energy useage acording to pulse meters accurate? (LONG)

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Iddqdatworldonl, May 25, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Did a 3 hour ride today with two friends and after completing the ride we compared how much energy
    we used according to our pulse meters.

    I'm a big guy 6 feet and 230 pounds (of which I really should get rid of 40 or 50 pounds) and my
    buddies are in pretty good shape an put more like 170 pounds on the scale. Comuting to work and back
    on my bike mean I put in at least 50 miles on road each week all year round and on top I ride my MTB
    often for like 3-5 hours rides, in other words I'm in shape but nothing special.

    On todays ride I was getting hammered pretty good with my two buddies having their own sprint races
    on occasion while all of us taking the same route and them waiting for me at times when I couldn't
    stay on their tales. After the ride they were pretty fresh and ready for another loop while I was
    pretty much done.

    I pulse meter hardly ever reported my ticker getting below 160 during all 3 hours and the total
    calories used was reported to be 4200, while my buddies had used only aprox 1500 and 1700 for the
    same ride!

    Now I know my weight is requirering me to work harder and also the 1500
    guy has some very good technical skills so he can ride ditches and drops
    which the 1700 guy (on a badass hardtail) and I prefer to handle with
    our bikes on our shoulders (not that we dont do drops or ditches but...).

    But now to my question did I really use almost three times the energy of my buddies or is the pulse
    meters way off?

    Kind regards

    Bruno, Denmark
     
    Tags:


  2. Mx-Pilot

    Mx-Pilot Guest

    well ur working harder and 3 times the size.

    "iddqdATworldonline.dk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Did a 3 hour ride today with two friends and after completing the ride we compared how much energy
    > we used according to our pulse meters.
    >
    > I'm a big guy 6 feet and 230 pounds (of which I really should get rid of 40 or 50 pounds) and my
    > buddies are in pretty good shape an put more like 170 pounds on the scale. Comuting to work and
    > back on my bike mean I put in at least 50 miles on road each week all year round and on top I ride
    > my MTB often for like 3-5 hours rides, in other words I'm in shape but nothing special.
    >
    > On todays ride I was getting hammered pretty good with my two buddies having their own sprint
    > races on occasion while all of us taking the same route and them waiting for me at times when I
    > couldn't stay on their tales. After the ride they were pretty fresh and ready for another loop
    > while I was pretty much done.
    >
    > I pulse meter hardly ever reported my ticker getting below 160 during all 3 hours and the total
    > calories used was reported to be 4200, while my buddies had used only aprox 1500 and 1700 for the
    > same ride!
    >
    > Now I know my weight is requirering me to work harder and also the 1500
    > guy has some very good technical skills so he can ride ditches and drops
    > which the 1700 guy (on a badass hardtail) and I prefer to handle with
    > our bikes on our shoulders (not that we dont do drops or ditches but...).
    >
    > But now to my question did I really use almost three times the energy of my buddies or is the
    > pulse meters way off?
    >
    > Kind regards
    >
    > Bruno, Denmark
     
  3. Zilla

    Zilla Guest

    In Physics,

    Work = force x distance

    In your case the "force" is your weight+bike so yes you were working a little harder for the same
    distance than your buddies

    --
    - Zilla Cary, NC (Remove XSPAM)

    "iddqdATworldonline.dk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Did a 3 hour ride today with two friends and after completing the ride we compared how much energy
    > we used according to our pulse meters.
    >
    > I'm a big guy 6 feet and 230 pounds (of which I really should get rid of 40 or 50 pounds) and my
    > buddies are in pretty good shape an put more like 170 pounds on the scale. Comuting to work and
    > back on my bike mean I put in at least 50 miles on road each week all year round and on top I ride
    > my MTB often for like 3-5 hours rides, in other words I'm in shape but nothing special.
    >
    > On todays ride I was getting hammered pretty good with my two buddies having their own sprint
    > races on occasion while all of us taking the same route and them waiting for me at times when I
    > couldn't stay on their tales. After the ride they were pretty fresh and ready for another loop
    > while I was pretty much done.
    >
    > I pulse meter hardly ever reported my ticker getting below 160 during all 3 hours and the total
    > calories used was reported to be 4200, while my buddies had used only aprox 1500 and 1700 for the
    > same ride!
    >
    > Now I know my weight is requirering me to work harder and also the 1500
    > guy has some very good technical skills so he can ride ditches and drops
    > which the 1700 guy (on a badass hardtail) and I prefer to handle with
    > our bikes on our shoulders (not that we dont do drops or ditches but...).
    >
    > But now to my question did I really use almost three times the energy of my buddies or is the
    > pulse meters way off?
    >
    > Kind regards
    >
    > Bruno, Denmark
     
