...1 -
According to the common theory, If that's the case, go run a marathon today and tomorrow when you weigh in, you should have dropped at least 20 lbs of fat right?
Let's have a conversation about it. No one here is debating it with any empirical evidence, you guys just like hitting the "woo" button. I'm up for having my mind changed. I'm just asking that you come back with something more than you just saying you don't agree.
Why would the additive model support that running a marathon would result in dropping 20 lbs overnight? The sources I checked estimated 2500-3500 calories burned. Even if weight loss were visible the next day, that would be >1 lb. Me thinks you're the one without empirical evidence.
2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁
That would be assuming that your body is equally as efficient at producing the 200 watts of force needed..... If your heart rate increases over the second hour, it would take more energy to beat and push blood through to the muscles.....
You are still providing the same force to the bike, but the energy requirement changes....
The energy that has passed through the bike doesnt change, but the energy used by your body does.
This has been studied extensively, with high quality research, and repeated many times. The variance in metabolic efficiency (turning fats and carbs into mechanical work) on a road bike is 5%.
When you run, you can waste a lot of energy on poor running economy, but when you're sitting down and your feet are attached to pedals that limit your movement to exactly what's needed, you don't have this. You can waste energy by sitting upright, using bad tires, or if your brakes rub, but a power meter will see (the result of) all of that.
Oh nice. I really had no idea about any details on studies on that, I was just thinking that there couldn't be an exactttttttt comparison. Could definitely see a greatly smaller variance in a bike compared to running. Sounds like we are on the same page
My idea is that if someone who is very conditioned on a bike (you) compared to someone who is very unconditioned on a bike (me) went on a ride together, assuming our bikes are the exact same and we ride the exact same path, you're saying that our calorie burn would be within 5% of each other....? I find that hard to believe..... I am not contesting your studies or your truth behind it.... I just find that tough to fathom.
ETA: assuming all other relevant factors are held constant; age, weight, height, gender, everything. Assuming the exact same person, only difference is conditioning...
What would you speculate would account for it being different? (I'm assuming the test pace is one that both can sustain without failure for the test duration.)
The only thing I can think of is heart rate (minor calorie expenditure difference), breathing rate (ditto), maybe sweating (same).
The two people will feel very, very different, of course . . . but how one feels is no indication at all of calorie burn. An identically configured heart rate monitor would potentially give very different calorie estimates for one person vs. the other, but that's a limitation of HRM as a calorie estimation tool, and a key reason to look to the power meter for that purpose instead.
edited: typo0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁
That would be assuming that your body is equally as efficient at producing the 200 watts of force needed..... If your heart rate increases over the second hour, it would take more energy to beat and push blood through to the muscles.....
You are still providing the same force to the bike, but the energy requirement changes....
The energy that has passed through the bike doesnt change, but the energy used by your body does.
This has been studied extensively, with high quality research, and repeated many times. The variance in metabolic efficiency (turning fats and carbs into mechanical work) on a road bike is 5%.
When you run, you can waste a lot of energy on poor running economy, but when you're sitting down and your feet are attached to pedals that limit your movement to exactly what's needed, you don't have this. You can waste energy by sitting upright, using bad tires, or if your brakes rub, but a power meter will see (the result of) all of that.
Oh nice. I really had no idea about any details on studies on that, I was just thinking that there couldn't be an exactttttttt comparison. Could definitely see a greatly smaller variance in a bike compared to running. Sounds like we are on the same page
My idea is that if someone who is very conditioned on a bike (you) compared to someone who is very unconditioned on a bike (me) went on a ride together, assuming our bikes are the exact same and we ride the exact same path, you're saying that our calorie burn would be within 5% of each other....? I find that hard to believe..... I am not contesting your studies or your truth behind it.... I just find that tough to fathom.
ETA: assuming all other relevant factors are held constant; age, weight, height, gender, everything. Assuming the exact same person, only difference is conditioning...
