eddy Posted October 10, 2011 Share What is a good time for the 57km loop at the Suikerbosrand Nature Reserve on a road bike? or what have been your guys (gals) times....? Why am I asking, cause I'm a MTB'er who recently got himself a road bike....yes, that's right...i got a roadbike.....boy and did I suffer on some of those Suikerbos climbs....my bike is the 2011 Scott CR1 Pro with Shimano Ultegra 20-Speed 53 x 39 T crank in front and 20-Speed 11-25 T casette at the back....I just could not sit and climb...I had to stand the whole way to get up those climbs in my easiest gear....the above is as it comes out of the box....do you guys go bigger (11-28?) at the back for something like Suikerbosrand?? Just a MTB'er asking, cause he knows boggerall about road....my Garmin profile for anybody interested... http://connect.garmin.com/activity/118309314 In his post on Suikerbosrand, GerhardC has posted his Garmin record for his ride around the reserve. He did the loop in 2:30, and consumed 1654 calories. I did an identical loop in 2:33 and consumed only 1337. So for the same loop, I consumed 24% more calories. What would the cause of this be ? I suppose age, weight, and conditioning would be major variables, but as I weigh 93kg and am 52 years old and I had only recently taken up cycling again, I would have suspected that I would need more, not less calories than him - unless of course he is even fatter, older and less conditioned than I am .......... Conditions vary too, but I have done 3 other rides with differing temperatures and wind conditions, and they all look more or less the same in terms of time and calories. Why would this be as I also saw I burned much less on K2C (5hrs10 & 2799 cal) and Crater Cruise (5hrs20 & 2856 cal) than mate two separate mates of mine who each did one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zula Posted October 10, 2011 Share Maybe your HRM lost your HR for a few minutes or you fitter and therefore your heart did less work. Its dependent on your heart rate and weight so you should compare average HR and weight to each other and then compare. Guaranteed your ave HR was less than his or your weight is less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted October 10, 2011 Share "Energy burned" on these units is always a calculated figure based on a number of inputs and constants. The most important ones seem to be weight and altitude change - at least those are the two most affected by my Garmin Edge 500. Make sure you have enterred all the right data into the Garmin. It's unlikely that Gerhard is heavier than you - someone must have imputted the wrong (or no) data. Don't forget that the body uses energy after the ride to receover so don't use the figure quoted on the Garmin as total energy spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noneking Posted October 10, 2011 Share I've had the same "issue" with Garmin 705. Riding side by side with my cycling partner - we are of similar height build and weight. His bike is probably 2kg lighter than mine, but we have seen massive difference in Cal Burnt readings. We have both checked setup of the units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Saint Posted October 10, 2011 Share For an accurate calorie count it is essential to have your correct weight input in your Garmin. Weight is what determines how fast you will burn calories. That figure is then multiplied by your time in order to give you a count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted October 10, 2011 Share Make sure you have enterred all the right data into the Garmin. Thanks Eldron and Saint, I have entered my weight and age, max HR etc correctly. The only variable I am not sure of is where it asks for an "activity level" I think they call it. I have entered a level somewhere near the middle of the range. It's unlikely that Gerhard is heavier than you - Are you calling me fat ???? . Edited October 10, 2011 by eddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted October 10, 2011 Share Thanks Eldron, I have entered my weight and age, max HR etc correctly. The only variable I am not sure of is where it asks for an "activity level" I think they call it. I have entered a level somewhere near the middle of the range. Are you calling me fat ???? . Nah - just thinking that with you at 93kg it is unlikely that Gerhard is heavier "Activity level" is one of the parameters that Garmin uses - it is a rough guide of how efficiently the body uses energy. The higher the level you input the less calories you will burn (theoretically) per ride because the unit is assuming you'll be more efficient in terms of energy/km/weight/altitude. Don't forget that all of this is theoretical and is only an indication of how much energy you actually use. Switch a few parameters on purpose and you will see much variation exists. As with most calculated data the information is valuable in relative terms - ie - ride the course again in a few months using the same inputs and see if you are using less energy (meaning lower average heart rate). Obviously time and how hard you work must be the same. In terms of absolute values the info from HR monitors is useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerhardc Posted October 10, 