Calorie Expenditure-Polar

Cat Dailey wrote:
:: I know this has been talked about before, but I was hoping someone
:: could give me some more specific info.
::
:: I am F, 41, 5'9", 125 lbs. Today I rode 101 miles in around 6 hrs.
:: Av speed was 16.5, av HR was 140, it was hot and humid. I use a
:: Polar S720i, which calculated my caloric expenditure as 2400
:: calories. This seems mighty low to me. Can anyone give me a better
:: rule of thumb for calculating calorie expenditure? I would think
:: that I would have burned a whole lot more than 400 per hour, but
:: maybe I am mistaken?
::
:: Thank you,
::
:: Cat Dailey

You probably burned less....I'm M, 46, 6'1", 239 lbs. I rode 41 miles in 3
hours. My polar told me I burned 2990 kcals...fitday.com said 1990, and
this cyclist software said 1890 or so...all of them are probably over
estimating.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:08:01 -0400, "Cat Dailey" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I know this has been talked about before, but I was hoping someone could
>give me some more specific info.
>
>I am F, 41, 5'9", 125 lbs. Today I rode 101 miles in around 6 hrs. Av
>speed was 16.5, av HR was 140, it was hot and humid. I use a Polar S720i,
>which calculated my caloric expenditure as 2400 calories. This seems mighty
>low to me. Can anyone give me a better rule of thumb for calculating
>calorie expenditure? I would think that I would have burned a whole lot
>more than 400 per hour, but maybe I am mistaken?
>
>Thank you,
>
>Cat Dailey

Since your weight sounds good for your height, and age (actually very
good), why, may I ask are you interested in calories burned?

The body is -very- efficient. Most people don't realize how much work it
takes to burn even a small meal. It's good for us to have such efficency
for survival reasons, even if it is perplexing for dieters.

-B
PS great job on the ride!! ;-) How long have you been riding? (it takes me
a week to get to 100 miles!)

"Cat Dailey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I know this has been talked about before, but I was hoping someone could
> give me some more specific info.
>
> I am F, 41, 5'9", 125 lbs. Today I rode 101 miles in around 6 hrs. Av
> speed was 16.5, av HR was 140, it was hot and humid. I use a Polar S720i,
> which calculated my caloric expenditure as 2400 calories. This seems mighty
> low to me. Can anyone give me a better rule of thumb for calculating
> calorie expenditure? I would think that I would have burned a whole lot
> more than 400 per hour, but maybe I am mistaken?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Cat Dailey
>
>

I don't personally take any of the calorie expenditure values give by the
various machines at face value. You go to the gym and get on a treadmill for 20
minutes, it tells you that the cals burned was something ridiculous like 600.
Then you get on a ergo rower and do a solid 40 minutes and it says 300 cals.

Perceived exertion is invaluable here.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 04:49:22 GMT, "carbo_jim" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Cat Dailey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I know this has been talked about before, but I was hoping someone could
>> give me some more specific info.
>>
>> I am F, 41, 5'9", 125 lbs. Today I rode 101 miles in around 6 hrs. Av
>> speed was 16.5, av HR was 140, it was hot and humid. I use a Polar S720i,
>> which calculated my caloric expenditure as 2400 calories. This seems mighty
>> low to me. Can anyone give me a better rule of thumb for calculating
>> calorie expenditure? I would think that I would have burned a whole lot
>> more than 400 per hour, but maybe I am mistaken?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Cat Dailey
>>
>>
>
>I don't personally take any of the calorie expenditure values give by the
>various machines at face value. You go to the gym and get on a treadmill for 20
>minutes, it tells you that the cals burned was something ridiculous like 600.
>Then you get on a ergo rower and do a solid 40 minutes and it says 300 cals.
>
>Perceived exertion is invaluable here.

This is true. It's amazing. You can run like 10 miles on the energy derived
from one apple or something like that. The body is -incredibly- efficient.