Typically when @NorthCascades talks about how many calories he burns on a bike, he's using a power meter to measure the power that is being produced. There are a few others of us who also use power meters who do the same. The amount of calories burned cycling is most accurately calculated when using a power meter as opposed to HR. As was alluded to, there have been a number of well performed studies backing this up.
So having said that, if you and NorthCascades were biking on a path and had the same average power over the course of the ride, you would burn the same number of calories, yes. It's not about who is more fit, it's about average power over time.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁
That would be assuming that your body is equally as efficient at producing the 200 watts of force needed..... If your heart rate increases over the second hour, it would take more energy to beat and push blood through to the muscles.....
You are still providing the same force to the bike, but the energy requirement changes....
The energy that has passed through the bike doesnt change, but the energy used by your body does.
This has been studied extensively, with high quality research, and repeated many times. The variance in metabolic efficiency (turning fats and carbs into mechanical work) on a road bike is 5%.
When you run, you can waste a lot of energy on poor running economy, but when you're sitting down and your feet are attached to pedals that limit your movement to exactly what's needed, you don't have this. You can waste energy by sitting upright, using bad tires, or if your brakes rub, but a power meter will see (the result of) all of that.
Oh nice. I really had no idea about any details on studies on that, I was just thinking that there couldn't be an exactttttttt comparison. Could definitely see a greatly smaller variance in a bike compared to running. Sounds like we are on the same page
My idea is that if someone who is very conditioned on a bike (you) compared to someone who is very unconditioned on a bike (me) went on a ride together, assuming our bikes are the exact same and we ride the exact same path, you're saying that our calorie burn would be within 5% of each other....? I find that hard to believe..... I am not contesting your studies or your truth behind it.... I just find that tough to fathom.
ETA: assuming all other relevant factors are held constant; age, weight, height, gender, everything. Assuming the exact same person, only difference is conditioning...
Typically when @NorthCascades talks about how many calories he burns on a bike, he's using a power meter to measure the power that is being produced. There are a few others of us who also use power meters who do the same. The amount of calories burned cycling is most accurately calculated when using a power meter as opposed to HR. As was alluded to, there have been a number of well performed studies backing this up.
So having said that, if you and NorthCascades were biking on a path and had the same average power over the course of the ride, you would burn the same number of calories, yes. It's not about who is more fit, it's about average power over time.
I would disagree because who is more fit would affect who would need more oxygen to provide the same force. That is fact...
I don't think the disagreement is that there is a difference. I think it is more about the amount of difference.....6 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁
That would be assuming that your body is equally as efficient at producing the 200 watts of force needed..... If your heart rate increases over the second hour, it would take more energy to beat and push blood through to the muscles.....
You are still providing the same force to the bike, but the energy requirement changes....
The energy that has passed through the bike doesnt change, but the energy used by your body does.
This has been studied extensively, with high quality research, and repeated many times. The variance in metabolic efficiency (turning fats and carbs into mechanical work) on a road bike is 5%.
When you run, you can waste a lot of energy on poor running economy, but when you're sitting down and your feet are attached to pedals that limit your movement to exactly what's needed, you don't have this. You can waste energy by sitting upright, using bad tires, or if your brakes rub, but a power meter will see (the result of) all of that.
Oh nice. I really had no idea about any details on studies on that, I was just thinking that there couldn't be an exactttttttt comparison. Could definitely see a greatly smaller variance in a bike compared to running. Sounds like we are on the same page
My idea is that if someone who is very conditioned on a bike (you) compared to someone who is very unconditioned on a bike (me) went on a ride together, assuming our bikes are the exact same and we ride the exact same path, you're saying that our calorie burn would be within 5% of each other....? I find that hard to believe..... I am not contesting your studies or your truth behind it.... I just find that tough to fathom.
ETA: assuming all other relevant factors are held constant; age, weight, height, gender, everything. Assuming the exact same person, only difference is conditioning...
