Polar Heart Monitor ???????????????

Acoustic

hey all

long story short , im 20 stone and 6"2 and male @ 28 years old

yes i know terrible weight , but planning an assault on losing it

i have a polar heart monitor and imputed my details , ie

male , 28 , 6"2 , 290lbs etc

now when i went on a 40km spin on tuesday , it took 1h 38mins ( thats rolling on the road time ) and we stopped for a min here and there

but when i got home it said i used 2243 cals

this cant be correct surely ????????

Lumen

Normal bike computers tend to overestimate calories.

On my Wicklow 200 I burned about 410 calories/hour for 9 hours (weight 67kg).

My flattish commute (half an hour each way) burns about 800-900 calories/hour.

These figures are based on recorded power output, not estimation from speed and weight. They are still an estimate due to the difficulty of measuring internal efficiency of the body, but more accurate than an HRM.

HTH.

edit: your weight and the hillyness of your route is pretty irrelevant to calories, if you're putting in a consistent effort. Many people find it difficult to sustain the same effort on the flat as they can on the hills, but this is mostly psychological.

short circuit

I've never seen one of these watches compute calorie burnt accurately.

You are probably looking at around 650cals/hr cycling at 24 -25kmph.

The error seems to be due to the watches thinking you are actually cycling when you might be coasting etc. etc.

The most accurate way would be to get a powermeter and measure actual work done ... it doesn't get more accurate than that ... or maybe it does if you can measure oxygen consumption of the body ... but then that is not practical on the roads.

I am sure Lumen has a way of measuring that too on the road and want to go out this Sunday just to be mesmerized by his array of gadgets and battery packs which he might bring along.

ROK ON

I dont want to damplen everyones love in with the techie gadgets that one can put on bikes to measure things. Just to say. I had a very nice spin on Sunday. My Garmin died. I had no idea as to how fast I was goin/cadence/HR/Calories etc.

I just cycled. When I got home and measured the route on Mapmyride, with my time of leaving home and getting back minus an estimate of 3*5min stops, it turns out that I went much much faster than I thought.
Now this could be down to many factors, hwever, I think that because I wasnt looking at my HR/speed/cadence all the time, that I simply pushed myself a bit harder than I have been.
I felt none the worse for it either the following day.

Computers on bikes have very very many useful featurs, however, of late, mine have become a crutch that have prvented me from trying a little harder.

So to the OP. Ignore you computer and just enjoy cycling at a slightly harder perceived effort or for slightly longer each time.
The 'easy to shift' weight that you are carrying will eventually fall off.

short circuit

ROK ON wrote: »

I dont want to damplen everyones love in with the techie gadgets that one can put on bikes to measure things.

Computers on bikes have very very many useful featurs, however, of late, mine have become a crutch that have prvented me from trying a little harder.

Ignore you computer

This sort of carry on could get you banned ...

At the very minimum you need 2 battery powered gadgets on the bike at all times and you should have spent atleast 15% of the cost of the bike on the gadget and another 15% on reducing the weight of the bike to cover for the gadgets.

Lumen

Whilst I do genuinely understand the "just ride your damn bike" philosophy, having a reasonable estimate of calories burned is quite useful for someone on a calorie controlled diet.

For instance, I was quite surprised that my commute uses as much as 1000 calories, and have increased my chocolate consumption accordingly.

short circuit

Lumen wrote: »

Whilst I do genuinely understand the "just ride your damn bike" philosophy, having a reasonable estimate of calories burned is quite useful for someone on a calorie controlled diet.

For instance, I was quite surprised that my commute uses as much as 1000 calories, and have increased my chocolate consumption accordingly.

How come your commute uses more per hour than the wicklow 200 ... how fast do you commute?

blorg

On the contrary, I found compulsive logging of mileage (and calories consumed, no point just logging your spins if you replace the calories burnt!) pretty essential to losing weight. Worked for me anyway.

Track, review, modify behaviour as necessary.

Bike computers tend to be innacurate and overestimate. Having said that at 20 stone you will be burning a hell of a lot more than someone at 12 stone, weight is very relevant to calories consumption, even on the flat.

I tended towards flattish spins at a gentle enough pace and worked on the basis of 2.45 calories per km per stone (which I just lifted from the DTO journey planner) - this worked for me anyway when I was losing weight. Plotted it all in a spreadsheet with predicted weight loss for each week in lb (3,500 calories per lb) and it was pretty much spot on over an extended period.

Note it is easier to lose weight through diet than exercise.

