Computing Uphill Calories

ricstern said:

assuming you've never spoken with either Indurain about such a subject, and knowing how badly a) that languages are translated by magazines, b) the translator may not have known the exact technical names of a specific test, and c) the Indurains may not have known exactly what was being tested i'm thinking we may not know exactly what was tested or what they were *actually* referring to. my feeling is that, something such as VO2max or LT, or TT power was measured and the exact definition has got lost in the translation.

ric

That might be the case. I don't recall other riders with a 28 or 29 bpm heartrate though. Some are close.

Maybe Mig's big weapon was not his efficiency, but his lung capacity. I think it was 8 liters. I think there was something else though.

Ric, sorry I misunderstood your 3.6 factor; grabbed it too quickly. Understand 20-25% efficiency, which would mean "energy consumed" equals "work done" times 4 or 5.
So my .00234 factor for "work done" per kg-m would convert to .00936-.0117.

gntlmn: The direct conversion of kg-meters to kcal should get us the same answers. For your 160 lb (73 kg) man example, you'll want to multiply the 712 joules times .239, not divide, leaving you with a result of 170 cal, or .170 kcal/meter.

Not trying to play math professor on you, just knew we had to have the same answer whether we used joules, newtons, or kg directly.

Using the direct conversion factor, I have 73 kg times .00234, or the same .170 kcal/meter. Applying the 20-25% factor for metabolic efficiency then results in .68-.85 kcal/meter, or 544-680 kcals for 800 meters.

Agree the estimate is more accurate for the steep hills, or when the speed is 7 mph or below. Perhaps an extra 10% for friction and aero drag would be in order.

Just realized that averaging the 20-25% efficiency factor gets us to about .01 kcal burned/kg/meter climbed. So, a 100kg bike and rider would consume 1 kcal for every meter climbed at low speeds. Not exact, but easy to remember.

dhk said:

Ric, sorry I misunderstood your 3.6 factor; grabbed it too quickly. Understand 20-25% efficiency, which would mean "energy consumed" equals "work done" times 4 or 5.
So my .00234 factor for "work done" per kg-m would convert to .00936-.0117.

gntlmn: The direct conversion of kg-meters to kcal should get us the same answers. For your 160 lb (73 kg) man example, you'll want to multiply the 712 joules times .239, not divide, leaving you with a result of 170 cal, or .170 kcal/meter.

Not trying to play math professor on you, just knew we had to have the same answer whether we used joules, newtons, or kg directly.

Using the direct conversion factor, I have 73 kg times .00234, or the same .170 kcal/meter. Applying the 20-25% factor for metabolic efficiency then results in .68-.85 kcal/meter, or 544-680 kcals for 800 meters.

Agree the estimate is more accurate for the steep hills, or when the speed is 7 mph or below. Perhaps an extra 10% for friction and aero drag would be in order.

You're right on that conversion factor to cals from joules. The easiest way to convert is to always list the units and then make sure they properly cancel each other across the dividing signs. It's kind of hard to do that typing though--hence, the errors. It's a lot easier to see with pencil and paper.

dhk said:

Just realized that averaging the 20-25% efficiency factor gets us to about .01 kcal burned/kg/meter climbed. So, a 100kg bike and rider would consume 1 kcal for every meter climbed at low speeds. Not exact, but easy to remember.

That's the rule of thumb I was looking for and which will be easy to remember as weight changes or for different riders. You simply multiply your ratio of weight v 100 kg to the number of meters climbed. Like for example, an 85 kg total comprehensive load would result in 85% of the meters climbed in kcals. If you climb 1000 meters, this is 1000 * 85% = 850 kcals. 800 meters climb would be 85% * 800 meters = 680 kcal.

Yeah! That's easy to remember. Thanks much. This will be easier now.

Here's another twist. Let's say you're looking at that 1000 meter hill, and you figure it will take you about 800 kcals to climb it if you and your bike weigh 80 kg. I wonder how much extra this would be rather than flats the whole way counting the up trip and down trip.

