How many calories do MTBers burn?

[Neil]

it basically comes down to take more out than you put in

That about sums it up perfectly.

There's more to consider for the whole losing fat, whilst keeping muscle, mind, but the simple statement you've made is perfect.

Unfortunately, it's not a very seductive concept, nor would sell many diet books to have a few words, in a hard-bound book saying:-

"Eat less, do more."

"Rinse."

"Repeat."

Which is a huge shame, because I think it's one literary epic I've got the time to write ;-)

 

[RobMac]

And your OK Ive got a girlfriend

.

 

[Neil]

And your OK Ive got a girlfriend

.

Totally off-topic, but reminds me of my favourite prank call on a telemarketer (you have to go to near the end of the clip, it's just the whole "...if gay's your way..." quip that always makes me laugh...)

;-)

 

[KeepItSteel]

I think to debunk the 'mythical fat burning zone' could be an error.
Essentially, one can exercise longer at 75-80% Maximum BPM, and tap into fat reserves for longer periods of time.

However, its true that its as simple as counting calories.
Keep an eye on what goes in daily, and try to expend a certain amount throught exercise...particularly if going over you daily intake.

Ive not had a single fizzy drink, or chocolate bar/crisps etc for approx 2 months, ive grilled food instead of fried, and ive eaten loads of vegetables with a sensible amount of meat.
Add to this between 20mins (hard) exercise a day on my rowing machine (Concept2, incredible fitness device and worth every penny), and/or 1.5 hours of riding (fairly hard) per day with one or 2 days off max per week for recovery, and ive lost 18lb in the same time frame.
Ive also gained muscle, particularly in the legs and shoulders from the rowing and hard cycling.

You need to have a good idea of calorie levels in food, but its not rocket science once youve got your head around it.
I eat breakfast every morning.
Dont go over 2500 calories in a day....and try to burn at least an extra (approx!) 300+ calories per day through exercise.
You will benefit by burning off the same amount again whilst you rest (on top of your normal 2500 calories burned)

In answer to the original question, you CAN work out ROUGHLY how many calories burned during MTBing.
If you record your heart rate with a decent HRM, you can extract much more accuarate results.
All 'calories burned' figures are approximate, there is no need to get so upset about the figures quoted.

Maintain a heart rate at 75-80% of your maximum and you can exercise for longer, in more comfort. Push yourself occasionally to you max. And spend one or two sessions at a more gentle pace, this will help stop your body getting 'used' to a regular routine, forcing it to work harder and recover stronger.

 

[Neil]

I think to debunk the 'mythical fat burning zone' could be an error.

It isn't.

The concept is a useless bit of trivia that sounds appealling and convincing, but is nothing more, really, than an artifact.

In just the same way as fat for fuel with ketogenic diets is - and they weren't helped because originally, it was purported there was a notable metabolic advantage in doing so.

Essentially, one can exercise longer at 75-80% Maximum BPM, and tap into fat reserves for longer periods of time.

So?

Exercise easier for longer, or more intensely for shorter periods of time, so long as the energy burnt is the same - what does it matter, beyond tolerance.

Once the cycle of calories consumed / compared with expenditure, over time, has a real bearing on fat loss, what's more important, is what type of body tissue you've encouraged the body to retain whilst losing weight.

Dont go over 2500 calories in a day....and try to burn at least an extra (approx!) 300+ calories per day through exercise.
You will benefit by burning off the same amount again whilst you rest (on top of your normal 2500 calories burned)

2 things to mention there - studies seem to show that introducing deficit by adding or increasing exercise or activity tends to be more tolerable and sustainable - and can help with metabolic rate, whereas reduction in calories, over a reasonably short period will reduce metabolic rate.

That and maintenance calories will go down as you lose weight (and as I mentioned, so will metabolic rate, the longer you diet for).

As to advice about heart rates and type of exercise. simply consider this - what are your goals. If you just want to drop some pounds, then simply do more and eat less.

If you want to lose weight and get leaner, then consider how you're going to encourage your body to retain muscle, whilst losing weight - 'cos beyond newbie-effect (deconditioned or unconditioned), metabolic superiority, surgery, or drugs, that's not an easy task, and does take some consideration (in terms of nutrients, and stimulus).

 

[KeepItSteel]

My point was that you can exercise for much longer at 80% max bpm than at shorter higher intensity bursts.
To acheive the same gains from high intensity would be much tougher physically and mentally, especially when at the begining of a new training plan/diet.

If its more comfortable and therefore more sustainable (for the average man looking to maintain/lose weight), in the long term the results will be much better.

Im pretty pleased with an 18lb loss in two months, with increased muscle mass. and may be able to report back in the future with a much higher fat loss.

Thats when I'll be publishing my own book...

 

[Neil]

My point was that you can exercise for much longer at 80% max bpm than at shorter higher intensity bursts.

I understand that - and that assumes that overall, that's what people prefer.

To acheive the same gains from high intensity would be much tougher physically and mentally, especially when at the begining of a new training plan/diet.

I don't buy it - I found, over the years, that just as many people find big-ish periods of steady state cardio daunting, as those that find intense or interval type cardio.

And in fairness, cardio type workouts are just one type of exercise - some people prefer to lift weights, some prefer to do kettle-bell workouts, some prefer to skip, or hit the heavy bag.

If its more comfortable and therefore more sustainable (for the average man looking to maintain/lose weight), in the long term the results will be much better.

You have a point in that it's the type of exercise that people will actually sustain that's more worthwhile - which is what I said earlier in the thread.

Where I personally believe you're mistaken is the belief that most will prefer steady state, longer cardio sessions. Some will, but in my experience, just as many like some variety, intervals, or higher intensity training. And some people just don't really like cardio.

My experience is that the type of exercise people find either tolerable, bearable or enjoyable, differ wildly. Now sure, there's plenty of people who'll go to a gym, sit on a recumbent, whilst looking at a TV, listening to an ipod, or reading a book or magazine - and there's not much really wrong with that. But in my experience, there's just as many that would find that mind-numbingly boring, to say nothing of being mostly unproductive.

Believe me, suggesting the best method of exercise for big groups of people (much like diets, then, really) is doomed to failure.

My only real reason for much of what I've wrote, though, is to dismiss the guff that it matters that much about the type of energy cycle involved whilst people are exercising - it doesn't - it's a (largely) meaningless artifact.

 

[KeepItSteel]

I dont really see kettle or dumb bell lifting as true cardio.

I suppose I was speaking more for myself. I personally prefer long bouts of training at a sustainable level, and reaping the improvement rewards.
But can equally enjoy (after its over!) a 7 minute 2k full on blast on my Ergo.

I also like to lifts weights and enjoy short fast cardio bursts during rugby training for example, but as an average man I also find these sessions more daunting and am less inclined to keep them up over months/years.

I think the real answer is a good mix of all of the above.

Just get out on your bike and enjoy the sights & fresh air, destroy a couple of hills and get a sweat on basically!

 

[JohnH]

Last year I was a member of a gym, so I found out that 10 minutes on the recumbent stationary cycle burned about 80 calories and 6 or 7 minutes on the step machine burned about 110 calories.

TOSH!

There's probably not 2 people who burn calories at the same rate.
The above doesn't account for age, sex, build, metabolic rate, BMI, external
conditions, (hills, flat, head wind etc)

Actually RobMac, those machines did ask the user to enter their gender, age and weight before starting the session and also monitored heart rate during it.

Even so, I was very careful to use the word "about" in my OP, as in "about 80 calories".

 

[RobMac]

I have been in a gym before.

.