Lumen

short circuit wrote: »

How come your commute uses more per hour than the wicklow 200 ... how fast do you commute?

The Wicklow 200 was a 9 hour plod.

I don't really measure speed, but my normalised commuting effort is usually either about 0.8x (in) and 1.1x (out) estimated 1hr time trial pace. I think I need to update my numbers though, since these efforts seem a bit high.

I am fortunate that my return commute is a combination of traffic light intervals and uphill into a headwind.

I don't need it pointed out how deeply Freddish it is to do statistical analysis on commuting cycling.

Acoustic

blorg wrote: »

On the contrary, I found compulsive logging of mileage (and calories consumed, no point just logging your spins if you replace the calories burnt!) pretty essential to losing weight. Worked for me anyway.

Track, review, modify behaviour as necessary.

Bike computers tend to be innacurate and overestimate. Having said that at 20 stone you will be burning a hell of a lot more than someone at 12 stone, weight is very relevant to calories consumption, even on the flat.

I tended towards flattish spins at a gentle enough pace and worked on the basis of 2.45 calories per km per stone (which I just lifted from the DTO journey planner) - this worked for me anyway when I was losing weight. Plotted it all in a spreadsheet with predicted weight loss for each week in lb (3,500 calories per lb) and it was pretty much spot on over an extended period.

Note it is easier to lose weight through diet than exercise.

thanks blorg

well i eat to much takeaways and processed food

so ive moved to wholegrain pasta and boiled chicken after my spins etc

im not going to go count every single calorie ( too lazy for that ) , instead i'll do the points thing that weight watchers do ie 4 points for a bag of crisps and 2.5 for a fillet of chicken

so im allowed like 36 in a day so i'll do it that way and providing i stay in the 36 a day bracket and cycle 3 or 4 days a week at 2hrs a spin i should drop the weight

Hungrycol

Hi Acoustic, Does seem a little high but not unbelieveable. Keep up the good work and let us know your progress.

Ditto what Blorg said about buring more calories than someone of 12 stone but you can still eat 8000 calories a day if you cycle like a pro

Lumen

Portion control is really important.

When you cook for yourself, this is easy.

When you get a takeaway, this is hard. No-one likes throwing food away.

You don't need to go overboard on the health foods. Wholewheat pasta is a crime against taste, IMO, but whatever makes you happy.

Acoustic

Hungrycol wrote: »

Hi Acoustic, Does seem a little high but not unbelieveable. Keep up the good work and let us know your progress.

Ditto what Blorg said about buring more calories than someone of 12 stone but you can still eat 8000 calories a day if you cycle like a pro

im trying to cut the portions and increase protein and water etc

i love cycling now to behonest

already looking at a better bike for cycling , with a view to racing next year

blorg

To be honest I would try to lose the weight first- through diet and long cycles at a relatively gentle pace. When you are down to your target weight, you can look at increasing your speed for racing. It is very difficult to do fast stuff while dieting but you can keep up long steady stuff on very little calorie intake. Thing is, it is actually possible to become quite fast on the bike and develop good flat fitness without shifting all the weight you might want. If you are going fast you have to replenish and can't take it all from fat stores.

Weight watchers points system is a decent shorthand for calories, you just need to be sure to record _everything_, it is very easy to "cheat" and slip something in. This includes anything you eat on the bike. It is also very easy to cheat with portion size so weigh/measure everything.

To be honest after you do this for a few weeks it gives you a better idea of the size of things and how much calories might be in them so you may not have to continue in such detail indefinitely. Unfortunately "lazy" is the enemy of weight loss!

kennyb3

Lumen wrote: »

For instance, I was quite surprised that my commute uses as much as 1000 calories, and have increased my chocolate consumption accordingly.

I always do the same when im running or cycling. I eat like a horse that night and the next day

petethedrummer

ROK ON wrote: »

Computers on bikes have very very many useful featurs, however, of late, mine have become a crutch that have prvented me from trying a little harder.

Sling the thing out the window. I've only seen people use them as an excuse to do less work, not more.

blorg wrote: »

On the contrary, I found compulsive logging of mileage (and calories consumed, no point just logging your spins if you replace the calories burnt!) pretty essential to losing weight. Worked for me anyway.

I couldn't compulsively log anything, food or mileage. So I think these things would be wasted on me. I can only gauge my progress against cycling aquaintances.