Typically when @NorthCascades talks about how many calories he burns on a bike, he's using a power meter to measure the power that is being produced. There are a few others of us who also use power meters who do the same. The amount of calories burned cycling is most accurately calculated when using a power meter as opposed to HR. As was alluded to, there have been a number of well performed studies backing this up.
So having said that, if you and NorthCascades were biking on a path and had the same average power over the course of the ride, you would burn the same number of calories, yes. It's not about who is more fit, it's about average power over time.
I would disagree because who is more fit would affect who would need more oxygen to provide the same force. That is fact...
I don't think the disagreement is that there is a difference. I think it is more about the amount of difference.....
Are you disagreeing about who would find it harder (rating of perceived exertion) or who would burn more calories for the same power?
Here are a number of articles on this:
https://blog.trainerroad.com/calories-and-power/
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/how-accurate-is-that-calorie-reading/
https://stagescycling.com/us/news/what-it-means-watts-to-kjs-to-kcals/
http://mccraw.co.uk/powertap-meter-convert-watts-calories-burned/
Note - the ability to accurately measure calories with a power meter is actually probably most important for people who need to figure out how to best fuel their rides, not people who are solely interested in losing weight.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁
That would be assuming that your body is equally as efficient at producing the 200 watts of force needed..... If your heart rate increases over the second hour, it would take more energy to beat and push blood through to the muscles.....
You are still providing the same force to the bike, but the energy requirement changes....
The energy that has passed through the bike doesnt change, but the energy used by your body does.
This has been studied extensively, with high quality research, and repeated many times. The variance in metabolic efficiency (turning fats and carbs into mechanical work) on a road bike is 5%.
When you run, you can waste a lot of energy on poor running economy, but when you're sitting down and your feet are attached to pedals that limit your movement to exactly what's needed, you don't have this. You can waste energy by sitting upright, using bad tires, or if your brakes rub, but a power meter will see (the result of) all of that.
Oh nice. I really had no idea about any details on studies on that, I was just thinking that there couldn't be an exactttttttt comparison. Could definitely see a greatly smaller variance in a bike compared to running. Sounds like we are on the same page
My idea is that if someone who is very conditioned on a bike (you) compared to someone who is very unconditioned on a bike (me) went on a ride together, assuming our bikes are the exact same and we ride the exact same path, you're saying that our calorie burn would be within 5% of each other....? I find that hard to believe..... I am not contesting your studies or your truth behind it.... I just find that tough to fathom.
ETA: assuming all other relevant factors are held constant; age, weight, height, gender, everything. Assuming the exact same person, only difference is conditioning...
Typically when @NorthCascades talks about how many calories he burns on a bike, he's using a power meter to measure the power that is being produced. There are a few others of us who also use power meters who do the same. The amount of calories burned cycling is most accurately calculated when using a power meter as opposed to HR. As was alluded to, there have been a number of well performed studies backing this up.
So having said that, if you and NorthCascades were biking on a path and had the same average power over the course of the ride, you would burn the same number of calories, yes. It's not about who is more fit, it's about average power over time.
I would disagree because who is more fit would affect who would need more oxygen to provide the same force. That is fact...
I don't think the disagreement is that there is a difference. I think it is more about the amount of difference.....
Are you disagreeing about who would find it harder (rating of perceived exertion) or who would burn more calories for the same power?
Here are a number of articles on this:
https://blog.trainerroad.com/calories-and-power/
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/how-accurate-is-that-calorie-reading/
https://stagescycling.com/us/news/what-it-means-watts-to-kjs-to-kcals/
http://mccraw.co.uk/powertap-meter-convert-watts-calories-burned/
Note - the ability to accurately measure calories with a power meter is actually probably most important for people who need to figure out how to best fuel their rides, not people who are solely interested in losing weight.
Who would burn more calories.
I am saying that if you are less fit, you will breathe harder (more oxygen consumption), which in turn results in more calories burned.
