| View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Chrace
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Posts: 2910
Location: Eating a Yorkie
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:07 pm Post subject: Calories spent in training |
 |
|
So, here I was thinking I was using loads of calories by training.
Then I took the unfortunate time to google "240 watt hour in calories" following a turbo session. Which equates to a massive 206 (K)calories.
My Garmin keeps saying an hour of running is 1000 calories for me, and my rowing machine has in-built calorie counter which says I can burn 1000 calories in 20 minutes when hitting it hard. Neither of these felt anywhere 5 times as hard as an hour on the turbo.
Garmin got it wrong, sure I can get that, but why does the rower over-estimate so massively on something it can surely estimate fairly precisely?
Also, anyone know roughly how swim/bike/run aligns to each other in a very vague and rough average? Say "an hour of biking is 50% spent compared with an hour of running" (for equal PE) or something.
_________________
Where the mind goes the body follows.
Last edited by Chrace on Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jibberjim
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 8392
Location: Kingston
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:17 pm Post subject: Re: Calories spent in training |
|
|
| Chrace wrote: | | Garmin got it wrong, sure I can get that, but why does the rower over-estimate so massively on something it can surely estimate fairly precisely? |
No, garmin was measuring output you may have produced 240watts for your hour, but of course you are not a 100% efficient machine, you got hot I imagine... typical cycling efficiency for a human is a bit over 20%, so yes right around that 1000 you estimated.
Running is of course harder to estimate, because efficiency in running is so much more variable than in cycling (stride length, how much braking, how elastic etc. all vary it more) so it's harder to go from output metric like the watts there, hence it relying more on an HR estimate which is measuring calories burnt.
_________________
Jibbering Sports Stuff
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chrace
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Posts: 2910
Location: Eating a Yorkie
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:30 pm Post subject: Re: Calories spent in training |
|
|
| jibberjim wrote: | | Chrace wrote: | | Garmin got it wrong, sure I can get that, but why does the rower over-estimate so massively on something it can surely estimate fairly precisely? |
No, garmin was measuring output you may have produced 240watts for your hour, but of course you are not a 100% efficient machine, you got hot I imagine... typical cycling efficiency for a human is a bit over 20%, so yes right around that 1000 you estimated. |
I had no idea we were that inefficient!
In that case they're probably not far off each other. The rower is still massively out if it's showing effective output but if it's estimating my burn then perhaps less off the mark.
Thanks!
_________________
Where the mind goes the body follows.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
explorerJC
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 16060
Location: Farthingstone
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: Calories spent in training |
|
|
| jibberjim wrote: | | Chrace wrote: | | Garmin got it wrong, sure I can get that, but why does the rower over-estimate so massively on something it can surely estimate fairly precisely? |
. typical cycling efficiency for a human is a bit over 20%, s. |
any idea what it is for a fish?
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching
www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach
2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stenard
Joined: 04 Sep 2013
Posts: 2063
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chrace
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Posts: 2910
Location: Eating a Yorkie
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks stenard. That's plenty precise for me and avoids knowing fish mechanics.
_________________
Where the mind goes the body follows.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JaRok2300
Joined: 01 May 2014
Posts: 461
Location: Worcester, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
On a slightly related note I've noticed that Garmin (in conjunction with My Fitness Pal) gives me the calories credit for a run but also the number of steps whilst running which feels like double counting.
Does anyone know if this is correct & taken into account or whether there is some way of disabling this?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iwaters
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Posts: 448
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Surprised the rower is so out as presumably if it s a Concept2 it has a power meter. The more accurate something measures your output the more accurate the algorithms are when calculating the calories by factoring the inefficiency.
Usually PM > HRM > Nothing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tuckandgo
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 461
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:27 am Post subject: Re: Calories spent in training |
|
|
| Chrace wrote: | So, here I was thinking I was using loads of calories by training.
Then I took the unfortunate time to google "240 watt hour in calories" following a turbo session. Which equates to a massive 206 (K)calories.
My Garmin keeps saying an hour of running is 1000 calories for me, and my rowing machine has in-built calorie counter which says I can burn 1000 calories in 20 minutes when hitting it hard. Neither of these felt anywhere 5 times as hard as an hour on the turbo.
Garmin got it wrong, sure I can get that, but why does the rower over-estimate so massively on something it can surely estimate fairly precisely?
Also, anyone know roughly how swim/bike/run aligns to each other in a very vague and rough average? Say "an hour of biking is 50% spent compared with an hour of running" (for equal PE) or something. |
Good rule of thumb for running is 100 calories a mile. (burn few for a longer time or more in a shorter time over the same distance and so forth)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whisk
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 8739
Location: London
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: Calories spent in training |
|
|
| Chrace wrote: | So, here I was thinking I was using loads of calories by training.
Then I took the unfortunate time to google "240 watt hour in calories" following a turbo session. Which equates to a massive 206 (K)calories.
My Garmin keeps saying an hour of running is 1000 calories for me, and my rowing machine has in-built calorie counter which says I can burn 1000 calories in 20 minutes when hitting it hard. Neither of these felt anywhere 5 times as hard as an hour on the turbo.
Garmin got it wrong, sure I can get that, but why does the rower over-estimate so massively on something it can surely estimate fairly precisely?
Also, anyone know roughly how swim/bike/run aligns to each other in a very vague and rough average? Say "an hour of biking is 50% spent compared with an hour of running" (for equal PE) or something. |
There's no way that you're burning 3x as many calories on the rowing machine as you are when you're running. If you think about it from a physiological point of view, you're breathing in oxygen and using it to burn carbs and fat, so the calorie burn must be proportional to your % of VO2max and your body weight.
_________________
2019: Just riding my bike....
Hot Chillee ride captain (sponsored by Specialized, Sigma Sports, Kalas, Wahoo, One Pro Cycle Insurance)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chrace
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Posts: 2910
Location: Eating a Yorkie
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iwaters wrote: | Surprised the rower is so out as presumably if it s a Concept2 it has a power meter. The more accurate something measures your output the more accurate the algorithms are when calculating the calories by factoring the inefficiency.
Usually PM > HRM > Nothing. |
It's an older Kettler Axos so defo not PM based. Might play around with resistance settings and see how that affects it - it at all.
Concept 2 is just far too expensive for how much I use it. 
_________________
Where the mind goes the body follows.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jorgan
Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 18226
Location: alles was ich bin, alles was ich war
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's simple. If you're putting on weight, you're over-fuelling. If you're losing weight, you're under-fuelling, and if you're stable, you've got it about right. This assumes your BMI is in the green zone.
Next question? 
_________________
27 Years since it all began....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Albums
Memberlist
Bloglist
Wiki
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
