LG John

I've recently started to cycle a circuit that starts and ends at my house and I've been wondering if the calories I burn will vary depending on which way round the loop I go.

If I go clockwise I start with a fairly short but steep hill and then I enjoy a long shallow downhill before a long flat home. If I go anti-clockwise I have a flat, then the long and painfully slow climb, and finally a very fast freewheel back to base.

Taking matters of wind resistance out of things for now, which route is likely to burn most calories or is it exactly the same?

Devildog

The one you put most effort into.

In this example, Calories burned will be directly related to work done. Work = force X distance.

Distance is a constant, force isn't. You could work out the relative force applied for each direction by mapping the terrain using sophisticated GPS mapping techniques to understand the angles of assent and descent, assuming you freewheel on all downhill sections, and keeping a constant rpm in a constant gear, knowing the mass of you and your bike and then throwing the whole lot into a sophisticated modelling programme.

Or you could cycle round both ways at constant RPM in the same gear (hence covering them in the same time) and see which way makes you feel more knackered.

Or you could do something more productive like going and having a ****..

LG John

Lol, I was actually planning on the following in the following order:

1) Check back on this thread
2) Have ****
3) Wash cars

LG John

My instincts tell me that the anti-clockwise circuit will burn more. It has a section that is nearly 2 miles of constant uphill slog, albeit at a fairly shallow gradient. With the clockwise direction you start with a hard 0.75 mile climb followed by a world of slight downhill and a flat to bring her home.

All in all it's a shame wanking doesn't burn more calories.

LG John

poxy double post thing!

Devildog

lunar tick

iTrader: (2)

Two things you need to consider:

1 - which way round requires more use of the brakes? If one of those hills requires more braking in one direction as opposed to the other, it will require more energy.
2 - Because wind resistance (where most of your energy goes when you overcome it) increases as the cube of your speed, the direction of travel with the highest peak speeds is likely to cost you slightly more energy

davyboy

Stop thinking...and ride more There is never going to be that much in it. If it's a tough start you'll feel more tired and go slower for the rest of the route.

Going the same way all the time would get boring.

If you want to keep your interest up, keep finding new routes, you'll eventually find you go further and your ave speed will increase.

You might one day even like lycra!

lunar tick

iTrader: (2)

Yep - good point! Probably far more difference in energy burn due to level of tyre inflation

SiPie

+1

Kenny

This is something that really doesn't need the **** analysed out of it, just do it

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

How far is the circuit, how often will you do it ?

I would imagine that energy wise in both directions if you end up at the same point the net gain/loss in altitude will be the same and any difference will be psychological dependant on which point you are coming at it.

Basically, with cycling its down to the number of miles you do, the effort you put in and the hills you climb, things like a sturdy headwind can add on a hell of a percentage as well, as can the state, type and tyres of the bike you are riding.

I am fairly fast nowadays over my 14 mile round trip, I extend it just for the hell of it when I feel like it and it doesnt feel like its part of an equation, the exercise/energy burn should be a happy cyproduct, not your only reason for doing it.

If you can bump your ***** up to 12 a day you wont need to do any cycling, I remember when I first got broadband....

vindaloo

I would say the longer hills course has more potential. Especially if the hills are constant-ish. Plan to exercise at 70-80% of peak going up them. Assuming that section of the ride takes more than 20-30 minutes, then your body should react to the constant exercise meaning you burn more calories overall.

Waits to be shot down in flames...

J.

Steve vRS

But if you have ****, how many calories will that use?

Steve

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Plan to exercise at 70 to 80 percent, nah, I reckon he will plan to do that and do an Excel chart with speed, effort, distance with some formulas and **** but after three years sat in a bedroom playing online poker I suspect he will be panting like mad, then once he has mounted the bike any hills will just result in eyes bulging and some top level puking.

Only joking, I ll bet you are still fighting fit !

boxst

http://www.steadyhealth.com/masterba...rn_t56436.html

LG John

Lol, I'm not crunching this at all. I kind of hoped there was a quick and definitive answer but as Diesel pointed out there are many variables that I couldn't be bothered to think of for myself

The problem with this...

...is that I will naturally gravitate towards the easiest route which, I suspect, is to hit the big hill first (going to try that way tomorrow). However, I'd not be able to justify that route if you guys all came back and said I'd burn way more cals going the other way.

