calorie question

gsxr1

I did the mountain bike trail in there twice a week for a few months last year and left it as it got slippy. Donadea Forest trail.....

Now after Christmas I need to get my fitness levels up again as I compete in Enduro racing (Motorcycle).

Im trying to lose the 5 kg that I have put on over christmas as well..

I have been out there again twice this week.
How many calories would one expect to use on one lap. Im trying to work out a plan with diet as well as exercise.

im 33 with large build and 5.10 high.

My heart gets pounded out of my chest each time I go out.

Beasty

5.10m high - most of the trees in our garden are not that high:)

To be able to estimate how many calories you are burning, you need to provide more info (including the lap length and your weight). Even then other factors will influence it (such as your average speed, your own fitness level, the nature of the terrain etc)

Have you thought about getting a cycling computer with Heart Rate Monitor? - this will give you a reasonable estimate of calories burned

quietobserver

If your wearing a heart monitor and have any idea of your training zones, you should be able to also read your calories burned per minute or hour.
This will give you whats necessary to answer your question.

Personally i think your better not to get consumed in calories and take it as an average that 50 minutes moderate exercise ( i guage moderate by being able to talk but being aware of breathing being elevated) this would give you an estimated calorie burn of between 450-500 calories.

Done 7 days a week thats 3500calories. Thats equal to 1lb of fat(if its weight in fat to be lost) 2lbs a week is optimal level to achieve. You could add in some gym work, or home training. Squats. Push ups. Lunges. Step ups (chair or stairs) to bump up your training some more.

I hope that comes close to answering it for you.

blorg

Computers can be a lot off. Best work it out as quietobserver says based on time and perceived intensity. If you Google for the types of exercise you can get a range of estimates. When looking for estimates it is essential that they take your weight into account as calories burned vary a lot on this parameter. The heavier you are the more you burn.

Ultimately it is a lot easier to lose weight through diet than exercise though, you have to do ludicrous amounts of exercise for it to be effective (and it tends to risk making you hungry thus being counterproductive.)

This would especially be the case if you are only doing exercise twice a week, you really need to be doing it every day (maybe with 1 rest day) to get a benefit.

IM0

If you want to accurately measure how much calories you burned during a workout then get a power meter, heart rate monitors DRASTICALLY over estimate calorie comsumption by a factor of 2 or 3 TIMES what you actually burned
or to put it another way, you might as well pick a number out of your head and go with that! :rolleyes:
likewise any of the online calculators claiming to do the same thing.

when you know your power output in watts, then you can get a very good idea of how many Kcal you are burning.

gsxr1

quietobserver wrote: »

If your wearing a heart monitor and have any idea of your training zones, you should be able to also read your calories burned per minute or hour.
This will give you whats necessary to answer your question.

Personally i think your better not to get consumed in calories and take it as an average that 50 minutes moderate exercise ( i guage moderate by being able to talk but being aware of breathing being elevated) this would give you an estimated calorie burn of between 450-500 calories.

Done 7 days a week thats 3500calories. Thats equal to 1lb of fat(if its weight in fat to be lost) 2lbs a week is optimal level to achieve. You could add in some gym work, or home training. Squats. Push ups. Lunges. Step ups (chair or stairs) to bump up your training some more.

I hope that comes close to answering it for you.

so basically if I get around 4 hrs hard work out per week and reduce my meal size I could skip all the maths .
I go out with a group of lads and it usually begins and ends as a race . Cant get a breath type of exercise. I nearly won the race yesterday . Im paying for it today....

I seen those monitors in the gym and wondered how they gauge Calories burned. Accurately

victorcarrera

gsxr1 wrote: »

My heart gets pounded out of my chest each time I go out.

You don't have to go that hard if you just want to burn fat.
As previous poster said fat burning occurs when you notice your breathing is laboured. Try to stay in this zone for as long as possible. I would suggest starting at 1 Hour and extending the time every week up to four hours if you can. I think you are only burning up what you have in your stomach for the first hour anyway. You might consider a flat road course where you can keep a steady pace. 5Kg? I would remove all fat from the diet and drink plenty of cold water. Try to resist the temptation to eat excessively when you get home.

seamus

me@ucd wrote: »

If you want to accurately measure how much calories you burned during a workout then get a power meter, heart rate monitors DRASTICALLY over estimate calorie comsumption by a factor of 2 or 3 TIMES what you actually burned
or to put it another way, you might as well pick a number out of your head and go with that! :rolleyes:
likewise any of the online calculators claiming to do the same thing.

when you know your power output in watts, then you can get a very good idea of how many Kcal you are burning.

