How ****ed am I?



On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:04:04 -0000, "Peter Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"musashi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:09:57 -0500, musashi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> An example I thought of.
>>
>> If Ivan Basso were to turn 200W/hr it would take fewer calories than
>> if I were turning 200W/hr. His heart rate would probably be 130 where
>> as mine would be maxed out.
>
>It's just 200W. Not 'per hour'.
>
>Yes, Basso would probably find 200W incredibly easy, and you might be maxed
>out at 200W (I really hope not, though). But you both know how to ride a
>bike, you'd both burn about the same number of calories doing it. If you
>were to go out and do an easy three hour ride, and Basso were to do the
>same, then the intensity would be the same in both cases, but you'd need to
>eat less than Basso afterwards.
>
>Peter
>


Yes, I should have been saying 200W in an hour, not per hour.

And the more I think about it the more I agree with what you are
saying. I just find it hard to belive that I could be as efficient as
Basso in turning X number of calories into 200W.

Musashi
 
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:57:33 -0000, "Peter Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"musashi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> But in the same person day after day the intensity is going to be a
>> better measure of the calories expended than watts/t will. As fitness
>> increases the watts one can put out per calorie should increase more
>> than the intensity per caloire, making the HRM a more stable measure.
>
>What you're saying is, as fitness increases your efficiency increases (you
>don't mean 'watts per calorie', watts is power, calories is energy, they
>don't relate that way), i.e. the ratio of total useful work output (watts x
>time) to energy input (calories) goes up.
>
>Which is sort-of true, but once you have the muscle patterns down to ride a
>bike (like everyone here does), then your efficiency is about 20% (IIRC),
>and after that it will only change by miniscule amounts. Studies have been
>done to prove that.
>
>So the result is that, looking at one person day after day, who knows how to
>ride, intensity is a poor measure of calories burned, watts x time is a good
>measure. But you don't really care how many calories you're burning, you
>care about getting in as much quality time as possible without getting
>overtrained, and that goes with perceived intensity and heart rates fairly
>well. For example, if you were to do every day two flat out 10 mile time
>trials, one in the morning one in the evening, you'd pretty soon get
>overreached (and overtrained if you tried to keep doing it for a few weeks).
>But you'd have burned less calories than a three hour moderate pace ride
>each day, and that isn't even particularly hard training.
>
>> And again, the HRM is going to reflect things altitude, which the
>> Watts will not. 200W/hr at 1000 feet is going to take less calories
>> than 200W/her at 9000 feet. Power measures won't give you credit for
>> how hard you are working but a HRM will.
>
>Please stop doing this watts/hour thing. It's painful. Watts are a measure
>of power. 'Watts per hour' is meaningless.
>
>AIUI, simply living at altitude ups your calorie requirements. But you're
>still going to be about as efficient on the bike. Just that when there is
>less oxygen around, then your CV system has to work harder to supply your
>muscles, and perceived intensity at (say) 200W output is going to be higher
>than at sea level. The HRM will show that, and your training will have to
>reflect that, but calories burned putting out 200W as a steady effort for a
>given time will be the same at sea level or at altitude.
>
>Peter
>


Got it. Thanks. And I promise to say Watts in a given time instead of
W/hr.

Musashi
 
Peter Allen wrote:

> Yes, Basso would probably find 200W incredibly easy, and you might be maxed
> out at 200W (I really hope not, though). But you both know how to ride a
> bike, you'd both burn about the same number of calories doing it. If you
> were to go out and do an easy three hour ride, and Basso were to do the
> same, then the intensity would be the same in both cases, but you'd need to
> eat less than Basso afterwards.

Then again, you wouldn't have to worry about Eddy Mazzoleni banging your
sister while you were out riding either...
 
"musashi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yes, I should have been saying 200W in an hour, not per hour.
>
> And the more I think about it the more I agree with what you are
> saying. I just find it hard to belive that I could be as efficient as
> Basso in turning X number of calories into 200W.

Trying to make this simple...

energy is measured in calories or joules (or a bunch of other units, but
ignore that).

power is measured in watts (ignoring other silly units). Power is energy
divided by time.

