Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: fat loss question [JustCurious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tried it (for myself and several people i have the data on), and yes, it's very rough. At the lower intensities it overestimated, and at higher intensities it underestimated.

Ric

http://www.cyclecoach.com
Quote Reply
Re: fat loss question [craigwsullivan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You, sir, are an ass. Ric Stern has probably forgotten more information on this subject than you have ever known. Not that he needs any defense, he's just more polite than am I.

The mistake you make when spouting your equations is your assumption that the work done while moving a bicycle on level ground is a function of the force required to overcome gravity (F=ma). In fact, the only time this comes into play is when accelerating (the "a" above), and that is a vanishingly small percentage of the force (how often is a cyclist actually accelerating?). The predominant forces that need to be overcome are air resistance and friction (drivetrain losses, bearing losses, etc.) and rolling resistance (tire losses).

Mass drops out of the equation, for all intents.

A power meter determines the power by measuring the torque and the angular velocity (I believe); at least the SRM and the Power Tap do. Given the power and time, it can calculate the work. Ric Stern has shown the relationship among work performed, efficiency, and calorie expenditure.

Hope that is useful. Sheesh.

Ken Lehner

----------------------------------
"i disagree with your analysis [or judgment], nevertheless you have the responsibility of moderating this board so i honor your authority to make the moderating decisions."
Quote Reply
Re: fat loss question [craigwsullivan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I said nothing about weight for riding, as it doesn't matter on level ground. For running, however, weight matters, because running is all about overcoming gravity (each step is like falling and pushing up while moving forward).

Lose the attitude and learn something.

Ken Lehner

----------------------------------
"i disagree with your analysis [or judgment], nevertheless you have the responsibility of moderating this board so i honor your authority to make the moderating decisions."
Quote Reply
Re: fat loss question [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ken,

Thanks for chiming in. You have explained the assertion that mass is not relevant in one sentence. Something the learned mr stern could not do.

Which is exactly my point, and someone else's also. While Mr Stern has been able to talk a lot about equations and what is not clear to most of us, he has not been able to express an answer to the question that was asked.

I still assert, give me something I can really use. For most intents and purposes, a rough estimation of the amount of power I used based on what I weigh and how fast I can usually go is good enough. If I were an elite athlete, I would be doing an awful lot more along the lines of measuring power etc.

I do not dispute Ric's assertion that the only real way to ESTIMATE effort is to use a power meter. In fact, if I didn't have to feed, clothe, shelter my family I would have one on my bike. However, reality is that not many of us can afford such toys. So give me something I can afford. Equations are not it.

As I recall, this conversation was between me and mr stern. Where as I chose to call it a wash and move on, you wanted to stick your nose in and call me an ass. Someone who can only express themselves in that way may be considered one himself.

I may be belligerant, ignorant, and uniformed. But I don't like being called an ass.

That said, I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it. With apologies to Voltaire.
Quote Reply
Re: fat loss question [craigwsullivan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You said

"As I recall, this conversation was between me and mr stern. Where as I chose to call it a wash and move on, you wanted to stick your nose in and call me an ass. Someone who can only express themselves in that way may be considered one himself."

In a public forum, there is no conversation between two people. If you were having a conversation, you'd have taken it to email.

I've followed Ric Stern's contributions in other fora, and he is consistently polite, informed, and informative. You jumped all over him, with an attitude, based on your incorrect evaluation of the forces affecting bicycles. I defended him and corrected you.

You also said

"I still assert, give me something I can really use."

I also posted estimates for calories burned (not "effort", not power, not work) while running and while cycling at various effort levels, which was more in line with the OP.

Finally, you said

"I may be belligerant, ignorant, and uniformed."

which speaks for itself.

Ken Lehner

----------------------------------
"i disagree with your analysis [or judgment], nevertheless you have the responsibility of moderating this board so i honor your authority to make the moderating decisions."
Quote Reply
Re: fat loss question [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ken,

Read what I wrote. I applauded you for saying what Ric did not. And it was Ric who jumped on me for trying to post a response that addressed the question. He started the whole physics mass doesn't matter, using ridiculous examples like coasting downhill for an hour. His tact was all theoretical. You at least provided some practical information and a practical explanation of why mass doesn't matter. I thanked your for it.

stop looking for a fight, you two came calling and told me what I said was rubbish. And now *I* am the bad guy. I think not.

Say what you like, but you are the only one immature enough to resort to name calling. At least Ric kept it above the belt.

Craig "call me the ass" Sullivan
Quote Reply
Re: fat loss question [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ken,

i thank you for defending me. it's appreciated

cheers

ric

http://www.cyclecoach.com
Quote Reply
Re: fat loss question [craigwsullivan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Craig wrote: i responded with >>

Ken,

Thanks for chiming in. You have explained the assertion that mass is not relevant in one sentence. Something the learned mr stern could not do.

