Figuring out calories burned?

"VBadJuJu" none@ wrote in message
...
"chris christanis" wrote:

I had a cheap Bell computer that did it for me but it fell off (cheap).
So I
bought a cateye but it does not tell you calories burned. Anyway to
figure
this out?


I have one of those and think it is great. The only other
cyclocomputer I've seen with calorie consumption estimation was in the
$150 range (and *not* cordless IIRC).

In that light, I see them as a *value* not "cheap", but also expect
that feature will show up on more of the better 'puters next year.

Highly accurate too at least as to speed (and therefore distance, avg
speed etc). Recently there was one of those automated radar speed
things down the street off and on for about 9 weeks. Coming down the
hill on my way out to ride I could verify the read out vs the radar
thingie.

FWIW, 13 - 15 miles works out to about 1000 calories at 10.5 - 11.5
MPH average for me.


No way would you burn 1000 calories going that slow, for that short a time,
unless the rider is very large. Where did you get that estimate? 1000
calories in 14 miles works out to over 71 calories per mile, which is very
high (especially at that speed).

Per my CycliStats program's Calorie & Watts Calculator, assuming "Rolling"
terrain (422 feet of elevation gain), and a standard road bike configuration
(18.5 lb bike, with the rider mostly on the hoods), a 150 lb rider would
burn 405 calories, while a 200 lb rider would burn 488 calories.

Assuming the ride was done on a mountain bike (24.5 lb bike, with knobby
tires and a more upright rider position), the 150 lb rider would burn around
573 calories, and the 200 lb rider would burn 697 calories.

By way of comparison, 14 miles at 11 mph would take 1 hr and 16 minutes. Per
www.caloriesperhour.com a 150 lb rider would burn 517 calories in that time.
A 200 lb rider would burn 689 calories.

~_-*
....G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:07:19 -0700, GaryG
wrote:

"VBadJuJu" none@ wrote in message
...
"chris christanis" wrote:

I had a cheap Bell computer that did it for me but it fell off (cheap).
So I
bought a cateye but it does not tell you calories burned. Anyway to
figure
this out?


I have one of those and think it is great. The only other
cyclocomputer I've seen with calorie consumption estimation was in the
$150 range (and *not* cordless IIRC).

In that light, I see them as a *value* not "cheap", but also expect
that feature will show up on more of the better 'puters next year.

Highly accurate too at least as to speed (and therefore distance, avg
speed etc). Recently there was one of those automated radar speed
things down the street off and on for about 9 weeks. Coming down the
hill on my way out to ride I could verify the read out vs the radar
thingie.

FWIW, 13 - 15 miles works out to about 1000 calories at 10.5 - 11.5
MPH average for me.


No way would you burn 1000 calories going that slow, for that short a
time,
unless the rider is very large.

Or if he rode up a mountain. My HR monitor estimates about 900 calories
per hour, where I spend about 1/3 of my time above 90 % of my max HR. I
think even that is high. I gain somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,000
feet in my 69 miles over 5 hours, 17 minutes.

Where did you get that estimate? 1000
calories in 14 miles works out to over 71 calories per mile, which is
very
high (especially at that speed).

Per my CycliStats program's Calorie & Watts Calculator, assuming
"Rolling"
terrain (422 feet of elevation gain), and a standard road bike
configuration
(18.5 lb bike, with the rider mostly on the hoods), a 150 lb rider would
burn 405 calories, while a 200 lb rider would burn 488 calories.

Assuming the ride was done on a mountain bike (24.5 lb bike, with knobby
tires and a more upright rider position), the 150 lb rider would burn
around
573 calories, and the 200 lb rider would burn 697 calories.

By way of comparison, 14 miles at 11 mph would take 1 hr and 16 minutes.
Per
www.caloriesperhour.com a 150 lb rider would burn 517 calories in that
time.
A 200 lb rider would burn 689 calories.

~_-*
...G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists





--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:07:19 -0700, GaryG
wrote:

"VBadJuJu" none@ wrote in message
...
"chris christanis" wrote:

I had a cheap Bell computer that did it for me but it fell off (cheap).
So I
bought a cateye but it does not tell you calories burned. Anyway to
figure
this out?


I have one of those and think it is great. The only other
cyclocomputer I've seen with calorie consumption estimation was in the
$150 range (and *not* cordless IIRC).

In that light, I see them as a *value* not "cheap", but also expect
that feature will show up on more of the better 'puters next year.

Highly accurate too at least as to speed (and therefore distance, avg
speed etc). Recently there was one of those automated radar speed
things down the street off and on for about 9 weeks. Coming down the
hill on my way out to ride I could verify the read out vs the radar
thingie.