  4. Shaun Bell

    Shaun Bell Guest

    "iddqdATworldonline.dk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Did a 3 hour ride today with two friends and after completing the ride we compared how much energy
    > we used according to our pulse meters.
    >
    > I'm a big guy 6 feet and 230 pounds (of which I really should get rid of 40 or 50 pounds) and my
    > buddies are in pretty good shape an put more like 170 pounds on the scale. Comuting to work and
    > back on my bike mean I put in at least 50 miles on road each week all year round and on top I ride
    > my MTB often for like 3-5 hours rides, in other words I'm in shape but nothing special.
    >
    > On todays ride I was getting hammered pretty good with my two buddies having their own sprint
    > races on occasion while all of us taking the same route and them waiting for me at times when I
    > couldn't stay on their tales. After the ride they were pretty fresh and ready for another loop
    > while I was pretty much done.
    >
    > I pulse meter hardly ever reported my ticker getting below 160 during all 3 hours and the total
    > calories used was reported to be 4200, while my buddies had used only aprox 1500 and 1700 for the
    > same ride!
    >
    > Now I know my weight is requirering me to work harder and also the 1500
    > guy has some very good technical skills so he can ride ditches and drops
    > which the 1700 guy (on a badass hardtail) and I prefer to handle with
    > our bikes on our shoulders (not that we dont do drops or ditches but...).
    >
    > But now to my question did I really use almost three times the energy of my buddies or is the
    > pulse meters way off?

    I think your HRM is a little off. Anything over say 1000 cal/hour would be an insane effort. At 800
    per hour I'm maxing out. Now I may be a little lighter but that just means you can go harder uphill
    lol! What make of HRM are you using and is it the same make as your buddies? Swap monitors and see
    what happens.

    Shaun Bell
     
  5. Superslinky

    Superslinky Guest

    iddqdATworldonline.dk said...

    > But now to my question did I really use almost three times the energy of my buddies or is the
    > pulse meters way off?
    >
    > Kind regards
    >
    > Bruno, Denmark

    I think your monitor is off. All things being equal, you would burn about 1/3 more calories than the
    170# guy. Of course, it is more complicated than that. I assume the HRM takes into account your HR
    and weight and uses this to decide at what rate energy is being used. At a certain threshold of
    exertion, energy use is much more rapid than at lower levels of exertion. You may have been exerting
    yourself more and using more energy, but at 1400 calories per hour, I would think that you would
    have bonked after the first hour or so. It is possible that you burned that much energy, but it
    seems unlikely, especially since your friends had a much more moderate workout.
     
  6. Theoretically, if you began and ended at the same place then you all did zero amount of work.
     
  7. SuperSlinky wrote:
    > I think your monitor is off. All things being equal, you would burn about 1/3 more calories than
    > the 170# guy. Of course, it is more complicated than that.

    Also what I expected - I mean 50% more okay but 200% or so seems a lot.

    > I assume the HRM takes into account your HR and weight and uses this to decide at what rate energy
    > is being used.

    > At a certain threshold of exertion, energy use is much more rapid than at lower levels of
    > exertion. You may have been exerting yourself more and using more energy, but at 1400 calories per
    > hour, I would think that you would have bonked after the first hour or so.

    I was pretty beat pretty quickly and mostly completed the run on pure stubbornness (hmm, is that
    even a word - hope it makes sense?) with my pulse staying above 165 almost the whole run.

    > It is possible that you burned that much energy, but it seems unlikely, especially since your
    > friends had a much more moderate workout.

    Agreed - even if it makes me feel better to think I was so beat due to me doing 3x the work :)

    I would swap pulsemeters but there's are advanced gizmos which does logging and all meaning their
    training programs would get out of whack. Mine is just a cheap one (named cyclopro or something
    similar) which I bought on sale for $30 or so.

    Kind regards

    Bruno
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...