As for Garmins, there are always maps and asking for directions.

blorg

kennyb3 wrote: »

I always do the same when im running or cycling. I eat like a horse that night and the next day

I also consume crazy amounts of food, probably in the region of 3,500-4,000 calories/day, but then I am not overweight It is all too easy to do, intense exercise will make you hungry and if trying to lose weight you need to counter that, you can trivially just replace.

@petethedrummer- you are not trying to lose weight (I can only presume, you certainly don't need to.) The logging is in my view necessary in this circumstance, at least in the initial stages, so you get a feel for things. I don't log what I eat now, only when I was trying to lose weight.

ednwireland

i find nokia sportracker quite good in that i stick it in my back pocket after setting it going then get off the bike and go is that how far /fast i've gone (free as well if you have a nokia phone with gps already)

ROK ON

I'm not against computers on bikes - I find them useful. Simply that I have found 2 things abouthe my use of them that is counterroductive for me.

(1) On the flat I have tried to keep my HR at a certain range, but this has meant that I have used less effort on a spin. Simple as that. I know on the flat and downhill I can push myself a bit harder to get a better workout.
(2) I was shcked at how many calories that the computer said I was burning, so I ate like a pig after a cycle. Consequently, while my cycles have gotten longer, since I lost weight, I have not gotten any lighter subsequently. Only way I will lose more weight is to eat less and train better. Simple as that.

I find the computer is at its most useful when I am trying to pace myself up a steep hill. After a while you will know what HR you can sustain and when you are in a HR that will tire you that bit faster.

A lot of this aint down to the comuter, but the user. In future I am going to endevour to use them as a guide to climbing, a monitor of cadence and review them after a session.

I think having a computer on a commuting bike is a step too far IMHO.

Aka Ishur

Hi Acoustic, if you dont mind me asking, was that on a racing bike, because i'm also on the large side at 16.5 stone, and looking at racing bikes in the shops they kinda seem titchy, was worried i would crush it.:eek:

kennyb3

blorg wrote: »

I also consume crazy amounts of food, probably in the region of 3,500-4,000 calories/day, but then I am not overweight It is all too easy to do, intense exercise will make you hungry and if trying to lose weight you need to counter that, you can trivially just replace.

i kind of feel bad sitting here having had a big londis chicken & stuffing sandwich, crisps and a snickers!! but then again i did a 7k run last nite so im 'allowed'

petethedrummer

blorg wrote: »

@petethedrummer- you are not trying to lose weight (I can only presume, you certainly don't need to.) The logging is in my view necessary in this circumstance, at least in the initial stages, so you get a feel for things. I don't log what I eat now, only when I was trying to lose weight.

oh you *blush*. Well I have lost a stone or so since march of last year. I'm probably my correct weight now, but not through any great planning.

I just think that people can start of with great intentions, go for big lifestyle changes and a big urge to track what they are doing and see results. Thats great if you're a diligent human, which I am not. Just switch from white to wholemeal bread, rolls to wraps, tracker bars instead of mars bars and so on...

Also another good tip for controlling eating is to plan what you're gonna have to eat that day. Not meticulously. just a rough sensible estimate in your head of you should have at breakfast, dinner and tea breaks. It stops you rocking up to the canteen and loading your plate with whatever you fancy on the spur of the moment or nipping to the shop at irregular intervals for bars.

blorg

ROK ON wrote: »

(1) On the flat I have tried to keep my HR at a certain range, but this has meant that I have used less effort on a spin. Simple as that. I know on the flat and downhill I can push myself a bit harder to get a better workout.

Sometimes you need to do this, if you go very hard in every workout you will not recover and will not be able to do as much. For weight loss more time at lower intentity is more effective.

They are also very useful if you have an actual training plan and goals. This will involve high intensity workouts, lower intensity, and mandated rest. Note I have neither specifically well defined goals or a training plan myself. I would probably do better if I did but half feel it would take the fun out of it.

(2) I was shcked at how many calories that the computer said I was burning, so I ate like a pig after a cycle. Consequently, while my cycles have gotten longer, since I lost weight, I have not gotten any lighter subsequently. Only way I will lose more weight is to eat less and train better. Simple as that.

Your mistake there was using it as an excuse to eat like a pig... Better to look at the number, divide it by half, divide it by 3,500, eat as normal and look at that as the number of pounds you have just lost.

I find the computer is at its most useful when I am trying to pace myself up a steep hill. After a while you will know what HR you can sustain and when you are in a HR that will tire you that bit faster.

This is indeed a very useful application for them all right, hills and time trials...