Let's think this through. If it's a 10% grade, that's 10 km of horizontal distance and 1 km of up distance. This results in a total distance of 20 km up and back or about 12.5 miles. On the flats the whole way, this would take about 250 kcals if you went slow (20 kcal/mi). You already have burned up 800 kcal just from the elevation gain, however, if you climb up and down a hill in the same distance. Even if you coast the whole way down, you still have burned up a whole lot more than you have on the flats. Even if it's 30 kcal per mile on the flats, that's still only 375 kcal for 12.5 miles (12.5 * 30). But to be fair, it seems that if you climb the hill and then coast down, you would need to add the uphill calories to the horizontal calories for half the round trip distance, assuming you coast back down and do laps. So this would be 6.2 * 20 + 800 = about 925 kcal per up and down lap versus 250 kcal for the same 12.5 miles on the flats (or versus 375 kcal on the flats if you go a little faster). I adjusted the energy expenditure on the flats downward because it seems that it was overstated above.

That's a huge difference. I like the idea of mountain training too because your workout energy does not fluctuate much with respect to how fast you go up the hill. It's more a matter of getting the job done than how fast you go as to how much work you do.

gntlmn said:

But isn't lactate the waste product that produced in greater quantities will result in longer recovery time? Doesn't producing a lower quantity of lactate per unit of power output result in a diminished cost of recovery? In other words, if you work your butt off to the max, but don't produce much lactate, won't it be easier to come back tomorrow and do the same or better? Power will improve if you continue to push yourself harder and harder, given you are not at the limits of your genetic capability and you don't poison yourself with lactate in the process.

If you work as hard as possible, you'll continue to produce the same amount of lactate irrespective of your actual fitness level (i.e., power output) unless you're glycogen depleted.

In other words, for e.g., after some "base" training you can TT at 300 W and your average lactate is 5 mmol/L. After some specific TT training you can now TT at 320 W. Your lactate level is likely the same.

Recovery from supramaximal efforts (i.e., not RRing/TTing/etc., but e.g., 1-km TT track sprint) takes about 90-mins from *very* high lactate level down to resting levels.

and lactate isn't the 'bad guys' it's the anions associated with it.

ric

gntlmn said:

That might be the case. I don't recall other riders with a 28 or 29 bpm heartrate though. Some are close.

Maybe Mig's big weapon was not his efficiency, but his lung capacity. I think it was 8 liters. I think there was something else though.

The low resting HR isn't a definitive measure of performance. my resting HR is lower than quite a few of Le Tour's riders, but my ability is [censored] in comparison.

Lung capacity is related to overall size and genetics, and isn't important or a limiting factor (except in some people who suffer from asthma).

The limiting factor in endurance cycling performance is convective O2 delivery, i.e., mainly cardiac output, which affects your VO2max, and LT. It's your power output at these metrics along with scaling to body size/mass that's important.

ric

gntlmn said:

Here's another twist. Let's say you're looking at that 1000 meter hill, and you figure it will take you about 800 kcals to climb it if you and your bike weigh 80 kg. I wonder how much extra this would be rather than flats the whole way counting the up trip and down trip.

Let's think this through. If it's a 10% grade, that's 10 km of horizontal distance and 1 km of up distance. This results in a total distance of 20 km up and back or about 12.5 miles. On the flats the whole way, this would take about 250 kcals if you went slow (20 kcal/mi). You already have burned up 800 kcal just from the elevation gain, however, if you climb up and down a hill in the same distance. Even if you coast the whole way down, you still have burned up a whole lot more than you have on the flats. Even if it's 30 kcal per mile on the flats, that's still only 375 kcal for 12.5 miles (12.5 * 30). But to be fair, it seems that if you climb the hill and then coast down, you would need to add the uphill calories to the horizontal calories for half the round trip distance, assuming you coast back down and do laps. So this would be 6.2 * 20 + 800 = about 925 kcal per up and down lap versus 250 kcal for the same 12.5 miles on the flats (or versus 375 kcal on the flats if you go a little faster). I adjusted the energy expenditure on the flats downward because it seems that it was overstated above.

