Calorie Estimates....

Quoted message said:

If you're hauling the same mass about as you used to be, but at higher
speeds, then you're using more energy. (Acceleration effort is
greater, rolling resistance once you get up to speed is greater, air
resistance is greater)

If you're hauling the same mass at the same speeds, you're using the
same energy.

etc...

Thanks, that's what I would have thought.....

Maybe I should dig out my old 'O' grade physics books <g> If the moths
haven't eaten them....

.... and another thought.

I'd say that burning calories doesn't matter unless there is a medical
reason. our society is too body conscious. If you have a smile on your face
then you always look good (and I'm always smiling when I ride).

If you seek bio-feedback then your heart rate during exercise is the best
indicator of effort becuase it responds directly to the body's requirements.
You won't find any more accurate feedback out of controlled laboratory
conditions.

=======
"LaoFuZhi" <the.real.address [email hidden]
thing.not.too.hard.to.work.out> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My Cat-Eye cycle computer/ HRM has the option of displaying calorie
expenditure.....

This is of interest to me since I cycle to loose weight and I use the
information to help calculate my daily calorie balance... Now, obviously

as

Quoted message said:

I've cycled regularly for some time I've got fitter. I've noticed a drop

in

Quoted message said:

average heart rate over the course I regularly follow.... And a drop in
calorie expenditure.... As I've lost weight I've taken to loading the bike
with lifiting weights to keep the overall all-up weight the same, or at
least within 2-3lb....

But over the same run the calorie expenditure as reported by the HRM is
dropping......

May I assume that this is because the HRM is actually calculating the
calorie expenditure using time and HR data and NOT taking into account
distance speed\time??? As my average heart rate is dropping it's coming up
with a lower figure? I suppose it MUST work on some sort of average and

make

Quoted message said:

some assumptions since it does not require things like weight or age to be
input...

If so, how could I more accurately calculate my calorie expenditure... Is
there a better HRM on the market that takes these things into acocunt???

TIA
Matt

Will H [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

(and I'm always smiling when I ride).

Then you're riding too slowly. You should be grimacing with pain, or in
a trance-like state considering the 100 miles home. ;-)

Jon

Quoted message said:

I'd say that burning calories doesn't matter unless there is a medical
reason. our society is too body conscious. If you have a smile on your

face

Quoted message said:

then you always look good (and I'm always smiling when I ride).

Possibly so. To be frank I do have 'issues' with my own body image and part
of my way of dealing with them is to lose weight. At one point I'd hit
almost 15stone; which is a lot when I should only be about 10'10... There's
a health issue too. Both parents had heart attacks young and I have a 'duff'
valve... It's not too serious though and should never really become so if I
keep reasonably fit...

I do appreciate that the drop in average heart rate is a good step forwards
and am pleased to see it; but it's important for me personally to keep
shifting that flab.... And to that end I have this strategy of creating the
necessary calorie defecit through exercise rather than a particularly harsh
diet... Thus the reason why I really feel I need to be able to stick some
sort of estimate on my efforts...

....Anyway, I look even more sinister when I smile....... ;-)

very informative site:

http://www.caloriesperhour.com/

try this site, rather than working out your BMR and how many calories you
need to taken on board, plus the extra's for reserves for when they are
required.remember that these reserves are stored so if you can take onboard
enough calories for your daily activites and store some extra over a
period of days weeks even, you'll probably find that you don't feel quite as
exhausted at the end, loading over periods of days works for me, when i have
big rides in mind. plpus i don't have to try and continuously fill up during
my rides as often.

gives good information on calories required for daily activities plus how
much you can do without without feeling that earge to binge and the diet
going out the window.

rather than having to work out your own BMR the java script does it all for
you so even more calories saved for that long ride,

"LaoFuZhi" <the.real.address [email hidden]
thing.not.too.hard.to.work.out> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd say that burning calories doesn't matter unless there is a medical
reason. our society is too body conscious. If you have a smile on your

face

Quoted message said:

then you always look good (and I'm always smiling when I ride).

Possibly so. To be frank I do have 'issues' with my own body image and

part

Quoted message said:

of my way of dealing with them is to lose weight. At one point I'd hit
almost 15stone; which is a lot when I should only be about 10'10...

There's

Quoted message said:

a health issue too. Both parents had heart attacks young and I have a

'duff'

Quoted message said:

valve... It's not too serious though and should never really become so if

I

Quoted message said:

keep reasonably fit...