Power meters are expensive though right? I'd be surprised if HRM's are that far off, given that they know your gender, weight and age - they can make a fairly good stab at it.

I'll actually use this thread to query my new Sigma HRM. I did 30k yesterday, HRM said my Avg HR was 163 bpm (max is roughly 193). It calculated I burned 1280 calories in 70 minutes. So about 1,277 W per hour. Does that sound reasonable or ridiculous?

quietobserver

gsxr1 wrote: »

I seen those monitors in the gym and wondered how they gauge Calories burned. Accurately

as ucd said they arent reliable as an acurate measure, however if they give you a focus theres nothing wrong with them. They are based around the science,but all you need to know is exercise more use the moderate measure i mentioned and eat sensibly.
Its not always wise to say eat less as some people dont eat enough to begin with even if they are overweight. Ensure you are eating healthy, again a guide for this is the food pyramid. And bear in mind even though the nice things are listed on the top of the pyramid it doesnt mean anyone is forcing you to eat them. Ensure you get the balance right.

IM0

seamus wrote: »

Power meters are expensive though right?

yes very, and require fitting special wheels or cranks to fit the system to the bike

I'd be surprised if HRM's are that far off, given that they know your gender, weight and age - they can make a fairly good stab at it.

Im afraid it doesnt work that way. Its a bit like a GPS being accurate to 10km
good if you are really lost and want a very broad grain of sand idea where you are, but on the whole, utterly pointless.

I'll actually use this thread to query my new Sigma HRM. I did 30k yesterday, HRM said my Avg HR was 163 bpm (max is roughly 193). It calculated I burned 1280 calories in 70 minutes. So about 1,277 W per hour. Does that sound reasonable or ridiculous?

REDICULOUS!
unless you're putting out 500w+ yes that is entirely rediculous, or your name is lance

to give you a real world example:

Armstrong's Alpe d'huez TT in the tour de france in 2004

avg watts: 475~
time: 40 min
Kcals: 1000

when you know power in watts then your multiply your average power by 3.6 to get the amount Kcals burned. My Hrm use to tell me I was burning 1000Kcal and hour with averages of 160 bpm or so and a similar max to yourself.

But when I got the PM I realised that I was actually only burning about a little over 1/2 that.

RobFowl

I've been using HRM's for about 10 years and have had various thresehold and VO2max tests over the years (more because of availability and friends looking for subjects than because of ability).
I have a max of 205 and a resting HR of 50.
At 70-80% I'll burn 600-700 and hour and the most ever was 800 in an hour.
It's more achieveable though to lose weight by eating less than by exercise..

blorg

me@ucd wrote: »

when you know power in watts then your multiply your average power by 3.6 to get the amount Kcals burned.

The 3.6 is itself only an approximation, right? Based on the idea that the human body is (in the 3.6 case) 28% efficient? Which may be a bit high, I have seen figures of 24% for "a relatively fit athlete" (Wikipedia.) Presumably for a less fit athlete we need to multiply by a bigger number.

Certainly will be more accurate than HRM though. And I believe you can find out your efficiency through a lab test? I am sure you know more about these things.

ROK ON

This thread is a bit confused Imho.

To the OP.
1. Get a hrm. You mention that sometimes you feel your heart is pounded out of your chest.
An Hrm will allow you to put a numberon that. With practice you can then modify your training effort to stay away from this area of discomfort.
I findpersonally that the more time I spend in that (max hr) zone the less time I am less time that I can spend training due to exhaustion.
2. Keep a food diary. Figure out how many calories a man of your size and activity levels needs to maintain weight.
Then aim to on average eat less than that each day.

You don't need a powermeter or calorie function on a heart rate monitor to do this.

Toblerone1978

me@ucd wrote: »

...heart rate monitors DRASTICALLY over estimate calorie comsumption by a factor of 2 or 3 TIMES what you actually burned or to put it another way, you might as well pick a number out of your head and go with that! :rolleyes:...

Aaaah feck!

IM0

blorg wrote: »

The 3.6 is itself only an approximation, right? Based on the idea that the human body is (in the 3.6 case) 28% efficient? Which may be a bit high, I have seen figures of 24% for "a relatively fit athlete" (Wikipedia.)

yes, thats right its another approximation, but how many people will know their true efficiency? - not many.
So 24% is a good estimate of a reasonalably well conditioned athlete like you said.

