In pursuit of losing the beer gut for easier hills! (HR/Calorie Question)

[ajclarkson]

Hi all,

As explained in my welcome thread I've been struggling with some of the hills here in Durham, and one thing that won't help (besides lack of cardio fitness) is the beer gut I've developed. It's not huge and other than that I'm in ok overall shape, but I'm in the process of trying to drop around 8kg off my weight to get more to a more ideal level. I'm hoping that I'll notice that on the hills too!

So I picked up a couple of the sufferfest trainer videos (I highly recommend them for high intensity intervals!) and I've just finished doing one with my heart rate monitor on. Now if the figures are to believed (53 minutes moving time, 11.9mph average over 10.9m distance) and taking my age and weight into account, my average heart rate for the session of 164bpm tells me that I'll have burnt 896 calories in that session (according to this calculator I found)

I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but that just seems pretty high to me, and I'm doubting that I'll have burnt that many calories. So I thought I'd drop by here and see if anyone more knowledgeable than I can advise me if it's realistic.

 

[Rob3rt]

Personal opinion here, but I would quit with the sufferfest stuff. Based on your welcome post, you will not have the base to sustain this workload, you will make gains in the short term, plateau and then probably go backwards as your body and mind tells you to fark off. What you need is to spend more time on the bike, just riding it. Way to many people jump into high intensity stuff way to early in their cycling development, whether this is due to enthusiasm, not knowing any better, encouragement from others who don't know any better etc varies case to case, but it really is not good practice to be smashing yourself to bits at this stage.

As for the calories burnt, well your HR value tells us nothing, 164 bpm is meaningless without context, the context comes from knowing your max heart rate (so you can estimate the degree of intensity). In an hour I will burn between 800 and 1000 calories depending on the workout ( this is based on kJ measured at the crank with no scaling factor, so actually an under estimate if you believe the literature) so as a general comment, your value does not seem unrealistic to me. However, just because it is not unrealistic, doesn't mean it is accurate.

 

[avsd]

I agree with Rob's views. Indoor training on a turbo is a very hard regime to stick at for any length of time. Get out cycling preferable with some other people. Have you considered joining a local cycling club?

 

[Rob3rt]

You don't need to be outside riding necessarily, although it is probably going to be more enjoyable when duration is the name of the game. Generally though, if you have the discipline to ride indoors for a couple of hours, then the turbo is fine, just knock the intensity on the head and build a foundation. Without a foundation, whatever you build with the high intensity work is likely to crumble.

FWIW, I do ALL of my training rides on a turbo trainer, this approximates to about 6-7 hours a week, then about 1-2 hours on the road (warming up, racing, warming down). I ride outside more during the winter.

 

[Minotier]

I agree with Rob's views. Indoor training on a turbo is a very hard regime to stick at for any length of time. Get out cycling preferable with some other people. Have you considered joining a local cycling club?

Get out on the bike and bang your mileage up, steadily or you may lose the will and pack it all in.
Save the Turbo for bad weather and shortage of time days.
The sun is out now, get going.
Me too!

 

[ColinJ]

Here's a suggestion - cycle 2,000 miles out on the road. If you don't go overboard with sports drinks and cafe stops to fuel those rides then you will get most or all of the weight off. How long that takes is up to you. At 40 miles a week, it would take the best part of a year. At 125 miles a week, you'd be sorted by the end of the summer! Ride quickly or slowly, it doesn't really matter, but you will get it done faster if you ride faster.

 

[ajclarkson]

Thanks for the input guys really appreciated. This is exactly why I joined here!

OK, so to address a couple of the points:

Way to many people jump into high intensity stuff way to early in their cycling development, whether this is due to enthusiasm, not knowing any better, encouragement from others who don't know any better etc varies case to case, but it really is not good practice to be smashing yourself to bits at this stage.

