🚀 go-pugleaf

The formula I have seen is for walking/running is (weight/100)*miles*100. Another way
to see what is going on is to measure calories in versus calories out. Just
to sustain weight it takes 10 - 11 cals a lb for F and 11 - 12 cal a lb for 
men; so cal out = weight * (10?11?12) + exercise cals.


			terence

In article <1992Nov2.231457.5721@unet.net.com>, ddozier@daled.net.com (Dale Dozier) writes:
|> 
|>   Are there any formulas for calories used that take into account weight, 
|> level of fitness and level of effort for running and cycling?

200 Watts of mechanical power at 20% mechanical/food conversion efficiency
works out to 860 calories/hour.  From the erg data I've seen, that kind of 
power is close to the long-term aerobic limit for a typical 160 lb. Cat III 
or Cat IV rider.  500 calories/hour might be a good figure for a moderate
training ride.

                   Mark Drela
             _______________________________
    o/LO  .' 
     O  .'  Gravity-Powered Technologies Lab 
      .'  MIT Aero-Astro Department  33-214
     '

ddozier@daled.net.com (Dale Dozier) writes:


>  Are there any formulas for calories used that take into account weight, 
>level of fitness and level of effort for running and cycling? I am tring
>to drop that last 10-15lbs so I can be more competitive for my biathlons 
>and have not been very successful the past year. This information would 
>help as I look at the calories going in -vs- those going out REAL closely. 

>Thanks
>-Dale

Are you sure that weight is a sensible metric for your situation?

When I started bike racing some ten years ago, after a career as a long
distance runner, I found that my weight actually rose, although other
measures off my fitness, such as resting pulse rate, fell markedly. At the
same time my weight went from 65 kg to 74kg, where it stayed. 

The reason for the weight gain was quite simple: cycling requires lots of
brute force, and a lot more than running. Muscle is relatively heavy, and
hence my weight went up.

If you are doing adequate training your body should be telling you what to
eat, and if you have any sense you'll listen to what it's telling you. You
should be eating a large amount, with carbohydrate and protein prominent in
that diet (because one of your events involves strength you should have a
high level of protein in your diet to maintain your muscle bulk). Equally,
if your weight is remaining stable you are probably doing the right things.


I think you will get a far better idea of your progress if you start
charting your resting pulse rate. It should be fairly low (when racing fit
mine was 36), and it should be consistent. 36 is extremely low - yours is
more likely to be in the 40s. Another measure that should interest you is
your recovery rate. After violent exercise your pulse will be raised
significantly. If you measure your pulse rate, then rest for a few minutes
and measure it again it should have dropped back towards your resting pulse
rate. The more it has dropped the better your recovery rate. This relates
well with your basic aerobic fitness. If your pulse doen't drop
significantly (a 30% or greater drop) then you should probably see you
doctor for advice.

Hope all this helps.

John Reid
-- 

_____________________________________________________________________________

John Reid                           

In article <4214@cvbnetPrime.COM> tlindgre@cvbnet.prime.com (Terence Lindgren x5360 5-2) writes:
>
>The formula I have seen is for walking/running is (weight/100)*miles*100.

At the risk of appearing to have any intellegence at all; don't the 100's
cancel out leaving weight*miles??

Sincerely;

Tod J. Johnson

	THe example I gave was, simply, an instance of the more general formula

	(weight/normalized_weight)*units_of_exercise
	*(kcal needed to perform a unit_of_exercise by someone at normalized_weight)
	
	This, of course, works equally well for  pounds,miles or kilograms,kilometers.
	I used pounds and miles. 

		terence

In article <1992Nov4.024332.22339@bohra.cpg.oz.au>, johnr@bohra.cpg.oz.au (John Reid) writes:
> ddozier@daled.net.com (Dale Dozier) writes:
> 
> 
> >  Are there any formulas for calories used that take into account weight, 
> >level of fitness and level of effort for running and cycling? I am tring
> >to drop that last 10-15lbs so I can be more competitive for my biathlons 
> >and have not been very successful the past year. This information would 
> >help as I look at the calories going in -vs- those going out REAL closely. 
> 
> >Thanks
> >-Dale
> 
> Are you sure that weight is a sensible metric for your situation?
>

Excellent, pertinent stuff from John Reid deleted.
 
>
> Hope all this helps.
> 
> John Reid
> -- 
> 

John is kinder than I am.  Weight is absolutely the wrong metric.  If you
have been training like you should, artifically forcing your weight down
could/will hurt your performance.  IMHO the correct metric is % body fat,
determined by the water method (no pinch test please!). 