Certainly will be more accurate than HRM though.

absolutely will and thats the whole point.

to give you (all) an idea of why hr is so limited

say a person puts out 180w for a few hrs during an moderate winter ride with avg hr of 160bpm (80%) =600kcals
say same person after peaking in summer puts out 220w for same hr (80% of max)
=750Kcals

so even for the same person just because he's putting out more power =more calories.

so the more power you put out the more you need to eat to fuel that engine, so pro's eat that much for a reason, they are putting out the power to justify the intake...unlike us

Lumen

Apologies for continuing vaguely off-topic, but I use the kJ = calories rule-of-thumb to account for metabolic (in)efficiency.

So 1000kJ ride = 1000 calories. Easy.

It doesn't really matter if it's deadly accurate, as long as you're consistent, since you get a feel for how much you need to eat after a while to maintain a given weight/rate of weight loss.

If you really need more accuracy your pro team will no doubt have a lab available.

redmaxi

ROK ON wrote: »

1. Get a hrm. You mention that sometimes you feel your heart is pounded out of your chest.
An Hrm will allow you to put a numberon that. With practice you can then modify your training effort to stay away from this area of discomfort.
I findpersonally that the more time I spend in that (max hr) zone the less time I am less time that I can spend training due to exhaustion.
2. Keep a food diary. Figure out how many calories a man of your size and activity levels needs to maintain weight.
Then aim to on average eat less than that each day.

You don't need a powermeter or calorie function on a heart rate monitor to do this.

That's the best advice you can get I think, HRMs are very cheap. I have a simple one like this for the MTB which is reasonably accurate and lets you know if you're pushing yourself too far which is very easy to do on a steep forestry climb whilst struggling with rough terrain.
Max heart rates are different for everyone but a rough guide is 220 minus your age (I stress rough guide).
If you want to burn fat (loose weight) keep it in the aerobic zone, approx. 135 to 155 bpm. Again that is just to give you an idea.

billy.fish

me@ucd wrote: »

yes, thats right its another approximation, but how many people will know their true efficiency? - not many.
So 24% is a good estimate of a reasonalably well conditioned athlete like you said.



absolutely will and thats the whole point.

to give you (all) an idea of why hr is so limited

say a person puts out 180w for a few hrs during an moderate winter ride with avg hr of 160bpm (80%) =600kcals
say same person after peaking in summer puts out 220w for same hr (80% of max)
=750Kcals

so even for the same person just because he's putting out more power =more calories.

so the more power you put out the more you need to eat to fuel that engine, so pro's eat that much for a reason, they are putting out the power to justify the intake...unlike us

*twitch*

Ok....i'm going to step this back a bit here for those not drifting off conversation.

We are not talking about developing a pro cyclist here (correct me if i'm wrong) but a person who is looking to ditch a few pounds from the winter excess.

First off, from a long time convert to the Church of Power, a power meter is NOT what you need, or should even consider going with.

Simply put: Calories expended > calories consumed = Net weight loss

please note this is a NET weight loss not fat, not muscle, but both.

Eat normal portions, don't take deserts (or limit what you do, 4 biscuit rule), exercise regularly (30mins every 12 hour period) resulting in continual raised enzyme activity (makes you use energy stores while at rest).

Don't waste your money on a PM if you are just in this for health benefits, get a HRM if you feel you are a target driven person. But if you want to do this faster. DON'T ONLY CYCLE. Do some sort of weight bearing exercise on top of it, or if your knees a re shagged from MX some sort of minimal impact exercise. Larger muscle group activation = more latent energy stores stressed.

Now i should go back to work, physiology is an angry master.

billy.fish

redmaxi wrote: »

If you want to burn fat (loose weight) keep it in the aerobic zone, approx. 135 to 155 bpm. Again that is just to give you an idea.

*twitch*

*Takes cookie cutter, applies*

gsxr1

redmaxi wrote: »

That's the best advice you can get I think, HRMs are very cheap. I have a simple one like this for the MTB which is reasonably accurate and lets you know if you're pushing yourself too far which is very easy to do on a steep forestry climb whilst struggling with rough terrain.
Max heart rates are different for everyone but a rough guide is 220 minus your age (I stress rough guide).
If you want to burn fat (loose weight) keep it in the aerobic zone, approx. 135 to 155 bpm. Again that is just to give you an idea.

why should max heart rate should be avoided.

I was under the impression that going flat out would make my stamina increase. And weight lose would go hand in hand with that. Am I wrong?