Get out on the bike and bang your mileage up, steadily or you may lose the will and pack it all in.
Save the Turbo for bad weather and shortage of time days.
The sun is out now, get going.
Me too!

Combination of enthusiasm, not knowing any better, and being pushed for time on weekdays. I thought I'd get more benefit doing a couple of HIIT sessions through the week (1 hour sessions thereabouts) and trying to get out for a longer ride on a weekend when I have a bit more time. It seems I might not be doing the right thing there then. So for my 1 hour sessions would I be better still doing steady miles (regardless of trainer/outdoors)? I guess if I'm doing steady miles for an hour, there would be scope for doing more than a couple of sessions a week, as I wouldn't need the same recovery time as well? Trainer motivation doesn't seem to be an issue for me (at least not yet!) Though I have to admit the sufferfest videos did make the time pass much faster than when I was just watching TV.

As for the calories burnt, well your HR value tells us nothing, 164 bpm is meaningless without context, the context comes from knowing your max heart rate (so you can estimate the degree of intensity). In an hour I will burn between 800 and 1000 calories depending on the workout ( this is based on kJ measured at the crank with no scaling factor, so actually an under estimate if you believe the literature) so as a general comment, your value does not seem unrealistic to me. However, just because it is not unrealistic, doesn't mean it is accurate.

Sorry should have included my max (though it's only estimated, haven't tested it as yet) a couple of different calculators I've tried (not the 220-age ones) give me 191bpm. I'm not religiously tracking calories or anything, was just curious as to whether it was realistic or not!

I agree with Rob's views. Indoor training on a turbo is a very hard regime to stick at for any length of time. Get out cycling preferable with some other people. Have you considered joining a local cycling club?

I've thought about a cycling club, have had a quick look but didn't see any (with the exception of a couple of really serious ones) that wouldn't require me to drive to really (there must be some in Durham that I'm missing) and I don't have a car. However, I'm not sure I'm at the right level even for the beginner rides yet.

Thanks again, all really useful advice.

 

[Rob3rt]

Combination of enthusiasm, not knowing any better, and being pushed for time on weekdays. I thought I'd get more benefit doing a couple of HIIT sessions through the week (1 hour sessions thereabouts) and trying to get out for a longer ride on a weekend when I have a bit more time. It seems I might not be doing the right thing there then. So for my 1 hour sessions would I be better still doing steady miles (regardless of trainer/outdoors)? I guess if I'm doing steady miles for an hour, there would be scope for doing more than a couple of sessions a week, as I wouldn't need the same recovery time as well? Trainer motivation doesn't seem to be an issue for me (at least not yet!) Though I have to admit the sufferfest videos did make the time pass much faster than when I was just watching TV.



Sorry should have included my max (though it's only estimated, haven't tested it as yet) a couple of different calculators I've tried (not the 220-age ones) give me 191bpm. I'm not religiously tracking calories or anything, was just curious as to whether it was realistic or not!

IMO, steady rides on the turbo (or the road) will be better for you, long term. They don't have to be piss easy, an hour of tempo riding (generally ~85% MHR for me) will be plenty intense enough and as you rightly said, would afford you the ability to do more of them because of the increased rate of recovery, you could break them down into 2x20 minute intervals with a rest between (rest = riding easy, not stopping or having a nap). 3 turbo sessions and one longer weekend ride on the road should develop your fitness and help shed weight pretty good! That would amount to total ride time of 5-6 hours, most people could fit that in, even if it means waking up an hour early or doing the training in your lunch hour or something.

Being a turbo fiend has one very major drawback, it wont develop you bike handling skills! I'll be the 1st to admit, even though my bike handling skills have never been particularly good, rather shoddy tbh, they have probably got worse with increased time on the turbo, takes me about 20 mins to feel "right" on the bike each Saturday when I start warming up for racing, I usually feel a bit skittish for a while. So it pays to get time on the road to learn to handle your bike well.