90% of trying to train physical appearance is diet, IMO.

-B

Cat Dailey wrote:

> I am F, 41, 5'9", 125 lbs. Today I rode 101 miles in around 6 hrs. Av
> speed was 16.5, av HR was 140, it was hot and humid. I use a Polar S720i,
> which calculated my caloric expenditure as 2400 calories. This seems mighty
> low to me. Can anyone give me a better rule of thumb for calculating
> calorie expenditure? I would think that I would have burned a whole lot
> more than 400 per hour, but maybe I am mistaken?

What do you have your VO2max set to? Polar's calorie computation
depends heavily on the VO2max setting.

Here's some recent data from my Polar for comparison:

Distance: 111 mi.
Vertical: 5000'
Av. Speed: 17.0 mph
Av. Heart Rate: 124 (69% of max.)
Energy Expended: 644 kcal/hr
VO2max: 68

644 kcal/hr seems about right for me (I'm 5'11", 135 lb.). It might
be a little low, actually, but not by much. My VO2max may be a
little higher than 68, but I haven't yet ponied up the $200 to have
it tested.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/
In Excelsis Escendo

400 per hour is reasonable for your size, depending on the amount of wind
and climbing. I'm about 150 and need 500-600 for normal moderaly hard
rides, and 900 for race level efforts. Go to analyticycling.com for more
info.

Bruce

"Cat Dailey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I know this has been talked about before, but I was hoping someone could
> give me some more specific info.
>
> I am F, 41, 5'9", 125 lbs. Today I rode 101 miles in around 6 hrs. Av
> speed was 16.5, av HR was 140, it was hot and humid. I use a Polar S720i,
> which calculated my caloric expenditure as 2400 calories. This seems
mighty
> low to me. Can anyone give me a better rule of thumb for calculating
> calorie expenditure? I would think that I would have burned a whole lot
> more than 400 per hour, but maybe I am mistaken?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Cat Dailey
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> I know this has been talked about before, but I was hoping someone could
> give me some more specific info.
>
> I am F, 41, 5'9", 125 lbs. Today I rode 101 miles in around 6 hrs. Av
> speed was 16.5, av HR was 140, it was hot and humid. I use a Polar S720i,
> which calculated my caloric expenditure as 2400 calories. This seems mighty
> low to me. Can anyone give me a better rule of thumb for calculating
> calorie expenditure? I would think that I would have burned a whole lot
> more than 400 per hour, but maybe I am mistaken?

Probably you are. 400 calories per hour is a lot of energy to maintain
for 6 hrs if you're not a pro level rider. Your energy expenditure
doesn't change a whole lot with temperature until it starts getting very
cold, at which point your energy usage goes up to try to keep your body
warm. It just feels a lot worse, and you lose a lot of weight due to
sweating.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

Bruce Frech wrote:
:: 400 per hour is reasonable for your size, depending on the amount of
:: wind and climbing. I'm about 150 and need 500-600 for normal
:: moderaly hard rides, and 900 for race level efforts. Go to
:: analyticycling.com for more info.
::

Is that the correct url? I would like to visit that site.

Roger Zoul wrote:

> Is that the correct url? I would like to visit that site.

http://analyticcycling.com

"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:08:01 -0400, "Cat Dailey" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I know this has been talked about before, but I was hoping someone could
> >give me some more specific info.
> >
> >I am F, 41, 5'9", 125 lbs. Today I rode 101 miles in around 6 hrs. Av
> >speed was 16.5, av HR was 140, it was hot and humid. I use a Polar
S720i,
> >which calculated my caloric expenditure as 2400 calories. This seems
mighty
> >low to me. Can anyone give me a better rule of thumb for calculating
> >calorie expenditure? I would think that I would have burned a whole lot
> >more than 400 per hour, but maybe I am mistaken?
> >
> >Thank you,
> >
> >Cat Dailey
>
> Since your weight sounds good for your height, and age (actually very
> good), why, may I ask are you interested in calories burned?
>
> The body is -very- efficient. Most people don't realize how much work it
> takes to burn even a small meal. It's good for us to have such efficency
> for survival reasons, even if it is perplexing for dieters.
>
> -B
> PS great job on the ride!! ;-) How long have you been riding? (it takes me
> a week to get to 100 miles!)
>
-B,

I need to keep track precisely to keep my svelte 125 lbs. It took me almost
2 1/2 months during the off season to get that low. Now that I am riding
250+ miles a week, I need to know how to adequately fuel without adding
bodyfat. It's really hard unless you know how much you burn during
exercise.

Cat
PS-been riding since the 80's, with a hiatus for speedskating.

"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Cat Dailey wrote:
>
> > I am F, 41, 5'9", 125 lbs. Today I rode 101 miles in around 6 hrs. Av
> > speed was 16.5, av HR was 140, it was hot and humid. I use a Polar
S720i,
> > which calculated my caloric expenditure as 2400 calories. This seems
mighty
> > low to me. Can anyone give me a better rule of thumb for calculating
> > calorie expenditure? I would think that I would have burned a whole lot
> > more than 400 per hour, but maybe I am mistaken?
>
> What do you have your VO2max set to? Polar's calorie computation
> depends heavily on the VO2max setting.
>
> Here's some recent data from my Polar for comparison:
>
> Distance: 111 mi.
> Vertical: 5000'
> Av. Speed: 17.0 mph
> Av. Heart Rate: 124 (69% of max.)
> Energy Expended: 644 kcal/hr
> VO2max: 68
>
> 644 kcal/hr seems about right for me (I'm 5'11", 135 lb.). It might
> be a little low, actually, but not by much. My VO2max may be a
> little higher than 68, but I haven't yet ponied up the $200 to have
> it tested.
> --
> terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/
> In Excelsis Escendo

Hmmm. I set it at the recommended default for F's, which was 35, since I
have absolutely no idea what it really is. Something to consider.

Cat

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > I know this has been talked about before, but I was hoping someone could
> > give me some more specific info.
> >
> > I am F, 41, 5'9", 125 lbs. Today I rode 101 miles in around 6 hrs. Av
> > speed was 16.5, av HR was 140, it was hot and humid. I use a Polar
S720i,
> > which calculated my caloric expenditure as 2400 calories. This seems
mighty
> > low to me. Can anyone give me a better rule of thumb for calculating
> > calorie expenditure? I would think that I would have burned a whole lot
> > more than 400 per hour, but maybe I am mistaken?
>
> Probably you are. 400 calories per hour is a lot of energy to maintain
> for 6 hrs if you're not a pro level rider. Your energy expenditure
> doesn't change a whole lot with temperature until it starts getting very
> cold, at which point your energy usage goes up to try to keep your body
> warm. It just feels a lot worse, and you lose a lot of weight due to
> sweating.
>
> --
> Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> newsgroups if possible).

I don't understand you on this :< What do you mean by saying that 400
cal/hr is a lot to maintain???

Cat

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

....

> I need to keep track precisely to keep my svelte 125 lbs. It took me almost
> 2 1/2 months during the off season to get that low. Now that I am riding
> 250+ miles a week, I need to know how to adequately fuel without adding
> bodyfat. It's really hard unless you know how much you burn during
> exercise.

