Calorie Estimates....

On 16 Jul 2004 16:51:04 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

Michael MacClancy writes:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:19:56 +0000 (UTC), LaoFuZhi wrote:

Two factors which will affect calorie expenditu power output (in watts)
and efficiency.

That's the bit I don't get... I thought the calorie expenditure would be
linked to the amount of work done.... i.e. move a certain weight over a
certain distance in a given time.....

But when you getter fitter you get more efficient, meaning you need less
energy to perform this task.

No, I'd say the main advantage in getting fitter is that you can
expend more energy at a given task, although possibly there is an
increase in efficiency as well.

A

Ambrose, I'm sure you're right and my initial logic was wrong. Increasing
fitness probably means increasing the body's capacity to do work by
providing more oxygen and consuming more calories.

This means that the calorie consumption algorithms used by most HRMs can
only be rough guides. They must be based on population statistics and are
not specific to individuals. If you start a training programme and a
particular task takes, say, 10mins at an average 120bpm and after a while
you get to do the same task in 10mins at 110bpm then you're going to
consume the same calories because it's the same work. The difference is
that the heart capacity has increased and it can provide the necessary
oxygen to burn the calories at a lower bpm. The HRM doesn't know this
though and measures a lower calorie consumption than actually incurred.

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He loves nature in spite of what it did to him." -
Forrest Tucker
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

No, I'd say the main advantage in getting fitter is that you can
expend more energy at a given task, although possibly there is an
increase in efficiency as well.

Isn't there a Greg Lamond quote that goes something
like: "It doesn't get easier -- you just get faster"?


--
jc

Remove the -not from email

LaoFuZhi wrote:
If you're losing weight then all other things being equal you'll burn
less calories during a given ride as time goes by too.


I caught onto that one early and started weighting the bike to keep the
overall weight more or less even..



Did you keep your weight setting the same in the HRM? The HRM will know
nothing about the weight you put on the bike...

--
Chris

Did you keep your weight setting the same in the HRM? The HRM will know
nothing about the weight you put on the bike...


There's no input for things like weight, age, sex etc.......

That's where I'm confused......

Am I expending the same amount of calories, but the HRM isn't compensating
for the reduction in time ( I'm getting faster over the distance) and lower
overall heart rate???

You shouldn't put too much stock in the calorie estimates HRM gizmo
produce. You could always ask the manufacturers of yours how it
calculates calories expended. (My polar s520 does have
weight/height/sex data in it - but I don't know exactly how it uses
this.)

yeah, I'm beginning to realise that. Thing is I need some sort of esttimate
and am now baffled by whether I'm using less energy as I get fitter or not..

"LaoFuZhi" the.real.address thing.not.too.hard.to.work.out writes:

Did you keep your weight setting the same in the HRM? The HRM will know
nothing about the weight you put on the bike...


There's no input for things like weight, age, sex etc.......

That's where I'm confused......

Am I expending the same amount of calories, but the HRM isn't compensating
for the reduction in time ( I'm getting faster over the distance) and lower
overall heart rate???


You shouldn't put too much stock in the calorie estimates HRM gizmo
produce. You could always ask the manufacturers of yours how it
calculates calories expended. (My polar s520 does have
weight/height/sex data in it - but I don't know exactly how it uses
this.)

Ambrose Nankivell:
No, I'd say the main advantage in getting fitter is that you can
expend more energy at a given task, although possibly there is an
increase in efficiency as well.

As Greg Lemond says, and I love to quote: "It doesn't get easier, you just
go faster."

d.

Jeremy Collins:
Isn't there a Greg Lamond quote that goes something
like: "It doesn't get easier -- you just get faster"?

You know, I really should read other people's replies before posting my own.

d.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:20:08 +0000 (UTC), "LaoFuZhi" the.real.address
thing.not.too.hard.to.work.out
wrote (more or less):

You shouldn't put too much stock in the calorie estimates HRM gizmo
produce. You could always ask the manufacturers of yours how it
calculates calories expended. (My polar s520 does have
weight/height/sex data in it - but I don't know exactly how it uses
this.)

yeah, I'm beginning to realise that. Thing is I need some sort of esttimate
and am now baffled by whether I'm using less energy as I get fitter or not..

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...


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

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....