ETA: again i don't think this is being argued..... I believe this is mutually agreed on. I believe the piece in question is how much5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁
That would be assuming that your body is equally as efficient at producing the 200 watts of force needed..... If your heart rate increases over the second hour, it would take more energy to beat and push blood through to the muscles.....
You are still providing the same force to the bike, but the energy requirement changes....
The energy that has passed through the bike doesnt change, but the energy used by your body does.
This has been studied extensively, with high quality research, and repeated many times. The variance in metabolic efficiency (turning fats and carbs into mechanical work) on a road bike is 5%.
When you run, you can waste a lot of energy on poor running economy, but when you're sitting down and your feet are attached to pedals that limit your movement to exactly what's needed, you don't have this. You can waste energy by sitting upright, using bad tires, or if your brakes rub, but a power meter will see (the result of) all of that.
Oh nice. I really had no idea about any details on studies on that, I was just thinking that there couldn't be an exactttttttt comparison. Could definitely see a greatly smaller variance in a bike compared to running. Sounds like we are on the same page
My idea is that if someone who is very conditioned on a bike (you) compared to someone who is very unconditioned on a bike (me) went on a ride together, assuming our bikes are the exact same and we ride the exact same path, you're saying that our calorie burn would be within 5% of each other....? I find that hard to believe..... I am not contesting your studies or your truth behind it.... I just find that tough to fathom.
ETA: assuming all other relevant factors are held constant; age, weight, height, gender, everything. Assuming the exact same person, only difference is conditioning...
Typically when @NorthCascades talks about how many calories he burns on a bike, he's using a power meter to measure the power that is being produced. There are a few others of us who also use power meters who do the same. The amount of calories burned cycling is most accurately calculated when using a power meter as opposed to HR. As was alluded to, there have been a number of well performed studies backing this up.
So having said that, if you and NorthCascades were biking on a path and had the same average power over the course of the ride, you would burn the same number of calories, yes. It's not about who is more fit, it's about average power over time.
I would disagree because who is more fit would affect who would need more oxygen to provide the same force. That is fact...
I don't think the disagreement is that there is a difference. I think it is more about the amount of difference.....
Are you disagreeing about who would find it harder (rating of perceived exertion) or who would burn more calories for the same power?
Here are a number of articles on this:
https://blog.trainerroad.com/calories-and-power/
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/how-accurate-is-that-calorie-reading/
https://stagescycling.com/us/news/what-it-means-watts-to-kjs-to-kcals/
http://mccraw.co.uk/powertap-meter-convert-watts-calories-burned/
Note - the ability to accurately measure calories with a power meter is actually probably most important for people who need to figure out how to best fuel their rides, not people who are solely interested in losing weight.
Who would burn more calories.
I am saying that if you are less fit, you will breathe harder (more oxygen consumption), which in turn results in more calories burned.
ETA: again i don't think this is being argued..... I believe this is mutually agreed on. I believe the piece in question is how much
I think it's relevant that breathing is oxygen intake, not oxygen uptake. The fitter person transports and utilizes oxygen more efficiently. Oxygen consumption is not intake, it's utilization.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁
That would be assuming that your body is equally as efficient at producing the 200 watts of force needed..... If your heart rate increases over the second hour, it would take more energy to beat and push blood through to the muscles.....
You are still providing the same force to the bike, but the energy requirement changes....
The energy that has passed through the bike doesnt change, but the energy used by your body does.
This has been studied extensively, with high quality research, and repeated many times. The variance in metabolic efficiency (turning fats and carbs into mechanical work) on a road bike is 5%.
When you run, you can waste a lot of energy on poor running economy, but when you're sitting down and your feet are attached to pedals that limit your movement to exactly what's needed, you don't have this. You can waste energy by sitting upright, using bad tires, or if your brakes rub, but a power meter will see (the result of) all of that.