Which is exactly my point, and someone else's also. While Mr Stern has been able to talk a lot about equations and what is not clear to most of us, he has not been able to express an answer to the question that was asked.


>>i did answer the question asked about energy expenditure. and my answer remains the same. if you haven't been to a lab, got a power meter, aren't interested in web sites that require you to input some data then here is how to estimate energy expenditure; just think of a number. This is about as useful as the data from a HR monitor, for trying to e.g., calculate energy intake

I still assert, give me something I can really use. For most intents and purposes, a rough estimation of the amount of power I used based on what I weigh and how fast I can usually go is good enough. If I were an elite athlete, I would be doing an awful lot more along the lines of measuring power etc.


>>analyticcycling.com -- that's useful. takes a couple of minutes to enter some data. and a bit of reading up or asking someone for advice on the physics (even me!). you'll also learn about aerodynamics too.




I do not dispute Ric's assertion that the only real way to ESTIMATE effort is to use a power meter. In fact, if I didn't have to feed, clothe, shelter my family I would have one on my bike. However, reality is that not many of us can afford such toys. So give me something I can afford. Equations are not it.


>>the equations at analytic (there are other web sites that do similar data, but *i* like this site the best) are free. what more do you want?


As I recall, this conversation was between me and mr stern. Where as I chose to call it a wash and move on, you wanted to stick your nose in and call me an ass. Someone who can only express themselves in that way may be considered one himself.


>>as ken pointed out, this is a public forum. if you want a conversation with me, then ring me or email me.

I may be belligerant, ignorant, and uniformed. But I don't like being called an ass.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
Quote Reply
Re: fat loss question [Ric_Stern] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Tried it (for myself and several people i have the data on), and yes, it's very rough. At the lower intensities it overestimated, and at higher intensities it underestimated.

Ric


The accuracy in equating HR to calories burned probably can't be any more accurate than the relationship between HR and power output.

In other words, not all that great...
Last edited by: JustCurious: Aug 5, 03 12:32
Quote Reply
Re: fat loss question [craigwsullivan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Craig wrote: i responded with >>

Ken,

Read what I wrote. I applauded you for saying what Ric did not. And it was Ric who jumped on me for trying to post a response that addressed the question. He started the whole physics mass doesn't matter, using ridiculous examples like coasting downhill for an hour. His tact was all theoretical. You at least provided some practical information and a practical explanation of why mass doesn't matter. I thanked your for it.


>>i said that you can't calculate energy expenditure with a HR monitor using speed, HR and mass. Obviously, mass makes a difference and i alluded to that in earlier posts. However, it has little bearing on flat roads, i.e., it's the retarding force of air drag that is the main problem.

>>the reason i suggested the "ridiculous" example was to point out the differences in topographical conditions. a flat training/racing route at speed x, might well require a completely different average power for a hilly route at speed x. add on to this different environmental conditions, different bike fit/equipment (e.g., aero bike and the full works versus standard road bike) and it becomes obvious that HR monitors can't get anywhere near accurate for any purpose on calculating energy expenditure.


stop looking for a fight, you two came calling and told me what I said was rubbish. And now *I* am the bad guy. I think not.

>>i simply stated some facts on the matter. i'm sorry if you felt slighted.

ric

Say what you like, but you are the only one immature enough to resort to name calling. At least Ric kept it above the belt.

Craig "call me the ass" Sullivan

http://www.cyclecoach.com
Quote Reply
Re: fat loss question [Ric_Stern] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Customerjon, where are you?! We desperately need your powers of thread-killing here.

Thanks all for the amusing pissing contest over how to estimate/calculate/extrapolate/cogitate power output. The next time a question pops into my head during a long ride I'll just chuckle and keep it to myself :-)
Quote Reply
Re: fat loss question [Ric_Stern] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ric,

With all due respect. I understand your point. Yes power meters, labs, etc are the best way to do this.

The website is nice. I see the power information, where do I get the calories stuff?

Craig
Quote Reply
Re: fat loss question [jkatsoudas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jkatsoudas,

this wasn't meant to be a pissing contest and in no way did i want this. i just wanted to let you know it's erroneous to calculate EE in such a way (HR) to try to determine your nutritional needs. You'll likely be way off, as i believe you were.

Ric

http://www.cyclecoach.com
Quote Reply
Re: fat loss question [craigwsullivan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ric,

With all due respect. I understand your point. Yes power meters, labs, etc are the best way to do this.

The website is nice. I see the power information, where do I get the calories stuff?

Craig



Craig,

To calculate the energy divide the power by 1000 and then multiply by time in secs (e.g., 200 W/1000 = 0.2 x 3600 secs = 720 kj)

Ric

http://www.cyclecoach.com
Quote Reply
Post deleted by The Committee [ In reply to ]
Re: fat loss question [TheChameleon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, its no Powercranks war, but it will do in a pinch. Thanks for the entertainment and modicum of useful information. Now, back on the bikes, everyone!
Quote Reply

Prev Next