That's a huge difference. I like the idea of mountain training too because your workout energy does not fluctuate much with respect to how fast you go up the hill. It's more a matter of getting the job done than how fast you go as to how much work you do.

Agree there is a huge difference between flat rides and climbing ones in terms of energy expenditure. Total elevation gain on a ride is measured by some here, and viewed at least as important as mileage. It doesn't take big mountains either; a few rolling 100 ft hills/mile can really add up. A Century with 10K feet of total climbing takes a lot more energy than a flat stage.

I don't have a bike computer which measures elevation gain, but use the DeLorme Topo USA map program for total elevation and % grade profiles when I want to know how tough a route is going to be.

ricstern said:

If you work as hard as possible, you'll continue to produce the same amount of lactate irrespective of your actual fitness level (i.e., power output) unless you're glycogen depleted.

In other words, for e.g., after some "base" training you can TT at 300 W and your average lactate is 5 mmol/L. After some specific TT training you can now TT at 320 W. Your lactate level is likely the same.

Recovery from supramaximal efforts (i.e., not RRing/TTing/etc., but e.g., 1-km TT track sprint) takes about 90-mins from *very* high lactate level down to resting levels.

and lactate isn't the 'bad guys' it's the anions associated with it.

ric

Isn't a lower lactate level wrt anaerobic threshold an advantage? It seems that that is what the LA camp brags about. Perhaps his recovery time from supramaximal effort is less than 90 min.

ricstern said:

If you work as hard as possible, you'll continue to produce the same amount of lactate irrespective of your actual fitness level (i.e., power output) unless you're glycogen depleted.

In other words, for e.g., after some "base" training you can TT at 300 W and your average lactate is 5 mmol/L. After some specific TT training you can now TT at 320 W. Your lactate level is likely the same.

Recovery from supramaximal efforts (i.e., not RRing/TTing/etc., but e.g., 1-km TT track sprint) takes about 90-mins from *very* high lactate level down to resting levels.

and lactate isn't the 'bad guys' it's the anions associated with it.

ric

The point that I was making was that Lance Armstrong has an advantage in that he produces less lactic acid than other pro cyclists. This has proven to be his advantage in continuing to improve over the years. Here is a quote which I saw listed under a Tour de France thread on Cycling Forums having to do with high cadence.

In fact, Armstrong is superior to other athletes in two respects: he can rely on his aerobic powers longer, and his anaerobic abilities are unusually high as well. When muscles begin to work beyond their aerobic ability, they produce lactic acid, which eventually accumulates and causes a burning sensation well known to anyone who has ever run too far or too fast. Somehow, though, Armstrong produces less lactic acid than others do, and metabolizes it more effectively. "For whatever physiological reason—and science can't really explain it, because we don't know that much about what is occurring—the effect is clear," Carmichael said. "Lance goes on when others are done."

Now you are saying that low lactic acid production is not an advantage? It seems that you are at odds with Mr. Carmichael in this regard.

gntlmn said:

The point that I was making was that Lance Armstrong has an advantage in that he produces less lactic acid than other pro cyclists. This has proven to be his advantage in continuing to improve over the years. Here is a quote which I saw listed under a Tour de France thread on Cycling Forums having to do with high cadence.

the sentence isn't overly specific in what it means -- does it mean at an absolute power output, or at any power.

Quoted post said:

In fact, Armstrong is superior to other athletes in two respects: he can rely on his aerobic powers longer, and his anaerobic abilities are unusually high as well. When muscles begin to work beyond their aerobic ability, they produce lactic acid,

we produce lactate at all times - unless you have McArdle's. so this isn't correct above.

