Long-term fatigue

[Angelfishsolo]

How's giving him misleading information helping?

Tracking calorie intake = good practice.

Assuming calorie burn based on poorly set up websites = poor practice.

It's not even clear his fatigue is down to his diet. This is a such a great illustration of why people should not rely on internet forum's for health advice.

Agreed. Every metabolism is unique so food charts are only guides. If not already recommended a full blood work-up should be done as long term fatigue can be caused my many conditions.

 

[lulubel]

You ask how giving misleading information is helping. It isn't. This is misleading, and is not helping.

I tend to assume that I burn about 500 calories an hour, and thats at 20mph average, flatish roads, no drafting.

As Angelfish said, everyone's metabolism is different. You don't mention how tall or heavy you are, or how fit you are. These make a massive difference to how many calories you burn, so your figure of 500 calories an hour might just as well have been plucked out of thin air as far as anyone else is concerned.

The site Matt is using probably takes his height and weight into account, if not his fitness, so is likely to be more accurate for him than someone else's figure.

 

[VamP]

You ask how giving misleading information is helping. It isn't. This is misleading, and is not helping.



As Angelfish said, everyone's metabolism is different. You don't mention how tall or heavy you are, or how fit you are. These make a massive difference to how many calories you burn, so your figure of 500 calories an hour might just as well have been plucked out of thin air as far as anyone else is concerned.

The site Matt is using probably takes his height and weight into account, if not his fitness, so is likely to be more accurate for him than someone else's figure.

Actually weight over flat terrain has little impact. Speed has biggest impact on required power, due to air resistance. Which is why I quote it to illustrate my example. Fitness and height are irrelevant.

As we know from Matt that his speed is less, then it follows that his power output and therefore calories burned per hour will be significantly less than the 1000 calories this website blithely assumes. How much less I do not hazard to guess, and I am not advocating that he uses my assumption, as we know his route in the Downs is hilly.

As an additional pointer I also do cycle a lot in the North Downs, and my average speed there is in the 17 mph region, if that is of any use to the OP. This is for longer (cca 3 hour) rides, so will not be at the same intensity as the rides I referred to earlier.


My example is not misleading, as to whether it is helping, perhaps you should credit the OP with enough intelligence to decide for himself if it's helpful or not. Your advice to rely on inaccurate information, and to assume that he is burning a lot more calories than he is could be considered unhelpful by some


Not to mention your blind faith that his problems are due to his diet. He should go and see his doctor, and get a full bloodwork done in the first instance.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Actually weight over flat terrain has little impact. Speed has biggest impact on required power, due to air resistance. Which is why I quote it to illustrate my example. Fitness and height are irrelevant.

As we know from Matt that his speed is less, then it follows that his power output and therefore calories burned per hour will be significantly less than the 1000 calories this website blithely assumes. How much less I do not hazard to guess, and I am not advocating that he uses my assumption, as we know his route in the Downs is hilly.

As an additional pointer I also do cycle a lot in the North Downs, and my average speed there is in the 17 mph region, if that is of any use to the OP. This is for longer (cca 3 hour) rides, so will not be at the same intensity as the rides I referred to earlier.


My example is not misleading, as to whether it is helping, perhaps you should credit the OP with enough intelligence to decide for himself if it's helpful or not. Your advice to rely on inaccurate information, and to assume that he is burning a lot more calories than he is could be considered unhelpful by some


Not to mention your blind faith that his problems are due to his diet. He should go and see his doctor, and get a full bloodwork done in the first instance.

I'm sorry. Are you saying that because his speed is low his he will burn less calories. That assumes a direct correlation between power output and calories burned. That may be demonstrable on a person to person basis but not as a generalisation.

 

[VamP]

I'm sorry. Are you saying that because his speed is low his he will burn less calories. That assumes a direct correlation between power output and calories burned. That may be demonstrable on a person to person basis but not as a generalisation.

Absolutely there is a direct correlation between power output and calories burned. Calories are energy which equals power multiplied by time. Basic physics. Biology only enters at the conversion from food energy to output energy. The human body is between 20 - 25 % efficient at converting food energy into energy output, so the actual amount burned will depend on the individual, but within that range.

So in my case, burning 500 calories per hour means that I am putting out about 119 calories per hour of work, to maintain that speed. If I travelled at a speed requiring half of that work then my calorie burn would be about 250. If I travelled at a speed that required twice the work then my calorie burn would be about 1000. If I could sustain that rate of work for an hour, which I know I couldn't. The OP's number's would likely be different for the same work, but only by the a maximum of that 5% efficiency variability.

What I think you may be saying, is that the correlation between speed and power output is not direct? Which is due to air resistance, or inclination of route, or - to a much lesser extent - the quality of one's bicycle.

 

[amaferanga]

You ask how giving misleading information is helping. It isn't. This is misleading, and is not helping.