2011 Share Nah - just thinking that with you at 93kg it is unlikely that Gerhard is heavier "Activity level" is one of the parameters that Garmin uses - it is a rough guide of how efficiently the body uses energy. The higher the level you input the less calories you will burn (theoretically) per ride because the unit is assuming you'll be more efficient in terms of energy/km/weight/altitude. Don't forget that all of this is theoretical and is only an indication of how much energy you actually use. Switch a few parameters on purpose and you will see much variation exists. As with most calculated data the information is valuable in relative terms - ie - ride the course again in a few months using the same inputs and see if you are using less energy (meaning lower average heart rate). Obviously time and how hard you work must be the same. In terms of absolute values the info from HR monitors is useless. uhm...uhmmmm...Gerhardc here...my weight is 75kg (it was 101kg on 1 Jan 2011)... ....road bike weight 7.6kg's....age 43yrs....my conditioning is very good at the moment....the only thing with me, is that I have an extremely high heartrate....my max is 194 and I easily ride between 170-180 average in races over a 3-4 hour strecth... PS: I did the CraterCruise in 5:40 on Saturday and I did not race, only "rustige" ride, seeing that I'm doing Mankele 3 Towers Stage Race from Friday! (at CraterCruise, my ave heartrate was 152...very low for me!!)....officially they show me a doing 6h15min....but I did not start in B-batch, but F, as I was riding with others and we took 15min out at the halfway stop....by the way...my Garmin Edge 500 shows 3065 calories for CraterCruise... Edited October 10, 2011 by Gerhardc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted October 10, 2011 Share uhm...uhmmmm...Gerhardc here...my weight is 75kg (it was 101kg on 1 Jan 2011)... ....road bike weight 7.6kg's....age 43yrs....my conditioning is very good at the moment....the only thing with me, is that I have an extremely high heartrate....my max is 194 and I easily ride between 170-180 average in races over a 3-4 hour strecth... PS: I did the CraterCruise in 5:40 on Saturday and I did not race, only "rustige" ride, seeing that I'm doing Mankele 3 Towers Stage Race from Friday! (at CraterCruise, my ave heartrate was 152...very low for me!!)....officially they show me a doing 6h15min....but I did not start in B-batch, but F, as I was riding with others and we took 15min out at the halfway stop.... You're famous! Your rides are being quoted on thehubsa Inspector Eldron on the case... It makes no sense that you're lighter than Eddy and use more energy! Two factors I can think of - like you said your HR is higher - what was your avegare HR on that lap of SBR? Eddy 0 what was yours? The other one is "fitness level" - what is yours set to? Eddy is "average". Congrats on the weight loss - 26kg is a bunch of weight - nicely done. They will remove the 15 mins "halftime" at CraterCruise - it takes a few days for the maths to happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted October 10, 2011 Share Nah - just thinking that with you at 93kg it is unlikely that Gerhard is heavier No offense taken. Everytimee I ride in the suikerbosrand, I recognize that power is only one component of power to weight ratio, and that it will be easier to manage the weight part. :( As with most calculated data the information is valuable in relative terms - ie - ride the course again in a few months using the same inputs and see if you are using less energy (meaning lower average heart rate). Obviously time and how hard you work must be the same. In terms of absolute values the info from HR monitors is useless. thanks, that is what I suspected, although it would have been nice to be able to plan my feeding around it. Is there any more accurate way of determining the actual calories burnt, short of going into a lab ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerhardc Posted October 10, 2011 Share You're famous! Your rides are being quoted on thehubsa Inspector Eldron on the case... It makes no sense that you're lighter than Eddy and use more energy! Two factors I can think of - like you said your HR is higher - what was your avegare HR on that lap of SBR? Eddy 0 what was yours? The other one is "fitness level" - what is yours set to? Eddy is "average". Congrats on the weight loss - 26kg is a bunch of weight - nicely done. They will remove the 15 mins "halftime" at CraterCruise - it takes a few days for the maths to happen... My average heartrate at SBR was 158...bietjie gas gegee teen die opdraendes!! thanks....yes, I really feel like a bike rider @ 75-76kg's!! I felt REALLY good during CraterCruise ....wil nie windgat klink, maar die Cruise was 'n breeze!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minion Posted October 10, 2011 Share Is there any more accurate way of determining the actual calories burnt, short of going into a lab ?A power meter gives a very good measure of the work done and thus a reasonable estimate of calories burned. But unless you've already got on or intend to get one for training, it's expensive and about as feasible as going to a lab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now