# bike computers and calorie consumption



## rmagill (11 Jan 2009)

Can anyone offer advice? When entering weight into the cycle computer re. calorie consumption, should you also include the weight of the bike?

Cheers

Ron


----------



## RedBike (11 Jan 2009)

I don't think it really matters. They're not likely to be that accurate anyway. 
I would include the bike, just because it will read higher and look like you've used more calories!


----------



## Will1985 (11 Jan 2009)

The calorie algorithms on bike computers aren't usually very accurate but you should take into account the weight of your bike as you're using energy to push those 10kg along as well.


----------



## gemma83 (11 Jan 2009)

I would include the bike weight or has that been thought out as it is a bike computer???


----------



## Steve Austin (11 Jan 2009)

You don't include the weight of the bike


----------



## rmagill (15 Jan 2009)

*seeking further advice on calorie consumption*

I've contacted the folks at Sigma - from whom I purchased a Sigma ROX 8.0. Their initial adivice was that entering the weight of the bike shouldn't make much difference on calories consumed and their suggestions was to NOT include the bike weight. The following is an exerpt from my reply to Sigma:

"Again, thanks for such a prompt reply to my email. In response to your previous comments I did a couple of rides to compare calorie consumption with and without the weight of the bike. Here's what I found:

Ride 1: 50.34kms / 28.5kph (ave) / 159 HR (ave) / *83kg* weight input (naked body weight) = 1540 Calories

Ride 2: 51.88kms / 27.5kph (ave) / 161 HR (ave) / *95kg* weight input (body weight + bike + gear) = 1959 Calories

So it would seem that similar distances travelled at comparable speeds and heart rates result in approx. a 27% increase in calorie consumption when including the weight of the bike."

I'll be interested to see what they say. Hopefully, before responding the rep will actually contact one of their technicians...

Will let you all know the outcome.


----------



## jimboalee (15 Jan 2009)

The 'Calories' readout on bike computers is widely inaccurate.

As a rule of thumb, if the ride is less than an hour, consider the calories to be 'ZERO'.

It will be approx 400 in reality, but even the skinniest elite cyclist will have enough in reserve to get through ONE hour.
More than an hour, think of about 8 kCals per minute and you won't be far wrong.


----------



## Fab Foodie (15 Jan 2009)

jimboalee said:


> The 'Calories' readout on bike computers is widely inaccurate.
> 
> As a rule of thumb, if the ride is less than an hour, *consider the calories to be 'ZERO'.*
> It will be approx 400 in reality, but even the skinniest elite cyclist will have enough in reserve to get through ONE hour.
> More than an hour, think of about 8 kCals per minute and you won't be far wrong.




Err... care to explain why Jimbo? You've consumed calories in the first hour so why not count them? Their just as valid as any other calorie.


----------



## jimboalee (16 Jan 2009)

Over breakfast at the Kilternan Golf and Country Club, Co Dublin, on the morning before the first stage of the 1998 Tour de France, George Hincapie said something very interesting. He commented about the size of the breakfast after a question from myself.
"Only on race days. When training, the first part of the ride is to get rid of some bodyfat".
When questioned further, he said "The first dozen miles is to 'warm up'.

To reinforce this, I recently found an article:-

http://www.northlan.gov.uk/leisure+...ities/cycling/nutrition+for+common+rides.html

It says that there is no need to specifically feed a 'Commute or social' ride; and for an interval session, ride it on an empty stomach with negligable deliberate carb' feeding.
This says to me that a ride of one hour duration can be supplied by the body's stored energy, whatever measurable fat% the individual has.

If the object of training is to shed fat and gain muscle, reduced carbs and increased protein would be the way forward.

Discuss...


----------



## jimboalee (16 Jan 2009)

Oh, and another issue FabFoodie.

I haven't CONSUMED calories during the first hour, I've EXPENDED them.


----------



## Ravenz (16 Jan 2009)

work at 5 METS and get real cardiovascular benefit.. work at 7METS and things will happen to your  body. work at 7 METS and above and things happen to your body even more so


----------



## Scoosh (16 Jan 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Oh, and another issue FabFoodie.
> 
> I haven't CONSUMED calories during the first hour, I've EXPENDED them.


What ? Not even a cake stop  ???


----------



## Fab Foodie (16 Jan 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Oh, and another issue FabFoodie.
> 
> I haven't CONSUMED calories during the first hour, I've EXPENDED them.



Sorry, I meant your body consumed them from it's stores (Rather than cake ingestion).

But they still count as part of the overall calorie count/loss me old fruit! You've expended them, they propelled you forward. The question is how you replace them. It still comes down to Calories intake vs Calories consumed. It's marginally more complex than that, but it's still the basic equation.


----------



## jimboalee (16 Jan 2009)

Appology accepted.
As a mech Eng, I think of my body as a system similar to an internal combustion engine where fuel goes in one end and motion is the result of my efforts.

The answer to your question :
I don't. The first hour is ridden at a leisurely pace to warm up and get my system burning fat as fuel. ( I've got too much of that ). 
When I'm riding futher than a 100km, I plan my feeding according to the guidelines told on the webpage I posted. 

Also, you might find interesting, is a little ditty told to me by a CTC member many years ago.
"If you ride for two hours, and stop for half and hour; and then ride for another two hours, they are two seperate rides."
The thinking behind this is that the muscles have cooled during the half hour, so the second half of the day's ride will be started with cold muscles.
I can agree with this and gave some well needed advice to Shearer and Chiles on their Newcastle to London trip for Sport Relief. They rode too fast and stopped for too long. When they got going after a stop, they suffered cramps. They didn't realise their muscles had cooled so much a 'warm up' was needed with every section.
They finished the ride at 'Randonneur' speed, and could have ridden slower with shorter stops, as befitting a 300 mile epic.
Riding the speed they did, they effectively doubled their power requirements, but I suppose it was infront of cameras, so a bit of 'theatrical' was thrown in. 

Anyway, we got free nosh at the stops...


----------



## fossyant (16 Jan 2009)

I run at 1000 cals per hour for a long ride....I burn it, and eat it for plus 3 hour rides..it works for me..... and that's at a 20 mph average............


----------



## jimboalee (17 Jan 2009)

If I enter a circular ride of an hour duration at an average of 20 mph into my calcs, I burn 630 kCals.

I'm not saying you are wrong. A 10 deg C temperature reduction can up the count by 100 kCals.


----------