I do appreciate that the drop in average heart rate is a good step

forwards

Quoted message said:

and am pleased to see it; but it's important for me personally to keep
shifting that flab.... And to that end I have this strategy of creating

the

Quoted message said:

necessary calorie defecit through exercise rather than a particularly

harsh

Quoted message said:

diet... Thus the reason why I really feel I need to be able to stick some
sort of estimate on my efforts...

...Anyway, I look even more sinister when I smile....... ;-)

I confess that I wasn't smiling whilst on the Hangar Lane Gyratory at 7am
this morning.

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Will H [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

(and I'm always smiling when I ride).

Then you're riding too slowly. You should be grimacing with pain, or in
a trance-like state considering the 100 miles home. ;-)

Jon

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:36:58 +0000 (UTC), "LaoFuZhi" <the.real.address
[email hidden] thing.not.too.hard.to.work.out>

Quoted message said:

My Cat-Eye cycle computer/ HRM has the option of displaying calorie
expenditure.....

This is of interest to me since I cycle to loose weight and I use the
information to help calculate my daily calorie balance... Now, obviously as
I've cycled regularly for some time I've got fitter. I've noticed a drop in
average heart rate over the course I regularly follow.... And a drop in
calorie expenditure.... As I've lost weight I've taken to loading the bike
with lifiting weights to keep the overall all-up weight the same, or at
least within 2-3lb....

But over the same run the calorie expenditure as reported by the HRM is
dropping......

May I assume that this is because the HRM is actually calculating the
calorie expenditure using time and HR data and NOT taking into account
distance speed\time??? As my average heart rate is dropping it's coming up
with a lower figure? I suppose it MUST work on some sort of average and make
some assumptions since it does not require things like weight or age to be
input...

If so, how could I more accurately calculate my calorie expenditure... Is
there a better HRM on the market that takes these things into acocunt???

TIA
Matt

I would imagine these computers are setup for the average fitness and
average size rider and are a rough guide only. I do know though that
your increased level of fitness results in the body now being capable
of a higher performance of power output. This means larger muscles all
round including improvements in the heart. These improvements mean
your metabolism has gone up and the average intake of calories your
body actually takes before exercise just maintaining itself is now
higher. I'm not sure how exercise will effect calories used in
comparision but I would still guess it would be higher as the heart is
now stronger and thicker internally as are your muscles generally and
although exercise is easier the muscles are now less efficient in that
they consume more energy generally but of course now tasks are easier
for it. Of course as you lose weight and carry less fat the body will
obviously not need as many calories in this regard. A fairly
complicated formula with many other variables.

The same is true of food itself. You may say to yourself I've worked
out and used 600 calories and only allow yourself 600 calories for you
meals that day. However calories in food are calculated in a very
approximate not particularly accurate way too. I might buy a
vegetarian product that says it has 400 calories but my body like a
lot of peoples isn't great at digesting and processing carrots and
sweetcorn and these vegetables represent almost zero calories for me.
Also a large mix of different foods in the stomach make it harder for
the body to digest. Water also has an effect on the efficiency of
getting energy from food.

What I'm basically saying is anything relating to calories is just
very rough information and can be wildly inaccurate.
..

Michael MacClancy said:

Your assumption is correct. The HRM is using your HR as a proxy for your
power output and this, using a suitable conversion function integrated over
the time exercised, gives the energy consumed. Your average HR falls as
you get fitter so you use less energy for the same task.

That last sentence is wrong. It should say something like, "Your heart
stroke volume increases as you get fitter so you need a lower heart rate to
provide the oxygen needed to burn the calories needed to perform the task".

The problem is that your HRM doesn't know that your heart stroke volume has
increased so it counts fewer heart beats and converts these into fewer
calories consumed.

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I feel so miserable without you, it's almost like having
you here." -Stephen Bishop
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Quoted message said:

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Then you're riding too slowly. You should be grimacing with pain, or in
a trance-like state considering the 100 miles home. ;-)

Will H said:

I confess that I wasn't smiling whilst on the Hangar Lane Gyratory at 7am
this morning.