Oh nice. I really had no idea about any details on studies on that, I was just thinking that there couldn't be an exactttttttt comparison. Could definitely see a greatly smaller variance in a bike compared to running. Sounds like we are on the same page
My idea is that if someone who is very conditioned on a bike (you) compared to someone who is very unconditioned on a bike (me) went on a ride together, assuming our bikes are the exact same and we ride the exact same path, you're saying that our calorie burn would be within 5% of each other....? I find that hard to believe..... I am not contesting your studies or your truth behind it.... I just find that tough to fathom.
ETA: assuming all other relevant factors are held constant; age, weight, height, gender, everything. Assuming the exact same person, only difference is conditioning...
Typically when @NorthCascades talks about how many calories he burns on a bike, he's using a power meter to measure the power that is being produced. There are a few others of us who also use power meters who do the same. The amount of calories burned cycling is most accurately calculated when using a power meter as opposed to HR. As was alluded to, there have been a number of well performed studies backing this up.
So having said that, if you and NorthCascades were biking on a path and had the same average power over the course of the ride, you would burn the same number of calories, yes. It's not about who is more fit, it's about average power over time.
I would disagree because who is more fit would affect who would need more oxygen to provide the same force. That is fact...
I don't think the disagreement is that there is a difference. I think it is more about the amount of difference.....
Are you disagreeing about who would find it harder (rating of perceived exertion) or who would burn more calories for the same power?
Here are a number of articles on this:
https://blog.trainerroad.com/calories-and-power/
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/how-accurate-is-that-calorie-reading/
https://stagescycling.com/us/news/what-it-means-watts-to-kjs-to-kcals/
http://mccraw.co.uk/powertap-meter-convert-watts-calories-burned/
Note - the ability to accurately measure calories with a power meter is actually probably most important for people who need to figure out how to best fuel their rides, not people who are solely interested in losing weight.
Who would burn more calories.
I am saying that if you are less fit, you will breathe harder (more oxygen consumption), which in turn results in more calories burned.
ETA: again i don't think this is being argued..... I believe this is mutually agreed on. I believe the piece in question is how much
Unfortunately you are wrong. An old codger like me working hard and burning 200w/hour would be burning virtually the same calories as an elite cyclist coasting along easily (for them) at 200w.
There is very, very little efficiency difference between competant cyclists like me and the elite. There is of course a huge performance gulf. The oxygen uptake would be virtually the same - it's just that the elite cyclist is operating at 50% and I'm at 90%.
You seem to be confusing physiological signs of someone working hard (breathing hard, high HR) with the physics of energy use. Energy doesn't have feelings.
4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁
That would be assuming that your body is equally as efficient at producing the 200 watts of force needed..... If your heart rate increases over the second hour, it would take more energy to beat and push blood through to the muscles.....
You are still providing the same force to the bike, but the energy requirement changes....
The energy that has passed through the bike doesnt change, but the energy used by your body does.
This has been studied extensively, with high quality research, and repeated many times. The variance in metabolic efficiency (turning fats and carbs into mechanical work) on a road bike is 5%.
When you run, you can waste a lot of energy on poor running economy, but when you're sitting down and your feet are attached to pedals that limit your movement to exactly what's needed, you don't have this. You can waste energy by sitting upright, using bad tires, or if your brakes rub, but a power meter will see (the result of) all of that.
Oh nice. I really had no idea about any details on studies on that, I was just thinking that there couldn't be an exactttttttt comparison. Could definitely see a greatly smaller variance in a bike compared to running. Sounds like we are on the same page
My idea is that if someone who is very conditioned on a bike (you) compared to someone who is very unconditioned on a bike (me) went on a ride together, assuming our bikes are the exact same and we ride the exact same path, you're saying that our calorie burn would be within 5% of each other....? I find that hard to believe..... I am not contesting your studies or your truth behind it.... I just find that tough to fathom.
ETA: assuming all other relevant factors are held constant; age, weight, height, gender, everything. Assuming the exact same person, only difference is conditioning...