All this said I bothered to fit the cycle computer tonight that has been kicking about on the shelf and I couldn't believe how many functions it had. After putting in my age and weight it can estimate my calorie usage and gms of fat burnt! I was even burning calories when freewheeling down hill......result

With all that in mind I might try and find an interesting route that is flatter, longer and more constant as that should give a more accurate result out of the little calorie monitor as there will be less freewheeling down hills (i.e. the speed that computer monitors is a result of me working as opposed to gravity).

Oh and my route is just 5 miles at the moment. Just wanted to do 'something' in the mornings on an empty stomach. I'm recently back from 2 weeks in America and the burgers got a little out of hand

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

You will find it gets easy, thats when you need to watch it as your body gets used to it, I can lose weight easily by eating a bit less and doign a few more miles but the commute at seven miles each way doesnt do much unless I belt along, other cyclists are excellent for this, caught and passed a bloke on a road bike (toddlers on trikes dont count), he made a valiant attempt to keep up but two years of pretty much every day does help, I have got to the point that when I started and someone went past me I couldnt beleive the speed difference, there is always someone faster though as I found out in the lakes the other day going uphill, but going down though, 45 mph, would have been 50 but ran out of gears !

Go for it, I enjoy it more than driving now, hard to explain, feels more real, more earthy, more satisfying, just watch for daft bitches in Fiestas with big shades that cant see on a single track road but continue way too fast with the radio blaring regardless, or Stobarts finest overtaking ona right hand bend, guess what, the trainer forces you into the kerb !

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

J4CKO - you really ought to post over here: http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=40012

You'd love the rant thread

Norman D. Landings

Try this free site, it's the danglies for us push ironists planning a route!

http://ridewithgps.com

LG John

Just ran my route in reverse and, as suspected, it felt easier. Meat hill at the start was a total killer and I thought my quads were going to burst into flames by the top. However, I was hitting that fresh and there was very little to no uphill after that section was done. I simply cruised the rest of the way round at a moderate pace.

I expect that going clockwise is best for building strength and muscle in the legs while going anti-clockwise is better for muscle endurance and fat burning.

According to my wee computer thingymabob I burned 223 calories. Not bad when you consider I'm only on 1000 cals a day at the moment!

LG John

die double posts.....die!

Lofty91

Have you considered just riding out to a point and then turning around and riding the same route back? this way you have no option but to experience all the ups and downs.

or if burning calories is what your after just find a big hill and run up and down it until you vomit.

davyboy

According to an Iphone app I use, I did that in 3 miles and 8.5 mins during a 10 mile TT recently!

I'd take it with a pinch of salt!

LG John

That would almost certainly put my heart rate up too high taking me into the fitness/cardio zone as opposed to fat burning zone. That's why I like cycling, because you can make a sustained moderate effort for quite a while without getting knackered.

Bonehead

www.mapmyrun.com

There's a calorie working out thingy on there

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Eating under 1500 calories brings no benefit in weight loss, well proven, it varies per individual but a thousand seems awfully low and doomed to failure as you will starve for a few days then binge, you need to keep going, I lost 20 or so pounds in six weeks by eating 1500 to 2000 and doing the cycling, no crap, no beer just proper food, Porridge in the morning, Sandwich and fruit during the day and a proper decent sized tea.

LG John

Yeah I know, I generally eat at around 1500 per day when trying to lose weight. However, I am crash dieting to lose the weight I put on in America so that I am not a total chub when I go away in 4 weeks time. Also, while 1000 is the target...hidden calories like milk in tea, etc will probably take me up to 1200-1300 most days.

Finally, despite the average for a man being 2500 per day, I have done a fair bit of work to calculate that my personal requirement is around 1800 per day. Sadly, this is the downside of playing poker for a living and having the worlds slowest metabolism

Leslie

Whenever I cycled to school in the morning the wind was always in my face.

When I rode home again in the evening, the wind would still be in my face!

How unfair was that?

Les

SiPie

That was simply wind resistance due to the speed you were travelling at Les, you were going so fast that even a tale wind felt as if it was against you

dunx

iTrader: (3)

+1

dunx

P.S. I have a ten minute lung busting climb to the West and a wee bump to the East, guess which I prefer... As for speed with a 50T big ring I like hunting "roadies"... on my MTB.