One watt = one joule per second. One calorie = 4 and a bit joules, one
'dietary calorie' = one KCal = 1000 cals = 4 and a bit thousand joules.

'200W in an hour' does not make any more sense than '200W per hour'. Both of
them make it look like you think watts are a measure of energy.

200W for an hour means 200W (power number) held constantly for 1 hour = 3600
seconds, so total energy = 720,000 J.

200W for a second, by contrast, would imply 200 J total energy.

Peter
 
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:02:33 -0000, Peter Allen wrote:
> energy is measured in calories or joules (or a bunch of other units,
> but ignore that).

Please, how do I set my Polar to give readings in eV?


--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/
 
"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:02:33 -0000, Peter Allen wrote:
>> energy is measured in calories or joules (or a bunch of other units,
>> but ignore that).
>
> Please, how do I set my Polar to give readings in eV?

Open the back up, take the plastic top off the microprocessor, and scratch
out the fifteenth track from the left, 2.4 millimetres down. Be careful,
though: if you miscount you may end up with BTUs.

Peter
 
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Suz wrote:
>> The hubby is a pretty
>> knowledgeable elite-level coach, and says that watts are a more accurate
>> measure of calories burned than HR.
>
> [snip]
>
>> This still doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Hmmm. Wife doesn't believe something husband tells her? Whoa. Stop the
> presses.
>
>> Any of you smart physiologist
>> types willing to chime in on this one?
>
> Wife doesn't believe husband who she describes as "pretty knowledgeable
> elite-level coach" and then asks Usenet for help? Yikes.
>
Oops, meant to say "*normally* pretty knowledgeable". But he's an engineer,
not a physiologist. And yes, I am probably a pain in the ass to coach,
thinking I know more than him all the time (which I don't). BTW, he
explained this watts/ calories concept in greater detail last night, so I
think I get it now. Maybe.
 
Thanks Ben and Peter for the neat explanations, Sword Saint and others
for the good questions and Tim for sort of starting this discussion.
Finally some decent racing-oriented content in RBR!

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:12:16 -0500, musashi wrote:
>
>>So, W/hr are good measures of performance
>
>
> What the friggin figsticks is W/hr?
>
>

Wow! What the friggin figsticks are friggin figsticks?

W/hr means watts per hour. The capital W is a standard abbreviation for
watt. I don't believe hr is a standard abbreviation, however.
 
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:02:33 -0000, "Peter Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"musashi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Yes, I should have been saying 200W in an hour, not per hour.
>>
>> And the more I think about it the more I agree with what you are
>> saying. I just find it hard to belive that I could be as efficient as
>> Basso in turning X number of calories into 200W.
>
>Trying to make this simple...
>
>energy is measured in calories or joules (or a bunch of other units, but
>ignore that).
>
>power is measured in watts (ignoring other silly units). Power is energy
>divided by time.
>
>One watt = one joule per second. One calorie = 4 and a bit joules, one
>'dietary calorie' = one KCal = 1000 cals = 4 and a bit thousand joules.
>
>'200W in an hour' does not make any more sense than '200W per hour'. Both of
>them make it look like you think watts are a measure of energy.
>
>200W for an hour means 200W (power number) held constantly for 1 hour = 3600
>seconds, so total energy = 720,000 J.
>
>200W for a second, by contrast, would imply 200 J total energy.
>
>Peter
>

But what I was saying was that HRM measure intensity so you need the W
to be over a constant amount of time. You can't have one guy doing a
little over 4 hours while a guy is pounding his ass over 1 hour,
getting the same W and call that the same intensity or equal by
measure of a HRM.

If you are going to put out 200W on a 30 mile ride and I'm going to
put out 200W on a 10 mile ride that is a different thing in intensity.
That's all.

Musashi
 
Tim Lines wrote:
> Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:12:16 -0500, musashi wrote:
> >>So, W/hr are good measures of performance
> > What the friggin figsticks is W/hr?

> Wow! What the friggin figsticks are friggin figsticks?

Dutch delicacy. Perfectly awful. Try the cheese instead.

> W/hr means watts per hour. The capital W is a standard abbreviation
for
> watt. I don't believe hr is a standard abbreviation, however.