Typically when @NorthCascades talks about how many calories he burns on a bike, he's using a power meter to measure the power that is being produced. There are a few others of us who also use power meters who do the same. The amount of calories burned cycling is most accurately calculated when using a power meter as opposed to HR. As was alluded to, there have been a number of well performed studies backing this up.
So having said that, if you and NorthCascades were biking on a path and had the same average power over the course of the ride, you would burn the same number of calories, yes. It's not about who is more fit, it's about average power over time.
I would disagree because who is more fit would affect who would need more oxygen to provide the same force. That is fact...
I don't think the disagreement is that there is a difference. I think it is more about the amount of difference.....
Are you disagreeing about who would find it harder (rating of perceived exertion) or who would burn more calories for the same power?
Here are a number of articles on this:
https://blog.trainerroad.com/calories-and-power/
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/how-accurate-is-that-calorie-reading/
https://stagescycling.com/us/news/what-it-means-watts-to-kjs-to-kcals/
http://mccraw.co.uk/powertap-meter-convert-watts-calories-burned/
Note - the ability to accurately measure calories with a power meter is actually probably most important for people who need to figure out how to best fuel their rides, not people who are solely interested in losing weight.
Who would burn more calories.
I am saying that if you are less fit, you will breathe harder (more oxygen consumption), which in turn results in more calories burned.
ETA: again i don't think this is being argued..... I believe this is mutually agreed on. I believe the piece in question is how much
Unfortunately you are wrong. An old codger like me working hard and burning 200w/hour would be burning virtually the same calories as an elite cyclist coasting along easily (for them) at 200w.
There is very, very little efficiency difference between competant cyclists like me and the elite. There is of course a huge performance gulf. The oxygen uptake would be virtually the same - it's just that the elite cyclist is operating at 50% and I'm at 90%.
You seem to be confusing physiological signs of someone working hard (breathing hard, high HR) with the physics of energy use. Energy doesn't have feelings.
Energy doesn't have any feelings ?
& yeah, everything above makes sense.
However.....
Drat.
2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁
That would be assuming that your body is equally as efficient at producing the 200 watts of force needed..... If your heart rate increases over the second hour, it would take more energy to beat and push blood through to the muscles.....
You are still providing the same force to the bike, but the energy requirement changes....
The energy that has passed through the bike doesnt change, but the energy used by your body does.
This has been studied extensively, with high quality research, and repeated many times. The variance in metabolic efficiency (turning fats and carbs into mechanical work) on a road bike is 5%.
When you run, you can waste a lot of energy on poor running economy, but when you're sitting down and your feet are attached to pedals that limit your movement to exactly what's needed, you don't have this. You can waste energy by sitting upright, using bad tires, or if your brakes rub, but a power meter will see (the result of) all of that.
Oh nice. I really had no idea about any details on studies on that, I was just thinking that there couldn't be an exactttttttt comparison. Could definitely see a greatly smaller variance in a bike compared to running. Sounds like we are on the same page
My idea is that if someone who is very conditioned on a bike (you) compared to someone who is very unconditioned on a bike (me) went on a ride together, assuming our bikes are the exact same and we ride the exact same path, you're saying that our calorie burn would be within 5% of each other....? I find that hard to believe..... I am not contesting your studies or your truth behind it.... I just find that tough to fathom.
ETA: assuming all other relevant factors are held constant; age, weight, height, gender, everything. Assuming the exact same person, only difference is conditioning...
If we rented you exactly the same bike, wheels, tires, and handlebars, and rode the same route together (so traffic and wind are the same) we would probably burn wildly different numbers of calories. Regardless of age, sex, or heart rate.
I don't have the ideal cyclist's body, I'm too tall, I lift, etc. I can get low, but I'm guessing you're probably more aerodynamic than I am. What that means is I have to work harder for the same speed. (Air resistance increases with the cube of speed. Or square, I can never remember.) If you weigh less than I do, going up a hill will require more work from me.
But put us both on a trainer (indoors) in erg mode, so that we're both doing X watts for Y minutes, and our calorie burn will be within 5% of each other.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 900 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions