Письма взяты с Digest for randon@topica.com

Расход калорий

Вопрос о том сколько, как часто и что есть носит индивидуальный характер, тем не менее существуют общие положения: На веломарафонах не потолстеешь!

Грубо оценим питание на ПБП. Участник крутит примерно 60 часов со скоростью 20 км/час. Расход энергии 500*60 = 30000 ккал. Все это тратится примерно за 4 дня, то есть 8000 ккал за день. Или каждый день надо есть за троих и все время ехать с набитым пузом :-)

**************************

aukhawk <aukhawk@aukhawk.demon.co.uk>

Я использую для рачета 500 ккал/час - просто потому что это круглое число близкое по величине к наиболее часто цитируемым.
Так Karen Inge и Peter Brukner в "Питание для спорта" приводят для *30 мин* непрерывной езды по шоссе:

282 ккал для 60кг велосипедиста (мужчины) и 376 ккал для 80 кг-

******************************

"Dusel, Peter W" <Peter.Dusel@usa.xerox.com>

Я пользуюсь правилом 600 кал/час двигаясь 24км/час ( вес - 88кг). Это из заметки в журнале Buycycling 1992-1993года. Величина зависит от вашего веса и скорости.

******************************

"Vern Faulkner" <vernf@horizon.bc.ca>

Калории сжигаемые при езде:
Чтобы получить результат найдите Вашу скорость и умножьте правый коэффициент на Вес в фунтах и на время движения в минутах.

rod.dalitz@gecm.com

Итак сжигаемые калории незначительно растут до скорости 25 км/час, затем растут до 30км/час и значительно растут до 40км/час.

Это естественно, что до 25 км/час калории не сильно растут, так как сопротивление ветра на этих скоростях невелико, и ваше тело потребляет 200ккал/час чтобы сидеть, обогреваться, думать и т.п.

Но все усложняется при езде в горку и встречном ветре!

************************************************************

Paul Smee <P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk>

There's some info in Whitt and Wilson's book 'Bicycling Science'.
Curve looks exponential, a bit over .04 cal per kilogram per minute at
5mph, about .07 at 10 mph, about .25 at 20 mph. (Eyeball
interpolation.) Also gives some references.

If you're planning supplies for 'typical recreational' cycle touring,
20-25 calories per mile per person in addition to the normal daily
tick-over requirements works out about right. Obviously there'll be
lots of personal variation, but if you're planning meals for a group
these variations tend to average out.

Don't know if all that's any help or not.

******************************

<Joshua_Simonds@blm.gov>

Использую следущую формулу для расчета необходимых калорий. Хотя все, конечно зависит от многих факторов, она дает вам неплохую оценку

Калории = (0.046*V*W)+(0.066*V*V*V)

, где V - скорость в in mph, W - вес велосипедиста и велосипеда в фунтах
of rider and bike in lbs. *22 + calories per 100 ft. elevation gain for a 176
lbs rider and bike (ref. Jan. 98 (?) Ultra Cycling).

******************************

"Michael Tordoff" <tordoff@monell.org>

В сети есть несколько калькуляторов для расчета калорий. Мне нравится
http://www.iac.net/~curta/bp/velocity/velocity.html
Там есть учет веса, дороги, сопротивления ветра, температуры и т.п.

******************************

"Peter Cole" <petercole@mediaone.net>

The power requirements for a given cyclist weight, speed, grade, etc.
are well known. There are models available at analyticcycling.com, for
instance. Power requirements should translate exactly into caloric
requirements (calories/unit time), what you need is the multiplier
factor that represents efficiency. I seem to recall this is in the
vicinity of 27% (watts to load/watts burned) or so. I don't know how
much individual variation there is to it.

If you're interested in relative rather than absolute caloric
consumption, the power models are usable directly, otherwise you'll just
have to add the scale factor.
------------------------------

"Ledbetter, Scott E" <LedbeSE@LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM>

The Tune Power Tap system actually measures your total power output for a
ride, which can be pretty directly correlated to your calories burned. The
total energy measurement is in units of KJoules, not calories. But
obviously the more KJoules you put out, the more calories you burn. I have
found that at about 200 watts for one hour (about 20mph), the display shows
600-700 kjoules, so it is a pretty close approximation of the published rule
of thumb for calories burned. The good thing about it is that you can
really get a measurement of how hard you have ridden for a whole ride. Since
it measures power at the rear hub, it automatically factors in rider weight,
speed, wind, hills, road surfaces, ect. The new download software is really
interesting. It requires a whole new mind set to really use it as a
training tool, a mindset that I have not yet fully achieved. The data is
there, I just need to learn how to use it.

Their website is http://www.etune.com

There is a demo of the software there.

Scott Ledbetter

------------------------------

From: Les Woodland <les@lesw.demon.co.uk>

Hi

There have been passing references to speed in calorie calculations. =
So far as I know, speed makes no worthwhile difference. I think there's =
a small percentage but in the end you use the same number of calories =
regardless of speed because you've always shifted the same weight over =
the same distance.
What you do have, of course, is more calories consumed in an hour, so =
speed has a relevance there, but only because the mileage in an hour has =
increased. The calories per mile are still the same.
The difference that speed makes is in the way calories are created. At =
slow and middling speeds, the bulk come from fat. That's why you get =
thinner. At higher speeds and after three or four hours of slower =
speeds, the calories come more and more from blood sugar.
The famous wall that marathon runners suffer is when they switch from =
sugar to fat consumption after about two and a half hours. That's why =
the best runners don't get it - they all finish inside two and a half =
hours. The conversion from sugar to fat is surprisingly slow and was =
explained to me once as the reason it takes a while to ride yourself out =
of bonk.
The reason you get tired at higher speeds has nothing to do with =
calories used but the way they're generated, therefore. Ride fast and =
you take them from a shallower pot.
At really high speeds and up hills, the energy comes from a different =
system and the limit is created not by lack of calories but your ability =
to work, in effect, on artificial oxygen - anaerobia - and to dispel =
the junk anaerobia shoves into your bloodstream. The limit at peak =
effort is about 12 seconds... which is why the likes of Linford Christie =
don't even bother trying to breathe in a 100m sprint... using their =
lungs would take energy their body doesn't need. But they puff like =
crazy afterwards.
I pass all this on in the spirit in which I received it. Please =
remember not to shoot the messenger if you have genuine medical =
qualifications!

happy days

les

------------------------------

From: <Joshua_Simonds@blm.gov>

I have used a Computrainer for about 7 years. The data it produces is very
good, consistent and it is useful for predicting calorie requirements. It
displays avg./current watts, avg./current speed, Heart Rate, Grade,
Headwind/Tailwind mph and you can create custom programs that accurately
simulate -/+ grade or headwind/tailwind. With the custom course feature it is
pretty easy to find out how your own body will react under stress.

To get an accurate reading for a simulated century in the Washington, D.C. area,
I have my wife throw broken glass at me on the 1/2 hr. ;)

------------------------------

"Ledbetter, Scott E" <LedbeSE@LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM>

'speed makes no worthwhile difference;?????????

I beg to differ. You are ignoring wind resistance, the very most important
factor limiting the speed of a cyclist!!! Please explain to me how a rider
riding a mile at 30mph burns the same amount of calories as a rider
traveling the same mile at 15mph??? I agree that the same amount of WORK
has been done, in the strict physics sense of the word, but no way have the
same number of calories been burned by the rider. The additional calories
burned by the rider at 30mph have probably gone to body heat, heating of the
air due to increased velocity, ect. No way is the rider at 15mph burning
the same number of calories. No way.

***********************************
From: "Peter Cole" <petercole@mediaone.net>

This isn't completely true because some power requirements vary with the
cube of velocity, while the time requirement (for a given distance) goes
down linearly. If you do the same distance twice as fast, you'll spend
half the time but burn calories at an 8x rate, netting you a 4x caloric
change. In other words, the calories/hr vary with the cube of speed, the
calories/mile with the square.

Things are actually more complicated than that, since the velocity cubed
component is the power to overcome air resistance, so does not paint the
complete picture of other frictional losses and power required to climb
grades, both of which would be proportional to distance, and independent
of velocity.

For low speed cycling with a lot of grades, the calorie=distance model
may be a reasonable simplification, but for higher speeds, drag power
dominates. If my numbers are right, doing a hilly at 14 mph average, the
calories burned due to air drag, rolling resistance and climbs are all
roughly equal. If, by some miracle, I could get my average speed to 21
mph, the calories consumed by air drag would go up by 2.25x (total
calories, or calories/mile, not calories/hr), enough to make it the
dominant factor, consuming roughly half of the total calories. The
difference in speed between these two cases would result in a 40% higher
total caloric consumption for the same distance.

------------------------------

From: "Vern Faulkner" <vernf@horizon.bc.ca>

As for speed not making a difference, you seem to say the exact opposite a
few sentances later! And yes, speed makes a HELL of a difference. Got to
do with this thing called "wind resistance" as well as the concept of work
per unit time. Thus, while two different riders of the same bike/rider mass
going 100k (one at 30kmh and the other at 20kmh) will *intuitively* do the
same amount work, the chap doing the 30kmh average will have had to deal
with more air resistance.

> The difference that speed makes is in the way calories are created. At
> slow and middling speeds, the bulk come from fat. That's why you get

This is a long held myth, and plain and simply isn't true.

> The famous wall that marathon runners suffer is when they switch from
> sugar to fat consumption after about two and a half hours. That's why the

That is more due to a problem with glycogen and insufficient available
carbohydrates in the system.