Were you on the uphill side? The downhill side is much more fun,
especially if you time it right with the lights.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

"CloseSupport" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

very informative site:

http://www.caloriesperhour.com/

try this site, rather than working out your BMR and how many calories you
need to taken on board, plus the extra's for reserves for when they are
required.remember that these reserves are stored so if you can take

onboard

Quoted message said:

enough calories for your daily activites and store some extra over a
period of days weeks even, you'll probably find that you don't feel quite

as

Quoted message said:

exhausted at the end, loading over periods of days works for me, when i

have

Quoted message said:

big rides in mind. plpus i don't have to try and continuously fill up

during

Quoted message said:

my rides as often.

gives good information on calories required for daily activities plus how
much you can do without without feeling that earge to binge and the diet
going out the window.

rather than having to work out your own BMR the java script does it all

for

Quoted message said:

you so even more calories saved for that long ride,

Thanks for the link; I'd not come across that one before.......

The figures it give are actually quite close to those I've been using. I
have a friend who is a GP and it was she who worked out what my weight
should be and what my BMR was. At the time I was in quite a bad way; I'd
lost a LOT of muscle mass and was carrying mainly flab...

She came up with a BMR figure of 1600cal/day...... (the calculator comes up
with 1757). that was based on various measurements taken with callipers
etc....

The thinking behind creating the calorie defecit through exercise rather
than diet was that if I dieted I'd lose more muscle mass whether by exercise
I'd gain muscle mass and at the same time raise my BMR allowing me to eat
more normal amounts. If I work with JUST my BMR figures this tends to allow
for my very sloppy calorie counting.... I basically discount my normal
day-to day activities and count only the exercise... To give me my exercise
(defecit) figures I have a rowing machine with a calorie readout, the HRM on
the bike and a pedometer.... If It's too bad weather wise to cycle I walk a
few miles (an old injury prevents me running) ....

The calculator seems to agree with the figures I've been using; I can do
about 10 miles in 40 minutes and it gives me a figure of 411 calories where
the HRM tells me about 395...

It's a fairly sloppy and unscientific way to do it I know but it does seem
to work allowing as it does for human error and weaknesses....i.e the odd
beer or ten washed down with a 14" pizza.... :-)

If you want to loose weight then far more important than
cycling/energy expenditure etc is diet.
I recommend the ELF diet which is the only one which actually works.
ELF stands for 'eat less food' and also 'especially less fat'.
Cycling helps of course in that you feel the benefit and get
motivated, and get generally fitter, but you'd have to cycle a huge
amount to loose weight if you don't also alter your eating habits.
Calory counter on your monitor is just a daft gimmick designed to
appeal to techie geeks..

cheers

Jacob

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

Quoted message said:

If you want to loose weight then far more important than
cycling/energy expenditure etc is diet.
I recommend the ELF diet which is the only one which actually works.
ELF stands for 'eat less food' and also 'especially less fat'.
Cycling helps of course in that you feel the benefit and get
motivated, and get generally fitter, but you'd have to cycle a huge
amount to loose weight if you don't also alter your eating habits.
Calory counter on your monitor is just a daft gimmick designed to
appeal to techie geeks..

ELF combined with CycleMor (TM) can prove dangerous. ASROSF (A Steady
Reduction Of Sugary Foods) is probably a better idea.

Agree with the gimmick thing though. I did wonder how it knew. Now I
realise that it probably doesn't!

Jon

Jon Senior said:

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

Quoted message said:

If you want to loose weight then far more important than
cycling/energy expenditure etc is diet.
I recommend the ELF diet which is the only one which actually works.
ELF stands for 'eat less food' and also 'especially less fat'.
Cycling helps of course in that you feel the benefit and get
motivated, and get generally fitter, but you'd have to cycle a huge
amount to loose weight if you don't also alter your eating habits.
Calory counter on your monitor is just a daft gimmick designed to
appeal to techie geeks..

ELF combined with CycleMor (TM) can prove dangerous. ASROSF (A Steady
Reduction Of Sugary Foods) is probably a better idea.

Agree with the gimmick thing though. I did wonder how it knew. Now I
realise that it probably doesn't!

Jon

Yeah. Mind you, it's still really quite rewarding to see it sat saying
I've burned 1609 calories on a shorter sunday ride..

I have to say, I've tried ELF on it's own, and it doesn't work.
CycleMor coupled with trying ETS is still proving hard to shift *weight*
but it's shifting flab into muscles. At some point it'll run out of
muscles to make, at which point I'm hoping I'll see the weight start to
drop, and then I'll be sprinting up hills like lightning (yeah..
right..) and lovely and thin again...

Still dreaming...

--

Velvet

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you want to loose weight then far more important than
cycling/energy expenditure etc is diet.
I recommend the ELF diet which is the only one which actually works.
ELF stands for 'eat less food' and also 'especially less fat'.

Well both I and my GP friend would disagree with that to some extent. As it
happens I AM limiting my food intake and tend not to be overly fond of
either sugary or fatty foods anyway. I'm not suggesting that it's possible
to eat like a hog and lose weight SIMPLY by exercising..... What I'm
saying is that it's better to create a 400/cal/day defecit over the rate
necessary to keep your weight stable by riding 10 miles than cutting your
food intake by 400 /cal/day from your base level and doing little or nothing
by way of exercise..... OBVIOUSLY any intake over the level necessary to
keep your weight stable has to be cut away. In my case that meant the
nightly four-pack of lager got kicked into touch as did most (but certainly
not all) of my trips to the chippie.

And frankly, anyone who DOES over-eat would still benefit from my approach
since they would at least slow-down the rate of weight-gain and generally
improve their state of health.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycling helps of course in that you feel the benefit and get
motivated, and get generally fitter, but you'd have to cycle a huge
amount to loose weight if you don't also alter your eating habits.

I apologise if I seemed to suggest otherwise. But by riding just 10 miles a
day 5 days a week, on average figures, you'll loose well over a 1/2 lb per
week.. More if you can up the effort. What's more, as you gain more lean
muscle your BMR will rise

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Calory counter on your monitor is just a daft gimmick designed to
appeal to techie geeks..

Possibly so since it doesn't actually seem to be based on any real measure
of _all_ the data available to the computer...

But there is a danger for those that want to loose weight in that they're
liable to go out, do their ten miles, then wash it down with two pints of
lager and a bag of chips! If they have _SOME_ sort of numerical targets to
monitor and maintain it does help keep a perspective on the input\output
balance...

Velvet said:

I have to say, I've tried ELF on it's own, and it doesn't work. CycleMor
coupled with trying ETS is still proving hard to shift *weight* but it's
shifting flab into muscles. At some point it'll run out of muscles to
make, at which point I'm hoping I'll see the weight start to drop, and
then I'll be sprinting up hills like lightning (yeah.. right..)

If you want to be Monarch Of The Mountains then it helps to be a
whippet, but to get up hills at a fair pace just needs the right
muscles, gears and cardiovascular backup. You can get both of the
physiological bits most easily by... getting out and going up hills.
And then getting out and going up hills again. And again.

I'm no lightweight, and my bike is certainly not a lightweight, but I
get up some evil braes faster than some lighter people on lighter bikes
because my muscles have got me up a lot of hills in their time (on one
local CTC meet which took in the nasty climb from Balmerino the ride
organiser told me people had asked her if 'bents were particularly good
at climbing having seen me go up!).

There's no substitute for practice when it comes to getting up hills. I
know the hills where you are (my cousins stay in Betchworth, near
Reigate, and we go over the scarps of the Downs to visit them) and that
they really are evil, but if you get practice in at getting up them
you'll get a lot better and you'll get better fast. Just go out if
you've got a spare half an hour and head up the nearest one and see how
you do. If you can't go on it's downhill all the way home. Next time
see if you can get as far, or maybe a little further.

And your muscles don't need to be big if you have low gears, they just
need to be able to keep spinning, which is far more about stamina and
aerobic workout than power and strength. Compare Paula Radcliffe's
muscles to a sprinters for evidence. Again the case that the best way
to train to get these for hills is by going up hills.

Quoted message said:

lovely and thin again...

The 2 don't necessarily equate. Being thin is a means to an end, not an
end in itself. And if you can achieve the end without being a stick,
why worry about being a stick?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote:

<much snipped>

Quoted message said:

And your muscles don't need to be big if you have low gears, they just
need to be able to keep spinning, which is far more about stamina and
aerobic workout than power and strength. Compare Paula Radcliffe's
muscles to a sprinters for evidence. Again the case that the best way
to train to get these for hills is by going up hills.

True, but my bike doesn't have ultraultralow gears, despite a triple.
Yes, I know, it's hill practice I need, specially after seeing the
improvements on the flat. I know I've improved on hills, it might be a
different set of hills giving the impression I'm back at square one, of
course....