Re. the max HR, no matter, it was just a general comment and didn't really have much if any influence on my response. I would say, the value you present for calories burned sounds realistic enough to me. Whether accurate or not is another question, the reality is, it is probably not that accurate but then again it doesn't really matter much.

 

[ajclarkson]

Cheers Rob,

I'll start giving that a go instead then, the more it definitely makes sense to get some base miles and a strong foundation before worrying about the high intensity stuff. Though I will miss those naps in between intervals!

 

[Mo1959]

Here's a suggestion - cycle 2,000 miles out on the road. If you don't go overboard with sports drinks and cafe stops to fuel those rides then you will get most or all of the weight off. How long that takes is up to you. At 40 miles a week, it would take the best part of a year. At 125 miles a week, you'd be sorted by the end of the summer! Ride quickly or slowly, it doesn't really matter, but you will get it done faster if you ride faster.

Probably something in that Colin. I was around 9 stone 5 at the beginning of the year, have cycled around 2000 miles and I am now about 8 stone 6 so pretty spot on what you said there, so yes, I would agree with getting a decent base mileage in then think about upping intensity a bit later.

 

[ajclarkson]

Here's a suggestion - cycle 2,000 miles out on the road. If you don't go overboard with sports drinks and cafe stops to fuel those rides then you will get most or all of the weight off. How long that takes is up to you. At 40 miles a week, it would take the best part of a year. At 125 miles a week, you'd be sorted by the end of the summer! Ride quickly or slowly, it doesn't really matter, but you will get it done faster if you ride faster.

Probably something in that Colin. I was around 9 stone 5 at the beginning of the year, have cycled around 2000 miles and I am now about 8 stone 6 so pretty spot on what you said there, so yes, I would agree with getting a decent base mileage in then think about upping intensity a bit later.

Good to know. Don't think I'll be able to fit 125 miles a week in a my pace now!!!! But I'll keep plugging at it and I'll get there doing something I really enjoy. Can't get much better than that can it!

 

[ColinJ]

In case it wasn't obvious ... I meant that 2,000 miles of cycling would burn off around 8 kg of fat if your weight was stable before you started the cycling, and you didn't consume excessive extra calories after starting the cycling.

If you are doing rides up to about 25-30 miles for weight loss, then I suggest not eating anything extra and just drinking water (About 0.5L an hour; more in hot weather, with some electrolytes in.)

If you do longer rides for weight loss and you need to take in extra calories to avoid exhaustion, then don't overdo it. Try 200 Cals an hour and see how you get on.

 

[ajclarkson]

In case it wasn't obvious ... I meant that 2,000 miles of cycling would burn off around 8 kg of fat if your weight was stable before you started the cycling, and you didn't consume excessive extra calories after starting the cycling.

If you are doing rides up to about 25-30 miles for weight loss, then I suggest not eating anything extra and just drinking water (About 0.5L an hour; more in hot weather, with some electrolytes in.)

If you do longer rides for weight loss and you need to take in extra calories to avoid exhaustion, then don't overdo it. Try 200 Cals an hour and see how you get on.

Yep I was assuming the 2,000 was in reference to losing 8kg from a stable point, which is where I'm at pretty much. The tips about water abouts and cals for longer rides are really helpful though, thanks.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

How many calories burnt/mile please?

Just a rough figure would be good to know - and probably not good to know if you know what I mean.

 

[Rob3rt]

I seem to average ~47 kJ per mile (measured using a power meter).

Now you could go digging in the literature and read all about the efficiency of the human body, and you will come up with lots of different values.

Or for ease you could just take 47 kJ = 47 kCal, based on the conversion of J to Cal being around 1:4 and then the assumed efficiency of the human body being around 25% (i.e. the body's efficiency in converting each Cal into physical output, the other 75% being lost as heat etc), thus the conversion factor cancel out, leaving with a 1:1 relationship. The reality is, the relationship will not be 1:1 but it is fair to say, this is likely to be closer to reality than many other methods.