-- 
======================================================================
 Smitty (Maurice Smith)            | SOMEONE YOU TRUST IS ONE OF US.
 smitty@dsd.es.com  (use it!)      | SOMEONE YOU TRUST IS ONE OF THEM.
 Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp. | Offend someone, eat a hotdog on Friday.
 Salt Lake City, Utah              |  #include <standard_disclaimer>

ddozier@daled.net.com (Dale Dozier) writes:
>
>  Are there any formulas for calories used that take into account weight, 
>level of fitness and level of effort for running and cycling?

For running or walking at any speed, you burn 2/3 Kcal/mile/pound, or
100 Kcal/mile at 150 lbs.  If you climb any hills, multiply the vertical
component by 12.

Kcal/hour on a bike increases with the cube of velocity, since about 80%
of your energy is used to overcome wind resistance.  Use your heart rate
to correlate with running.  You can use the above formula on a climb 
(8 Kcal/mile/pound * grade), if you take the bike's weight into account.

--------------------------------        _\/_
Matt Mahoney, mvm@epg.harris.com       |(TV)|  Drug of the Nation
#include <disclaimer.h>                |____|

The metal T-shaped barrel bolt that sits inside
the clamp on my Thule bike carrier (the model where
you don't have to remove the front wheel) snapped
when I was attaching my bike last weekend.
Luckily I had a spare as I was only carrying one
bike and have two carriers on the car.

Has this happened to anyone else?  It makes me
nervous to think that it could happen again when
I will be carrying two bikes or worse if it were to
happen while in transit.  Could it have been the cold
weather that weakened the metal?  (It was snowing at
the time).  Maybe I've got the clamp set too tight?
It's often difficult to get it fastened and unfastened,
but I don't want it too loose, either.  I had heard
friends and family tell of bent forks from the other
style of carrier, which is why I went with the down-
tube clamp setup, but it doesn't seem to be a very
good design to me.  More than once the plastic lever
on the clamp has separated from the assembly while
attaching a bike.  But, like I said, maybe I'm just
trying to make the thing too tight.

Linda

In article <4220@cvbnetPrime.COM> tjohnson@atcc5.UUCP (Tod J Johnson) writes:
>In article <4214@cvbnetPrime.COM> tlindgre@cvbnet.prime.com (Terence Lindgren x5360 5-2) writes:
>>
>>The formula I have seen is for walking/running is (weight/100)*miles*100.
>
>At the risk of appearing to have any intellegence at all; don't the 100's
>cancel out leaving weight*miles??

The first 100 should be 150; that is, a 150lb person gets 100 cals/mile.
If you weigh 300 lbs, you get 200, and if you weigh 130, you get something
like 86.  

A perhaps easier way of looking at this is 

	cals/mile = 2/3 * weight

And yes, it seems bizarre to say that a 150lb person walking a mile gets
the same number of calories as a 150lb person doing a mile in 6 minutes.
Well, they don't really.  And of course, not all 150lb people burn 100
calories per mile.  This formula is just a useful approximation.  Nobody
knows how much Joe Individual burns, unless they've stuck him in one of
those sealed rooms and measured his CO2 output (or whatever it is they do).

Beth Mazur                   "...life is more than a vision.  The sweetest
mazur@inmet.inmet.com         part is acting after making a decision."
...!uunet!inmet!mazur                                  -- The Indigo Girls

In article <1992Nov4.170322.27992@mlb.semi.harris.com> mvm@epg.harris.com (Matt Mahoney) writes:
>ddozier@daled.net.com (Dale Dozier) writes:
>>
>>  Are there any formulas for calories used that take into account weight, 
>>level of fitness and level of effort for running and cycling?
>
>For running or walking at any speed, you burn 2/3 Kcal/mile/pound, or
>100 Kcal/mile at 150 lbs.  If you climb any hills, multiply the vertical
>component by 12.

One could add a fitness/age factor too.
When people are not that fit, e.g. starting out a new exercise program,
they may burn closer to a 1.0 kcal/mile/pound.  One gets more efficient
with training and age, perhaps as low as 0.5 kcal/mile/pound.

I eat less than I did 15 years ago before starting 50 miles per week
running and have trouble keeping my weight down.
My walking efficiency isn't as good as running.  I become hungrier after
50 miles of hiking during a week than 50 miles of jogging.

I've recently read in Bicycling that running is 5X cycling in calories burned, on the average.
However, I would think any formula would be pretty much useless if it did somehow not take into
account the individuals metabolic rate. Two equally fit persons are no doubt going to have differnet
metabolic rates, the amount of calories they burn during an equal wotkout routine is going to depend
on their individual rates at which they burn calories.