Yah, but watts are power, which is energy/time, so W/hr would
be energy per time per time, which is pretty meaningless in
terms of "I was riding at such-and-such power."

This makes an irresistable challenge to come up with a context
in which watts/hour actually makes sense. You could use it as
a rate of decline of power. We've all experienced feeling
cooked at the end of a ride. For example, if I climbed
Haskins Hill on the first lap in 9 minutes at a power of 330
watts, and 1.25 hours later on the second lap I could only
climb Haskins Hill in 12 minutes at 250 watts, my power
declined by 80 W/1.25 hours, or 64 W/hr. That's a fairly
useless number, though. It could be used to measure how
much your power declines during a steady effort like a TT -
but all the TT gurus say that if your power declines a lot
during a TT, you started out too hard.

Ben
in decline
 
On Sunday 23 January 2005 08:12, [email protected] wrote:
> This makes an irresistable challenge to come up with a context
> in which watts/hour actually makes sense.

How long does it take to change a 100 W lightbulb?
- About 10 seconds.
So that's 36 kW/h.

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/
 
Suz wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Wife doesn't believe husband who she describes as "pretty knowledgeable
>> elite-level coach" and then asks Usenet for help? Yikes.
>>
> Oops, meant to say "*normally* pretty knowledgeable". But he's an
> engineer, not a physiologist. And yes, I am probably a pain in the ass
> to coach, thinking I know more than him all the time (which I don't).
> BTW, he explained this watts/ calories concept in greater detail last
> night, so I think I get it now. Maybe.

Wife thinks she has to explain her marital dynamics to RBR? Double yikes.
 
Tim Lines wrote:
> Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:12:16 -0500, musashi wrote:
> >>So, W/hr are good measures of performance
> > What the friggin figsticks is W/hr?

> Wow! What the friggin figsticks are friggin figsticks?

Dutch delicacy. Perfectly awful. Try the cheese instead.

> W/hr means watts per hour. The capital W is a standard abbreviation
for
> watt. I don't believe hr is a standard abbreviation, however.

Yah, but watts are power, which is energy/time, so W/hr would
be energy per time per time, which is pretty meaningless in
terms of "I was riding at such-and-such power."

This makes an irresistable challenge to come up with a context
in which watts/hour actually makes sense. You could use it as
a rate of decline of power. We've all experienced feeling
cooked at the end of a ride. For example, if I climbed
Haskins Hill on the first lap in 9 minutes at a power of 330
watts, and 1.25 hours later on the second lap I could only
climb Haskins Hill in 12 minutes at 250 watts, my power
declined by 80 W/1.25 hours, or 64 W/hr. That's a fairly
useless number, though. It could be used to measure how
much your power declines during a steady effort like a TT -
but all the TT gurus say that if your power declines a lot
during a TT, you started out too hard.

Ben
in decline
 
Peter Allen -- the ULTIMATE in Bazzareness and King of Nerds.
Weird. Numbers. Nothing.

-Ken
 
k.papai wrote:
> How BORING is that ****?
>
> Need they type less?
>
> -Ken
>
Douche,

There is finally a thread relevant to bike racing on this group and all
you can do is complain about it?

Too bad killfiles are for pussies.
 
Moishe Lettvin wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15241718
>
> Interesting. That study's subjects seemed to fit in a fairly narrow
> range, though -- people who could pedal 80-90 rpm at 165W, with a VO2
> max between 55 and 69, and between 68 and 81 kg.

When the mass is given as 74.0 +/- 6.3 kg, the 6.3 is the SD, not the
limits of the range.

> I wonder if the
> results would change if they included 150 kg sedentary people who
> couldn't maintain even a paltry 165W.

Gross efficiency appears to vary slightly and negatively (as one might
expect) with mass, but not delta efficiency.
 
Carl Sundquist wrote:
> I've often considered the marketability of a bicycle sized treadmill,
> both from a cost as well as a
> where-do-you-put -the-damn-thing-when-you're-not-using-it standpoint.
>
> The ability to move around on your bike, moving the bike around, and
> varying the pitch of the surface would surely make for strong
> incentives to own such an item.

http://www.bikeforest.com/tread/treadmillintro.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back