>The conversion from sugar to fat is surprisingly slow and was explained to
> me once as the reason it takes a while to ride yourself out of bonk.

You can't ride yourself out of a bonk! The problem, when you've bonked, is
that you've exhausteed your available blood sugars and your body is
*trying* to burn fat. Without energy, your muscles can't *do* anything.

>used but the way they're generated, therefore. Ride fast and you take them
> from a shallower pot.

Rather, ride fast and you take energy from glycogen reserves more than from
available glucose in the bloodstream. That, basically, is what a "bonk" is
- depleted glycogen reserves combined with insufficient blood glucose.
That's the reason why it is important to glug back some kind of sports
drink, energy bar, juice, bananas, or what-have-you: to maintain available
blood sugars. You simply can't "bonk" if you're consuming sports drinks and
liquids at a reasonable rate: because the body won't have a _need_ to start
trying to burn fat.

In short, all the people who say that you burn more fat if you ride slow
are just plain mis-informed. Effectively, you can't burn fat, period. What
you do, however, is burn more calories in a day than you consume, and this
triggers the body to make up the difference by metabolizing fat.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:35:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Duane Roth <duane_roth@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Calories and speed

--- "Ledbetter, Scott E" <LedbeSE@LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM> wrote:
> ... I agree that the same amount of WORK has been done

On the bicycle perhaps. But the total overall work done by the rider is
greater at a higher speed. Most of the excess is work done on the air.
Work is a transfer of energy - a transfer of energy from the thing
doing the work to the thing the work is being done on. When you make a
statement regarding work, to put it into the proper context you must
specify what is doing the work and what the work is being done on.
Otherwise all sorts of silly arguments arise.
------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:39:20 -0000
From: "Phil Edwards" <phil@edwards200.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: calories

Hi Donn,

This may be far more complicated than you are looking for, but have a
look at Dr. Raforths' site.

Try http://www.halcyon.com/gasman/energy.htm#cal

cheers ............. Phil Edwards

*************************************

Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:15:12 GMT
From: Helen Deborah Vecht <helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: about (french) calories !

The message <0.700001922.165723048-951758591-951489304@topica.com>
from rod.dalitz@gecm.com contains these words:

> Surely the body contains a reliable feedback mechanism, which lets you
> know how much food you need, if only you learn to listen to it?

The feedback mechanism is often a tad to 'slow' for the randonneuring
(or any other sort of endurance) 'athlete'. You are often
significantly dehydrated by the time you are thirsty and glycogen
depleted by the time you're hungry.

Eating *every* <whatever [1]> probably makes more sense.
The mechanism often only caught up on Tuesday or Wednesday after a
weekend randonnИe. ('Midweek Munchies') This is not much use on the road.

At one stage, I had tea, with loads of cakes at my grandmother's
every Thursday. My Friday morning ride to work was usually the
fastest of the week.

[1] hour's cycling in my case, others can go much longer but after x
minutes' cycling (*every* x minutes) you *must* eat. Some people bonk
out fairly dramatically if they don't. Eating as much (or little) as
you fancy does usually work. Not everyone does well on high
carbohydrate food. I do.

*********************************

"Armorel Young" <young@lineone.net>

>Otherwise on the bike , I notice my pedaling production depends of my =
physical
>state , if i am tired or stressed ... I eat TWICKS or chocolate =
biscuits and
>my girlfriend eats local cheeses with bread. We haven't yet tested =
isostar or=20
>products like that.=20

Maybe you should try Lucozade Sport. Drinking a can of it after =
yesterday's Gospel Pass brevet, I noticed that the small print on the =
side of the can says "In tests against water, athletes using isotonic =
Lucozade Sport drinks are proven to improve their sporting performance =
by 33%" Does this mean that I can ride 33% faster just by drinking =
Lucozade Sport? If only I had known - I could have knocked a good =
couple or hours off yesterday's ride by drinking the stuff at the start =
rather than the finish. If it doesn't mean that I think I have grounds =
for complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Armorel

------------------------------

rod.dalitz@gecm.com

But you need to "learn to listen to it" not just wait until it shouts
I NEED SOME LIQUID! I hope you apply oil to the moving parts before
they screech! (come to think of it, that applies to the moving parts
of the body as much as to the bicycle)

If you give the body a drink from the bottle, or something salty, or
some carbohydrates, it definitely reacts. It goes "Greedy! gimme more"
or "not bothered" or "YECCHH" but it is too easy to respond by habit,
"that looks a nice pizza" and only later down the road realise that
the seething melted cheese grease isn't cheering you up much.

I understand that if you place a sugar cube under the tongue of a
diabetic who has collapsed from hypoglycemia, the reaction is within
seconds (if it was hyperglycemia, they don't react, but no harm is
done).

regards, Rod

Наверх