As Angelfish said, everyone's metabolism is different. You don't mention how tall or heavy you are, or how fit you are. These make a massive difference to how many calories you burn, so your figure of 500 calories an hour might just as well have been plucked out of thin air as far as anyone else is concerned.

The site Matt is using probably takes his height and weight into account, if not his fitness, so is likely to be more accurate for him than someone else's figure.

I bet my house he isn't burning 1000kcal an hour on his regular rides.

 

[LosingFocus]

On another forum I have used, this was taken as a pretty accurate calories/hour chart:

http://www.nutristra...ess/cycling.htm

NB: Obv. everyone is different etc etc.

 

[lulubel]

Actually weight over flat terrain has little impact. Speed has biggest impact on required power, due to air resistance. Which is why I quote it to illustrate my example. Fitness and height are irrelevant.

Weight has a lot of impact. It takes a lot more calories just to maintain a higher weight sitting still. It takes more again to move that weight. Fitness and height are not irrelevant. Your level of fitness will dictate how much effort it will take you to move a certain amount of weight over a certain distance at a certain speed. Generally, taller people burn more calories overall.

Your advice to rely on inaccurate information, and to assume that he is burning a lot more calories than he is could be considered unhelpful by some

Maybe you should try reading my post again and tell me where I told him to "rely on" any information rather than using it as a starting point.

Not to mention your blind faith that his problems are due to his diet.

Again, quote your source for the "blind faith" you claim I am expressing.

 

[VamP]

Weight has a lot of impact. It takes a lot more calories just to maintain a higher weight sitting still. It takes more again to move that weight. Fitness and height are not irrelevant. Your level of fitness will dictate how much effort it will take you to move a certain amount of weight over a certain distance at a certain speed. Generally, taller people burn more calories overall.



Maybe you should try reading my post again and tell me where I told him to "rely on" any information rather than using it as a starting point.



Again, quote your source for the "blind faith" you claim I am expressing.

We are discussing additional calories burned through cycling, not his total!

You seem to be taking this personally.


NFI. Go away and do some reading.

 

[Rob3rt]

This thread contains some of the most ridiculous comments of any thread I have seen on this here forum!

Get real guys and gals!

1000kCal an hour? Bollocks!

Only moderate exercise burns fat? LMFAO - Bollocks!

'That assumes a direct correlation between power output and calories burned' - That assumption would be a correct one, kCal is a measure of energy (it can also be expressed in joules), power is rate of energy, it can be expressed in Joule/S.

However lets not forget that when working out a comparison between Kcal and power, muscle efficiency and also mechanical efficiency will effect the result, a muscle efficiency of around 25% (ballpark) combined with power lost via extranous movement, mechanical losses etc will explain why the power measured at the cranks will not be a simple unit conversion to Kcal spent with respect to time.

 

[VamP]

This thread contains some of the most ridiculous comments of any thread I have seen on this here forum!

Get real guys and gals!

1000kCal an hour? Bollocks!

Only moderate exercise burns fat? LMFAO - Bollocks!

'That assumes a direct correlation between power output and calories burned' - That assumption would be a correct one, kCal is a measure of energy (it can also be expressed in joules), power is rate of energy, it can be expressed in Joule/S.

However lets not forget that when working out a comparison between Kcal and power, muscle efficiency and also mechanical efficiency will effect the result, a muscle efficiency of around 25% (ballpark) combined with power lost via extranous movement, mechanical losses etc will explain why the power measured at the cranks will not be a simple unit conversion to Kcal spent with respect to time.

Careful, someone will be along in a minute to tell you that you're not helping

 

[VamP]

On another forum I have used, this was taken as a pretty accurate calories/hour chart:

http://www.nutristra...ess/cycling.htm

NB: Obv. everyone is different etc etc.

It would have to be very hilly for that to be accurate.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I will say this once more. Everybodys body is unique, their metabolic rate is different. The only way to know for certain is to stick to a given eating plan and exercise regime and see the results.

 

[Rob3rt]

I will say this once more. Everybodys body is unique, their metabolic rate is different. The only way to know for certain is to stick to a given eating plan and exercise regime and see the results.

Every person may vary to some degree and even your method of knowing for certain would not be conclusive, but this cant account for the absurd numbers quoted here. 1000 kCal an hour, what are you doing riding up walls?

 

[lulubel]

I will say this once more. Everybodys body is unique, their metabolic rate is different. The only way to know for certain is to stick to a given eating plan and exercise regime and see the results.

Thanks, Angelfish. That's pretty much what I was saying here, but someone who knows nothing about me seems to assume I'm stupid and know nothing.

Ah, well. There are rude, ignorant people everywhere, I guess.

And I'm leaving this thread because I can't be bothered with any more of this stupidity.

Sorry, Matt.