I don't mind really, I'll get there in the end. I know it'd be easier
hauling me and the bike up hills if it wasn't for the flab I'm carrying
though! Quite chuffed to have just realised I was doing the increased
speed on the flat c/with a pannier, something I've not had the last
couple of times I've been out and faster than before but slower than
sunday... woohoo, big improvments indeed!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lovely and thin again...

The 2 don't necessarily equate. Being thin is a means to an end, not an
end in itself. And if you can achieve the end without being a stick,
why worry about being a stick?

Cos I want to be thinner than I am right now ;-) It'll be healthier for
me, for a start.

Quoted message said:

Pete.

--

Velvet

Quoted message said:

I have to say, I've tried ELF on it's own, and it doesn't work.
CycleMor coupled with trying ETS is still proving hard to shift *weight*
but it's shifting flab into muscles.

Whis is probably good..... weight is a limited indicator...

Slim-ish is good In my estimation, but most women who have a good
underlaying structure can carry the odd pound or two to good effect.... IMHO
that is...

Velvet said:

Cos I want to be thinner than I am right now ;-) It'll be healthier for
me, for a start.

But note that "thinner than I am right now" and "not a stick" are /not/
mutually exclusive terms unless you're already verging on stickness,
which you rather imply you're not.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 20/7/04 11:05 am, in article [email hidden], "Peter

Clinch said:

If you want to be Monarch Of The Mountains then it helps to be a
whippet, but to get up hills at a fair pace just needs the right
muscles, gears and cardiovascular backup. You can get both of the
physiological bits most easily by... getting out and going up hills.
And then getting out and going up hills again. And again.

I'm no lightweight, and my bike is certainly not a lightweight, but I
get up some evil braes faster than some lighter people on lighter bikes
because my muscles have got me up a lot of hills in their time (on one
local CTC meet which took in the nasty climb from Balmerino the ride
organiser told me people had asked her if 'bents were particularly good
at climbing having seen me go up!).

Dundee isn't reknowned for being flat (the last Milk Race/Pru tour used the
climb up the Law as the prologue) so Pete and I certainly get lots of hill
practise.

I was absolutely pants at hills so I set out to improve my cardiovascular
and legs by doing a circuit that included the local hill. (fortunately this
is less than a mile from my house so I can bail out and go home when I get
bored/run out of time) The first time I did it without having to stop was a
major achievement. After doing this for a few weeks I would expect to be
able to do it without stopping. Then I changed the rules. They now say 'no
stopping' so I have to keep moving. Then the number of climbs increased so I
would be able to go out for about an hour and do the circuit three, then
four then five times. I haven't done it for a while but the training it gave
enabled me to ride much better on my commute (the way home is all uphill)
and helps on longer rides.

Helped shift a bunch of weight too.. to the point that people at work
started commenting. (8" off the waist and two and a half stone [20cm and 15
kilos] If I lose another inch I'll have to go and get more holes in the belt
for the third time).

As for the ELF diet, it works to a point. But if you eat too much less the
body will think it is being starved and not burn up the reserves so quickly.
So I developed a new variant - ELFEOS which is 'ELF except on Sundays'.
Alcohol is limited to the number of units per week being less than the
number of pounds weight lost in the last month. ELFEOS persuades the body
that there is still plenty of food available so there is no famine.

I find that fat is not the problem but processed carbohydrate is. So I avoid
most bread/biscuits, all sugar, limit the amount of potatoes. Eat loads of
fresh fruit and veg, and plenty of protein.

The discipline is the key thing. It takes me about two weeks to settle into
a change of diet (ie stopping that mid afternoon chocolate bar) so that it
feels normal. The first week is tough, the second week is worse, the third
week is easy.

...d

Peter Clinch said:

Velvet said:

Cos I want to be thinner than I am right now ;-) It'll be healthier
for me, for a start.

But note that "thinner than I am right now" and "not a stick" are /not/
mutually exclusive terms unless you're already verging on stickness,
which you rather imply you're not.

Pete.

Um, indeed :-)

I *used* to be a stick. It's possible if I ramp up the cycling to the
ultra-serious addict level then I'd eventually be stick-insectish again,
but I seriously doubt my body's capable of going back to that, given the
physiological changes over the years etc.

Slim would suit me fine. I'm just bored of slowing lugging the flab up
the hills with me ;-)

--

Velvet