FWIW, 13 - 15 miles works out to about 1000 calories at 10.5 - 11.5
MPH average for me.


No way would you burn 1000 calories going that slow, for that short a
time,
unless the rider is very large.

Or if he rode up a mountain. My HR monitor estimates about 900 calories
per hour, where I spend about 1/3 of my time above 90 % of my max HR. I
think even that is high. I gain somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,000
feet in my 69 miles over 5 hours, 17 minutes.

Where did you get that estimate? 1000
calories in 14 miles works out to over 71 calories per mile, which is
very
high (especially at that speed).

Per my CycliStats program's Calorie & Watts Calculator, assuming
"Rolling"
terrain (422 feet of elevation gain), and a standard road bike
configuration
(18.5 lb bike, with the rider mostly on the hoods), a 150 lb rider would
burn 405 calories, while a 200 lb rider would burn 488 calories.

Assuming the ride was done on a mountain bike (24.5 lb bike, with knobby
tires and a more upright rider position), the 150 lb rider would burn
around
573 calories, and the 200 lb rider would burn 697 calories.

By way of comparison, 14 miles at 11 mph would take 1 hr and 16 minutes.
Per
www.caloriesperhour.com a 150 lb rider would burn 517 calories in that
time.
A 200 lb rider would burn 689 calories.

~_-*
...G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists





--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

"GaryG" wrote:

"VBadJuJu" none@ wrote in message
.. .
"chris christanis" wrote:

I had a cheap Bell computer that did it for me but it fell off (cheap).
So I
bought a cateye but it does not tell you calories burned. Anyway to
figure
this out?


I have one of those and think it is great. The only other
cyclocomputer I've seen with calorie consumption estimation was in the
$150 range (and *not* cordless IIRC).

In that light, I see them as a *value* not "cheap", but also expect
that feature will show up on more of the better 'puters next year.

Highly accurate too at least as to speed (and therefore distance, avg
speed etc). Recently there was one of those automated radar speed
things down the street off and on for about 9 weeks. Coming down the
hill on my way out to ride I could verify the read out vs the radar
thingie.

FWIW, 13 - 15 miles works out to about 1000 calories at 10.5 - 11.5
MPH average for me.


No way would you burn 1000 calories going that slow, for that short a time,
unless the rider is very large. Where did you get that estimate? 1000
calories in 14 miles works out to over 71 calories per mile, which is very
high (especially at that speed).

You are right, *if* you assume a road bike and/or lightweight rider.


By way of comparison, 14 miles at 11 mph would take 1 hr and 16 minutes. Per
www.caloriesperhour.com a 150 lb rider would burn 517 calories in that time.
A 200 lb rider would burn 689 calories.

The same 200 lb rider on a mountain bike jumps the estimate from 689
to [drum roll...] 977. Four out of 5 online estimators confirm the
cycloputer estimate within 120 or so calories.

While still an estimate, I suspect the 'puter is more accurate since
it appears to consider speed and time along with rider weight which
not all the online calcs do. I assume the 'puter derives bike type
from the wheel size input otherwise there would be more disparity in
the results.

"GaryG" wrote:

"VBadJuJu" none@ wrote in message
.. .
"chris christanis" wrote:

I had a cheap Bell computer that did it for me but it fell off (cheap).
So I
bought a cateye but it does not tell you calories burned. Anyway to
figure
this out?


I have one of those and think it is great. The only other
cyclocomputer I've seen with calorie consumption estimation was in the
$150 range (and *not* cordless IIRC).

In that light, I see them as a *value* not "cheap", but also expect
that feature will show up on more of the better 'puters next year.

Highly accurate too at least as to speed (and therefore distance, avg
speed etc). Recently there was one of those automated radar speed
things down the street off and on for about 9 weeks. Coming down the
hill on my way out to ride I could verify the read out vs the radar
thingie.

FWIW, 13 - 15 miles works out to about 1000 calories at 10.5 - 11.5
MPH average for me.


No way would you burn 1000 calories going that slow, for that short a time,
unless the rider is very large. Where did you get that estimate? 1000
calories in 14 miles works out to over 71 calories per mile, which is very
high (especially at that speed).

You are right, *if* you assume a road bike and/or lightweight rider.


By way of comparison, 14 miles at 11 mph would take 1 hr and 16 minutes. Per
www.caloriesperhour.com a 150 lb rider would burn 517 calories in that time.
A 200 lb rider would burn 689 calories.

The same 200 lb rider on a mountain bike jumps the estimate from 689
to [drum roll...] 977. Four out of 5 online estimators confirm the
cycloputer estimate within 120 or so calories.