I will be getting one of those heart monitors

I train in order to do this as the motorcycle off road enduro racing. It is like 3 hours of hell on earth Heart popping stuff. I need to increase my stamina so I dont have to stop and rest as much(this is where the younger lads overtake me)..

So my target is to lose this extra weight. Increase my fitness and enjoy my cycling .

Lumen

I think the absolutely worst thing to do for weight loss (if this is the primary objective) is to attempt any kind of numbers-driven exercise regime.

Trying to hit BPM or power numbers, even if you have the equipment, indicates that you are cycling at a pace that you wouldn't naturally choose for pleasure, either faster or slower.

If you are not enjoying your cycling, and simultaneously not enjoying your food, you are likely to hate the whole thing and just give up, hit the cakes and turn into Jabba the Hut.

Better to just ride your bike for pleasure, eat healthily and with some restraint, and have a bit of patience.

Ryaner

blorg wrote: »

Ultimately it is a lot easier to lose weight through diet than exercise though, you have to do ludicrous amounts of exercise for it to be effective (and it tends to risk making you hungry thus being counterproductive.)

Cycling is probably one of the few sports where you can maintain your eating level once it is relatively clean and then lose weight. On my training run this morning, I burnt 2k Cals in the three and a half hours. Those are Powertap cals.

me@ucd wrote: »

If you want to accurately measure how much calories you burned during a workout then get a power meter, heart rate monitors DRASTICALLY over estimate calorie comsumption by a factor of 2 or 3 TIMES what you actually burned
or to put it another way, you might as well pick a number out of your head and go with that! :rolleyes:
likewise any of the online calculators claiming to do the same thing.

The Garmins aren't too far off, at least basing it on my runs from the last while. Usually over estimates things by about 33% compared to the powertap. The new Edge 500 is meant to be much better too as it runs against the heart rate and not average speed.

blorg

If you exercise at very high intensity you will not be able to do very much of it. Exercising at lower intensity you can do more and will lose more weight. Exercising at high intensity you will need to refuel or you will bonk. Low intensity you can do while following a calorie-controlled diet... which is in any case more important for the weight loss. As to the fitness, it is generally easier to worry about shifting the weight first and then working on the power/speed.

Exercising two times a week just isn't very much, ideally you would be doing it every day perhaps with one day off.

billy.fish

blorg wrote: »

If you exercise at very high intensity you will not be able to do very much of it. Exercising at lower intensity you can do more and will lose more weight. Exercising at high intensity you will need to refuel or you will bonk. Low intensity you can do while following a calorie-controlled diet... which is in any case more important for the weight loss. As to the fitness, it is generally easier to worry about shifting the weight first and then working on the power/speed.

Exercising two times a week just isn't very much, ideally you would be doing it every day perhaps with one day off.

Actually allot of research coming out to show that repeated HIT (High Intensity Training) actually causes more post exercise fat utilisation than LSD (Long Slow Distance) training.

However, in order to do the HIT, you need to have a level of fitness to complete it.

But i digress.

blorg

billy.fish wrote: »

However, in order to do the HIT, you need to have a level of fitness to complete it.

^ I think this bit is key. For your average untrained person looking to lose a bit of weight they are better off with LSD (IMO.) And a diet more to the point.

billy.fish

Agree totally, but at the same time the .... tendency..... of riders to ride below tempo for 3months of the year for fear of over training and intervals is just nonsensical. Need to attempt to stress all the systems.

'Adapt or die' and all that periodisation malarky....

Now where is that can opener gone.....i've a nice tin of worms here somewhere.

gsxr1

Have a plan in mind.

With the dark nights I only get together with the group for off road mayhem at weekends.

So during the week I will be going for a 30mins Low intensity training.(sallins to nass the long way). With a sprint in the middle somewhere. Maybe 3 times a week to be realistic. Just back from a spin. soaked.

(Hard going with off road tires I find).

Then weekends flat out forsestry trails in the hope to get in front of the others. And win the wacky race .(the lads wont be training through the week:D)

No mid week beer and stuffing my face.

This I could comfortably achive this as well as enjoy the process . loss the weight and increase my stamina . All in one . 5kg is not that much. maybe by march I would be back to 81kg where I would be happy.

tha calorie counting sounds like a over complicated way to live

redmaxi

gsxr1 wrote: »

why should max heart rate should be avoided.

I was under the impression that going flat out would make my stamina increase. And weight lose would go hand in hand with that. Am I wrong?