Quoted post said:

which eventually accumulates and causes a burning sensation well known to anyone who has ever run too far or too fast. Somehow, though, Armstrong produces less lactic acid than others do, and metabolizes it more effectively. "For whatever physiological reason—and science can't really explain it, because we don't know that much about what is occurring—the effect is clear," Carmichael said. "Lance goes on when others are done."

at a given power output you can lower your lactate levels by depleting your glycogen stores, or running the down.

what really matters is the power that you produce, not the lactate. if you can produce the power required to exceed in your event and sustain it for the duration required it don't matter about the lactate.

Quoted post said:

Now you are saying that low lactic acid production is not an advantage? It seems that you are at odds with Mr. Carmichael in this regard.

as i said before, having low lactate isn't special. Carmichael isn't a sports scientist or an exercise physiologist.

ric

ricstern said:

as i said before, having low lactate isn't special. Carmichael isn't a sports scientist or an exercise physiologist.

ric

What about the doctors who discovered this unusual advantage Lance has and told him when he was way younger that he could go as far as he wants in cycling? It seems that you are explaining an anomaly by explaining a rule and then saying that this anomaly does not fit the rule. Well, perhaps the rule works with almost everyone, but paradigm shifts are discovered by examining closely the exceptions and then theorizing as to why they deviate from the rule.

I'm not convinced either that Indurain's metabolism was not different from other riders. By stating a general rule, and then saying that Indurain must follow this rule doesn't satisfy me. I'd want to measure his metabolism to see if it is different in some way. Of course, I realize that this approach may be rather fatiguing if you listen to claims from every joe on the street. But Mig was no ordinary joe. He was a 5 time TdF winner. I think it would be wise to have checked many different aspects of his physiology, even if the final conclusion is that he is not different from the other elite cyclists. Perhaps this has been done, but it seems that the way you answer the question indicates that you haven't actually seen data on Mig. You are simply stating a tried and tested rule.

As for lowering basal metabolism, I can think of one way to do this. Simply lose muscle tissue. If you lose 20 lbs of muscle, you lower your metabolism by, depending on who you believe, anywhere from 800 to 1400 Calories a day (40 to 70 Cals/lb). Assuming this comes off your upper body, your lowering of your body weight has resulted in at least 3 different ways of improvement for tour riding: not as much weight to carry over the mountains, improved heat dissipation, and finally, more energy to be converted to forward motion instead of muscle maintenance. The last of the three is, if you take the lower estimate, 800/24=33 Calories an hour. If a rider burns 5000 Cal in 4 hours, this is only about 2/3 of 1%. The other two factors have a bigger impact. But when people make a statement that 1% is the difference between winning the TdF and coming in last (I don't buy this argument), it is significant.

Here's a quote as a rough check on the muscle maintenance numbers:

BRobinsonApril 27th, 2004, 09:48 PM
The Men's Health "Hard Body Plan" book states that the average male man is 30-40% muscle, so a 160lb man would have 48-64 lbs of muscle. The book doesn't reference how they attained this number, though I'm sure it's from some work with cadavers or something to that effect (full autopsy).

Web link http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/archive/index.php/t-3957.html

What I would be interested in, and this example does not address this, is cellular metabolic rate. If you lose muscle tissue, the remaining muscle cells still respire at the same rate. What if someone has a lower metabolic rate but still has the same top end as someone else? Or what if someone's metabolism is such that it burns a way higher percentage of fats v. glycogen than the other riders? Wouldn't this be an advantage? Maybe this is what Mig's bro was talking about.

By the way, a practiced yogi can drop his heart rate at will to Mig levels, and he will not be much for O2 uptake. So I agree that a low heart rate is not a sure fire test of aerobic advantage.

gntlmn said:

What about the doctors who discovered this unusual advantage Lance has and told him when he was way younger that he could go as far as he wants in cycling? It seems that you are explaining an anomaly by explaining a rule and then saying that this anomaly does not fit the rule. Well, perhaps the rule works with almost everyone, but paradigm shifts are discovered by examining closely the exceptions and then theorizing as to why they deviate from the rule.