While still an estimate, I suspect the 'puter is more accurate since
it appears to consider speed and time along with rider weight which
not all the online calcs do. I assume the 'puter derives bike type
from the wheel size input otherwise there would be more disparity in
the results.

"gds" wrote in message
om...
So my question is "why bother?"

Really, what do you do with this number once you have it? Do you
calculate this so that you can justify an extra Twinkie?

I think information is a good thing. But I also think that endless
amounts of data are a waste of time.

Having a good fix on caloric consumption may be useful at high levels
of competiton for such long distance events as TDF, the Giro, etc. But
what use is it to the recreational rider? Are you really going to
count your calories in vs. out?
I think it's a bit silly. If you have a scale you can easily monitor
1) short term wt loss (from a ride) which is a measure of dehydration
and 2) long term weight change trends which is actual weight loss or
gain. Calculating it on the ride seems to be an effort to have a
number and little more.

The Polar A5 heart rate monitor calculates calories expended. Presumably it
uses some sort of algorithm based on heart rate, time, and some profile info
about height, weight, and age, since those are the only data it has.

While there is no reason to assume it is accurate in the sense of
corresponding exactly to the number of calories actually expended, it
probably is quite accurate in the sense that if it shows I used twice as
many calories Tuesday as I did Monday, that is very likely true.

"gds" wrote in message
om...
So my question is "why bother?"

Really, what do you do with this number once you have it? Do you
calculate this so that you can justify an extra Twinkie?

I think information is a good thing. But I also think that endless
amounts of data are a waste of time.

Having a good fix on caloric consumption may be useful at high levels
of competiton for such long distance events as TDF, the Giro, etc. But
what use is it to the recreational rider? Are you really going to
count your calories in vs. out?
I think it's a bit silly. If you have a scale you can easily monitor
1) short term wt loss (from a ride) which is a measure of dehydration
and 2) long term weight change trends which is actual weight loss or
gain. Calculating it on the ride seems to be an effort to have a
number and little more.

The Polar A5 heart rate monitor calculates calories expended. Presumably it
uses some sort of algorithm based on heart rate, time, and some profile info
about height, weight, and age, since those are the only data it has.

While there is no reason to assume it is accurate in the sense of
corresponding exactly to the number of calories actually expended, it
probably is quite accurate in the sense that if it shows I used twice as
many calories Tuesday as I did Monday, that is very likely true.

"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
...

This is really obvious, but any calorie calculation uses depends on what
you
think the calorie burn rate is. The burn rate is also logarithmic; that
is,
the faster you go, the number of calories burned per unit of time
increases on
a logarithmic curve. Therefore, finding an accurate base is important.
There
are also other factors to consider, such as elevation gain, wind, bike
position, weight, etc, which also go into the base.


Power is not a logarithmic function. It is a polynomial function.

Here is a simple version. Note that force is a 2nd order function
(quadratic), and power is a 3rd order (cubic).


force = (rolling resistance + slope ) * mass + air drag * speed * speed
power = force * speed
energy = power*time

and calories are energy.

Bruce


--
Kevan Smith

"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
...

This is really obvious, but any calorie calculation uses depends on what
you
think the calorie burn rate is. The burn rate is also logarithmic; that
is,
the faster you go, the number of calories burned per unit of time
increases on
a logarithmic curve. Therefore, finding an accurate base is important.
There
are also other factors to consider, such as elevation gain, wind, bike
position, weight, etc, which also go into the base.


Power is not a logarithmic function. It is a polynomial function.

Here is a simple version. Note that force is a 2nd order function
(quadratic), and power is a 3rd order (cubic).


force = (rolling resistance + slope ) * mass + air drag * speed * speed
power = force * speed
energy = power*time

and calories are energy.

Bruce


--
Kevan Smith

"Jack Kessler" wrote in message news:kcc%c.124423$9d6.52475@attbi_s54...

The Polar A5 heart rate monitor calculates calories expended. Presumably it
uses some sort of algorithm based on heart rate, time, and some profile info
about height, weight, and age, since those are the only data it has.

While there is no reason to assume it is accurate in the sense of
corresponding exactly to the number of calories actually expended, it
probably is quite accurate in the sense that if it shows I used twice as
many calories Tuesday as I did Monday, that is very likely true.



And what good does knowing this do? I'm serious. I mean if you have
fun keeping track of this that's fine with me. But what nutritional
value does it add? Will you eat more to make up a "deficit" or eat
less because you in "surplus"?

I undrstand why folks use HR monitors as that measure the particulare
effort at a a point in time relative to an indiviuals max HR or some
other benchmark. I understand measuring cadence. But the use of a
calorie estimator simply escapes me.