I'd say just weigh yourself once or twice a week, and adjust accordingly
for the following week.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> > > I know this has been talked about before, but I was hoping someone could
> > > give me some more specific info.
> > >
> > > I am F, 41, 5'9", 125 lbs. Today I rode 101 miles in around 6 hrs. Av
> > > speed was 16.5, av HR was 140, it was hot and humid. I use a Polar
> S720i,
> > > which calculated my caloric expenditure as 2400 calories. This seems
> mighty
> > > low to me. Can anyone give me a better rule of thumb for calculating
> > > calorie expenditure? I would think that I would have burned a whole lot
> > > more than 400 per hour, but maybe I am mistaken?
> >
> > Probably you are. 400 calories per hour is a lot of energy to maintain
> > for 6 hrs if you're not a pro level rider. Your energy expenditure
> > doesn't change a whole lot with temperature until it starts getting very
> > cold, at which point your energy usage goes up to try to keep your body
> > warm. It just feels a lot worse, and you lose a lot of weight due to
> > sweating.
> >
> > --
> > Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> > newsgroups if possible).
>
> I don't understand you on this :< What do you mean by saying that 400
> cal/hr is a lot to maintain???

I was just saying that for someone of your weight, 400 calories per hour
of energy expenditure is a fairly intense exertion level. Your later
posts indicate that you are probably a stronger rider than I had
initially thought (though your 16+ average speed should have keyed me
into that as well), so that might not be an unreasonable power output.
I still doubt it would be a whole lot higher than that, though,
especially in warm weather. Bicycling is very efficient, energy-wise.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> >
> > "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > > says...
> > > > I know this has been talked about before, but I was hoping someone
could
> > > > give me some more specific info.
> > > >
> > > > I am F, 41, 5'9", 125 lbs. Today I rode 101 miles in around 6 hrs.
Av
> > > > speed was 16.5, av HR was 140, it was hot and humid. I use a Polar
> > S720i,
> > > > which calculated my caloric expenditure as 2400 calories. This
seems
> > mighty
> > > > low to me. Can anyone give me a better rule of thumb for
calculating
> > > > calorie expenditure? I would think that I would have burned a whole
lot
> > > > more than 400 per hour, but maybe I am mistaken?
> > >
> > > Probably you are. 400 calories per hour is a lot of energy to
maintain
> > > for 6 hrs if you're not a pro level rider. Your energy expenditure
> > > doesn't change a whole lot with temperature until it starts getting
very
> > > cold, at which point your energy usage goes up to try to keep your
body
> > > warm. It just feels a lot worse, and you lose a lot of weight due to
> > > sweating.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> > > newsgroups if possible).
> >
> > I don't understand you on this :< What do you mean by saying that 400
> > cal/hr is a lot to maintain???
>
> I was just saying that for someone of your weight, 400 calories per hour
> of energy expenditure is a fairly intense exertion level. Your later
> posts indicate that you are probably a stronger rider than I had
> initially thought (though your 16+ average speed should have keyed me
> into that as well), so that might not be an unreasonable power output.
> I still doubt it would be a whole lot higher than that, though,
> especially in warm weather. Bicycling is very efficient, energy-wise.
>
> --
> Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> newsgroups if possible).

Thanks, now I understand you. I agree that cycling is very efficient. And
I am a pretty strong rider. I have done flatter centuries in under 5 hrs.
This happened to be a fairly hilly one, and my first one of the season, so
my average speed wasn't all that great. But, DAMN, one does get to eat so
little food in order to stay really lean ;< I guess I am just going to
have to get used to being *psychologically hungry* all of the time.

Cat

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>
> ...
>
> > I need to keep track precisely to keep my svelte 125 lbs. It took me
almost
> > 2 1/2 months during the off season to get that low. Now that I am
riding
> > 250+ miles a week, I need to know how to adequately fuel without adding
> > bodyfat. It's really hard unless you know how much you burn during
> > exercise.
>
> I'd say just weigh yourself once or twice a week, and adjust accordingly
> for the following week.
>
> --
> Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> newsgroups if possible).

Oh, no way. Not NEARLY precise enough for me ;> I don't want to go over,
add weight and then have to be in calorie reduction in order to get back
down. As it is right now, I am still having difficulty pegging the right
calorie number on days I don't train. I am hovering around 1600-1700 cals
with one cheat day, which I think is okay (although I am not certain of
that, either)

Cat

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

....