I'm not convinced either that Indurain's metabolism was not different from other riders. By stating a general rule, and then saying that Indurain must follow this rule doesn't satisfy me. I'd want to measure his metabolism to see if it is different in some way. Of course, I realize that this approach may be rather fatiguing if you listen to claims from every joe on the street. But Mig was no ordinary joe. He was a 5 time TdF winner. I think it would be wise to have checked many different aspects of his physiology, even if the final conclusion is that he is not different from the other elite cyclists. Perhaps this has been done, but it seems that the way you answer the question indicates that you haven't actually seen data on Mig. You are simply stating a tried and tested rule.

As for lowering basal metabolism, I can think of one way to do this. Simply lose muscle tissue. If you lose 20 lbs of muscle, you lower your metabolism by, depending on who you believe, anywhere from 800 to 1400 Calories a day (40 to 70 Cals/lb). Assuming this comes off your upper body, your lowering of your body weight has resulted in at least 3 different ways of improvement for tour riding: not as much weight to carry over the mountains, improved heat dissipation, and finally, more energy to be converted to forward motion instead of muscle maintenance. The last of the three is, if you take the lower estimate, 800/24=33 Calories an hour. If a rider burns 5000 Cal in 4 hours, this is only about 2/3 of 1%. The other two factors have a bigger impact. But when people make a statement that 1% is the difference between winning the TdF and coming in last (I don't buy this argument), it is significant.

Here's a quote as a rough check on the muscle maintenance numbers:

BRobinsonApril 27th, 2004, 09:48 PM
The Men's Health "Hard Body Plan" book states that the average male man is 30-40% muscle, so a 160lb man would have 48-64 lbs of muscle. The book doesn't reference how they attained this number, though I'm sure it's from some work with cadavers or something to that effect (full autopsy).

Web link http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/archive/index.php/t-3957.html

What I would be interested in, and this example does not address this, is cellular metabolic rate. If you lose muscle tissue, the remaining muscle cells still respire at the same rate. What if someone has a lower metabolic rate but still has the same top end as someone else? Or what if someone's metabolism is such that it burns a way higher percentage of fats v. glycogen than the other riders? Wouldn't this be an advantage? Maybe this is what Mig's bro was talking about.

By the way, a practiced yogi can drop his heart rate at will to Mig levels, and he will not be much for O2 uptake. So I agree that a low heart rate is not a sure fire test of aerobic advantage.

i think you've missed the point i'm making, which is: i'm suggesting that the people interviewed aren't scientists and aren't making correct statements, they're 'blurry' with no special meaning and aren't accurate (either because they're not sure exactly what they're talking about or it's being translated incorrectly or a combination of both). Thus, people in newspapers and commentating on TV etc are banding about 'wooly' terms that are essentially meaningless. thus, i'm not sure exactly what they're talking about or what they really mean, because they're not using terms correctly. additionally, when they try to say something it's wrong based on known physiology.

additionally, i'll state again it doesn't matter what your lactate is -- this is a dependent variable, what's important is having a high power output for the duration of your event.

for example, during lab testing my lactate level during a 16.1 km TT was X mmol/L and my average power was Y watts. Another subject had a lactate level of almost X*1.5, and a power of Y + 30W. You're saying (Carmichael is) that i'm better because my lactate is lower. I'm saying that the other person was a much better cyclist, who could produce more power than me, recover quicker and generally beat me at any type of cycling, which he could. his lactate was always much higher than mine when we both raced as hard as we could.

ric

ricstern said:

i think you've missed the point i'm making, which is: i'm suggesting that the people interviewed aren't scientists and aren't making correct statements, they're 'blurry' with no special meaning and aren't accurate (either because they're not sure exactly what they're talking about or it's being translated incorrectly or a combination of both). Thus, people in newspapers and commentating on TV etc are banding about 'wooly' terms that are essentially meaningless. thus, i'm not sure exactly what they're talking about or what they really mean, because they're not using terms correctly. additionally, when they try to say something it's wrong based on known physiology.