I will be getting one of those heart monitors

I train in order to do this as the motorcycle off road enduro racing. It is like 3 hours of hell on earth Heart popping stuff. I need to increase my stamina so I dont have to stop and rest as much(this is where the younger lads overtake me)..

So my target is to lose this extra weight. Increase my fitness and enjoy my cycling .

I used to do a bit of trail bike riding nothing serious but it is murder on the body !
Go flat out if you want. >90% of max heart rate is intense anaerobic activity you are in oxygen debt and so will burn the most calories in a short time and increase metabolism. Fat will be burned after excercise not during - like at 60% to 80% as I suggested earlier.
There's no hard and fast rules, but usually starting out you'd be taking it a bit easier on yourself.
But sure what the hell, what do I know - leave her at it !

blorg

gsxr1 wrote: »

tha calorie counting sounds like a over complicated way to live

It's a good idea on the food side more than the exercise side as it gives you an idea of your intake and what food has what in it (some foods are simply incredible while others have basically nothing.)

You don't have to do it forever but it gives you a very handy understanding that will give you a better idea of how to eat more healthily.

I don't count calories at all now but I did when I needed to lose weight and it was very effective. You need to be disciplined. If you are not there are rule of thumb methods like WeightWatchers points which will basically work as well as long as you don't lie to yourself over portion size etc.

seamus

gsxr1 wrote: »

tha calorie counting sounds like a over complicated way to live

It's actually dead simple, and is proven to the most effective way of controlling your weight, whether you're losing, maintaining or gaining it.

Especially with the web now, there are a couple of sites that provide food trackers and automatically fill out all of the boxes in terms of calories and nutrition. You don't spend more than five minutes in total during the day keeping track.

You actually find after a week that you generally tend to eat the same foods, which obviously makes it easier to keep track of what you're eating.

As blorg says, you need to be disciplined and count everything - "You're only lying to yourself" - but anyone I've know (including myself) who's used the method properly hasn't failed to lose weight.

Beasty

billy.fish wrote: »

4 biscuit rule

What's the 4 biscuit rule? Is this my limit per cup of coffee?

Lumen

Beasty wrote: »

What's the 4 biscuit rule? Is this my limit per cup of coffee?

Workaround.

Caroline_ie

4 of these ...

jag con

Hi Seamus could you send on some of those links for calorie counting online

Con

Beasty

Caroline_ie wrote: »

4 of these ...

jammy dodger!

seamus

www.fitday.com seems to be the most popular on the various fitness/nutrition forums.

Caroline_ie

Beasty wrote: »

jammy dodger!

I dream of a giant cup of tea i could dunk that in now ...

blorg

I used www.caloriecount.com. They have a handy recipe analyser where you just type in all your ingredients and it comes up with a totals for everything (calories, fat, protein and all the rest.)

hinault

Fly in the ointment : most of the professional roadmen consume huge amounts of calories per day when racing/training!
So if you're expending 4,000 calories per day but only consuming 3,500 calories per day, then there is no problem.

The old adage applies you need to expend more than you consume to lose weight.

Honestly though, I think calorie counting is only one part of seeing if training routine is helping to lose weight.
You need to look at whether or not your training regime is leading to less body mass (ie. is your waist size diminishing) for example.
Are you feeling stronger when covering the same distances, is another sign that your routine is working.

I find that 140-160bpm zone sees me burning off any excess weight.
I try to keep the intensity up for as long as possible while pedalling.
I try to get between 6 - 10 hours per week on the bike, at this time of the year.

When the daylight hours improve, that will move up to between 10-15 hours per week.

I just tour test days : racing days are well behind me now.
But I like to try to stay in shape and to maintain a healthy weight.

blorg

A focus on diet and calorie counting and is recommended for people who are not particularly fit and overweight starting or resuming cycling (and possibly exercise in general) trying to shed that weight.

This advice does not apply so much if at all to experienced cyclists who are already reasonably fit and not overweight. Pros you are on the other end of the scale and they are concerned about it again!

Most people overweight who come on here trying to shed it are not doing 10 hours a week training in winter.

hinault

blorg wrote: »

A focus on diet and calorie counting and is recommended for people who are not particularly fit and overweight starting or resuming cycling (and possibly exercise in general) trying to shed that weight.

This advice does not apply so much if at all to experienced cyclists who are already reasonably fit and not overweight. Pros you are on the other end of the scale and they are concerned about it again!

Most people overweight who come on here trying to shed it are not doing 10 hours a week training in winter.