> > > I don't understand you on this :< What do you mean by saying that 400
> > > cal/hr is a lot to maintain???
> >
> > I was just saying that for someone of your weight, 400 calories per hour
> > of energy expenditure is a fairly intense exertion level. Your later
> > posts indicate that you are probably a stronger rider than I had
> > initially thought (though your 16+ average speed should have keyed me
> > into that as well), so that might not be an unreasonable power output.
> > I still doubt it would be a whole lot higher than that, though,
> > especially in warm weather. Bicycling is very efficient, energy-wise.
> >

> Thanks, now I understand you. I agree that cycling is very efficient. And
> I am a pretty strong rider. I have done flatter centuries in under 5 hrs.
> This happened to be a fairly hilly one, and my first one of the season, so
> my average speed wasn't all that great. But, DAMN, one does get to eat so

Well, you're "not all that great" average speed is WAY ahead of me!
I've never done a century, and I doubt I'll break 6 hours on my first
one this fall, even though it's a pretty flat route. I can average 16.5
to 17 for 12 to 20 miles on my normal routes, and I've done 20 for a 15k
TT, but keeping it up 5x longer is a big psychological barrier.


> little food in order to stay really lean ;< I guess I am just going to
> have to get used to being *psychologically hungry* all of the time.

LOL! Is it really worth it if that's the way you feel?

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

On Thu, 13 May 2004 14:13:51 -0400, "Cat Dailey" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> -B
>> PS great job on the ride!! ;-) How long have you been riding? (it takes me
>> a week to get to 100 miles!)
>>
>-B,
>
>I need to keep track precisely to keep my svelte 125 lbs. It took me almost
>2 1/2 months during the off season to get that low. Now that I am riding
>250+ miles a week, I need to know how to adequately fuel without adding
>bodyfat. It's really hard unless you know how much you burn during
>exercise.
>
>Cat
>PS-been riding since the 80's, with a hiatus for speedskating.

Do you know your current bodyfat percentage? If so do you have a target,
such as 15%? Most ppl use a full length mirror and their waist size to keep
an informal eye on their bodyfat, along with, possibly, calipers. (it's
hard to measure yourself). I presume your goal on the order of being able
to see your abs, etc.?

My feeling is if you're riding on the order of 250miles a week, at a speed
of 16+ mph, then you have a big 'engine' in a small body. It should be easy
to modulate your bodyfat on such a regime, I'd think. In fact you'd
-really- have to pig out for several days to make any changes, IMO.

Anyway...impressive. ;-)

-B

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 14:13:51 -0400, "Cat Dailey" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> -B
> >> PS great job on the ride!! ;-) How long have you been riding? (it takes me
> >> a week to get to 100 miles!)
> >>
> >-B,
> >
> >I need to keep track precisely to keep my svelte 125 lbs. It took me almost
> >2 1/2 months during the off season to get that low. Now that I am riding
> >250+ miles a week, I need to know how to adequately fuel without adding
> >bodyfat. It's really hard unless you know how much you burn during
> >exercise.
> >
> >Cat
> >PS-been riding since the 80's, with a hiatus for speedskating.
>
> Do you know your current bodyfat percentage? If so do you have a target,
> such as 15%? Most ppl use a full length mirror and their waist size to keep
> an informal eye on their bodyfat, along with, possibly, calipers. (it's
> hard to measure yourself). I presume your goal on the order of being able
> to see your abs, etc.?

At 5'9", 125lb, I'll bet she can see her abs just fine, and may well
already be under 15% body fat (that's pretty low for a woman). A lot of
that weight has to be in her legs, given that kind of cycling
performance.


> My feeling is if you're riding on the order of 250miles a week, at a speed
> of 16+ mph, then you have a big 'engine' in a small body. It should be easy
> to modulate your bodyfat on such a regime, I'd think. In fact you'd
> -really- have to pig out for several days to make any changes, IMO.
>
> Anyway...impressive. ;-)

Indeed!

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).