additionally, i'll state again it doesn't matter what your lactate is -- this is a dependent variable, what's important is having a high power output for the duration of your event.

for example, during lab testing my lactate level during a 16.1 km TT was X mmol/L and my average power was Y watts. Another subject had a lactate level of almost X*1.5, and a power of Y + 30W. You're saying (Carmichael is) that i'm better because my lactate is lower. I'm saying that the other person was a much better cyclist, who could produce more power than me, recover quicker and generally beat me at any type of cycling, which he could. his lactate was always much higher than mine when we both raced as hard as we could.

ric

Ok. I'll grant you the fact that the media distorts facts. Whether it does this intentionally or not is another story, but I have seen media distortion. I've been to a press conference once in which I knew the inside information. In addition, I knew what was discussed. What was reported was clearly a distortion. If the news story were a mosaic, they reported only their view of one corner of the mosaic and didn't report the rest. The picture for the reader was nothing like what was voiced during the press conference and even less like what actually happened. I suspect this happens regularly in the media.

Do you suppose the following riders have or had specific advantages which enabled them to perform at a higher level than the others? What are or were those advantages?

Lance Armstrong
Miguel Indurain
Greg Lemond
Bernard Hinault
Jacques Ancquetil
Eddy Merckx

Has the media conditioned me to believe that they had special physiological advantages when they had none?

gntlmn said:

Ok. I'll grant you the fact that the media distorts facts. Whether it does this intentionally or not is another story, but I have seen media distortion. I've been to a press conference once in which I knew the inside information. In addition, I knew what was discussed. What was reported was clearly a distortion. If the news story were a mosaic, they reported only their view of one corner of the mosaic and didn't report the rest. The picture for the reader was nothing like what was voiced during the press conference and even less like what actually happened. I suspect this happens regularly in the media.

this isn't what i was suggesting. i'm suggesting that it's the people being interviewed (riders, some coaches) who maybe don't know the exact terms or exactly what they mean and inadvertently quote data incorrectly.

Quoted post said:

Do you suppose the following riders have or had specific advantages which enabled them to perform at a higher level than the others? What are or were those advantages?

Lance Armstrong
Miguel Indurain
Greg Lemond
Bernard Hinault
Jacques Ancquetil
Eddy Merckx

Has the media conditioned me to believe that they had special physiological advantages when they had none?

they chose their parents well. and could put out higher power outputs relative to body mass/size than their competitors

ric

ricstern said:

this isn't what i was suggesting. i'm suggesting that it's the people being interviewed (riders, some coaches) who maybe don't know the exact terms or exactly what they mean and inadvertently quote data incorrectly.

they chose their parents well. and could put out higher power outputs relative to body mass/size than their competitors

ric

Somehow, it's in the DNA, but it cannot be pinpointed? It seems like, as far advanced as we are today, that we can point to very specific advantages for each of these athletes which enabled them to generate such high wattages. I have heard that long femurs are advantageous for riding; conversely, long tibias are advantageous in the 100 meters (see Carl Lewis or prosthetic limb extension athletes). My guess is that a long femur results in better aerodynamics. A long tibia would do the reverse. I have heard of other advantages as well for riders, but maybe these are not really as much of an advantage as they are hype. I have heard that taller athletes in general perform better in the TT because they have higher wattage per unit area of wind drag. This evaporates in steep hill climbing. An exception was Greg Lemond who was an exceptional TT'er, but he had a particularly aerodynamic build (narrow shoulders, legs/arms ratio much like a kangaroo).

Back on the subject of uphill calories. I think I may be able to get a rough estimate somehow by monitoring heartrate increase on the hills. Is HR v. power a fairly linear relationship up to say 85% of max HR?