Fair point.

I was just trying to emphasise that calorie counting, along with things like monitoring mass size for example, might help the poster.
Cross training could also be beneficial.

Lumen

hinault wrote: »

Cross training could also be beneficial.

Agree with this. Cycling stresses very specific muscle groups, and recovery can be very limiting unless you are well trained or or disciplined enough to cycle very slowly.

It is much easier to do 10 hours a week of cycling, swimming and running than 10 hours purely on the bike.

More importantly, injury makes you fat and cross training makes injury less likely.

gsxr1

Lumen wrote: »

Agree with this. Cycling stresses very specific muscle groups, and recovery can be very limiting unless you are well trained or or disciplined enough to cycle very slowly.

It is much easier to do 10 hours a week of cycling, swimming and running than 10 hours purely on the bike.

More importantly, injury makes you fat and cross training makes injury less likely.

i stopped running because of my knees. I could run all day sometimes. But knee pain became the limiting factor. The gym to me is the worst place. running and cycling on the spot on a machine seems crazy when God gave us the outdoors to do it in.

Cycling and MotoX has become a bit of a passion for me. Both pretty Extreme. Although I will take the cross training on board and begin doing press ups and the like for a warm up before I mount up.

those links are very helpful. I dont like to be hungry . I have to find a way to feel satisfied with meals . Feel full up. Or I wont stay with it.

Beasty

hinault wrote: »

So if you're expending 4,000 calories per day but only consuming 3,500 calories per day, then there is no problem.

Big problem - you are anorexic - eventually you will run out of energy ....


.... and die

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

It is much easier to do 10 hours a week of cycling, swimming and running than 10 hours purely on the bike.

10 hours a week on a bike is not very much at all, you just need to build it up gradually so your body gets used to it. I've done 40-50 hours in 4-5 day periods.

This is not to deny any of your points on cross training which are perfectly valid... but time spent swimming, running and lifting weights is time not riding your bike we must remember. Which is at the end of the day the only thing in this world worth doing.

blorg

gsxr1 wrote: »

i stopped running because of my knees. I could run all day sometimes. But knee pain became the limiting factor.

Cycling is non weight bearing and so sounds like it would be perfect for you. Swimming is also non weight bearing although I am not sure it is great for weight loss, it always made me extraordinarily hungry afterwards.

I dont like to be hungry . I have to find a way to feel satisfied with meals . Feel full up. Or I wont stay with it.

Find out what has next to no calories in it and eat as much as possible of it. Many vegetables and fruit fall into this category. It will fill you up without providing much in the way of calories. Spread your meals out into small portions regularly.

I think though for successful weight loss you need to embrace the feeling of being slightly hungry. You should not be starving but you should be comfortable with a feeling of slight peckishness and not feel you have to stuff yourself. Stop eating as soon as, or even slightly before you feel full, (as there is a delay) just throw the rest away. You should IMO always be slightly peckish going to bed each night.

The gym to me is the worst place. running and cycling on the spot on a machine seems crazy when God gave us the outdoors to do it in.

Indeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reyt3uiQqI8

TinyExplosions

I can't believe she actually said 'fo shizzle' on that...

redmaxi

blorg wrote: »

... but time spent swimming, running and lifting weights is time not riding your bike we must remember. Which is at the end of the day the only thing in this world worth doing.

Euro Rule 25. Any physical activity other than cycling is STRONGLY FROWNED UPON. This includes any form of running or swimming and their derivatives (this includes walking). The ONLY TWO other sports with a recognized degree of euro are: cross-country skiing and long track speed skating.

petethedrummer

More calorie based science than you can shake a stick(y bun) at.

Its a four part trilogy.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss.html
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss-part-2.html
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss-part-2b.html
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss-part-3-fat.html

gsxr1

petethedrummer wrote: »

More calorie based science than you can shake a stick(y bun) at.

Its a four part trilogy.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss.html
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss-part-2.html
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss-part-2b.html
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss-part-3-fat.html

fantastic reading. sitting on the sofa and not drinking a can of coke is better for you than going for a 30min walk and drinking a can on the way.

blorg

gsxr1 wrote: »

fantastic reading. sitting on the sofa and not drinking a can of coke is better for you than going for a 30min walk and drinking a can on the way.

If you calorie count for just a little while that sort of thing will become very obvious! Must say I have developed an unhealthy addiction to Coke Zero, I actually prefer it now to normal Coke and only drink the latter when I need the calories (e.g. during cycling.)