[rmagill]

Can anyone offer advice? When entering weight into the cycle computer re. calorie consumption, should you also include the weight of the bike?

Cheers

Ron

[RedBike]

I don't think it really matters. They're not likely to be that accurate anyway.
I would include the bike, just because it will read higher and look like you've used more calories!

[Will1985]

The calorie algorithms on bike computers aren't usually very accurate but you should take into account the weight of your bike as you're using energy to push those 10kg along as well.

[gemma83]

I would include the bike weight or has that been thought out as it is a bike computer???

[Steve Austin]

You don't include the weight of the bike

[rmagill]

I've contacted the folks at Sigma - from whom I purchased a Sigma ROX 8.0. Their initial adivice was that entering the weight of the bike shouldn't make much difference on calories consumed and their suggestions was to NOT include the bike weight. The following is an exerpt from my reply to Sigma:

"Again, thanks for such a prompt reply to my email. In response to your previous comments I did a couple of rides to compare calorie consumption with and without the weight of the bike. Here's what I found:

Ride 1: 50.34kms / 28.5kph (ave) / 159 HR (ave) / 83kg weight input (naked body weight) = 1540 Calories

Ride 2: 51.88kms / 27.5kph (ave) / 161 HR (ave) / 95kg weight input (body weight + bike + gear) = 1959 Calories

So it would seem that similar distances travelled at comparable speeds and heart rates result in approx. a 27% increase in calorie consumption when including the weight of the bike."

I'll be interested to see what they say. Hopefully, before responding the rep will actually contact one of their technicians...

Will let you all know the outcome.

[jimboalee]

The 'Calories' readout on bike computers is widely inaccurate.

As a rule of thumb, if the ride is less than an hour, consider the calories to be 'ZERO'.

It will be approx 400 in reality, but even the skinniest elite cyclist will have enough in reserve to get through ONE hour.
More than an hour, think of about 8 kCals per minute and you won't be far wrong.

[Fab Foodie]

jimboalee said:

The 'Calories' readout on bike computers is widely inaccurate.

As a rule of thumb, if the ride is less than an hour, consider the calories to be 'ZERO'.
It will be approx 400 in reality, but even the skinniest elite cyclist will have enough in reserve to get through ONE hour.
More than an hour, think of about 8 kCals per minute and you won't be far wrong.

Err... care to explain why Jimbo? You've consumed calories in the first hour so why not count them? Their just as valid as any other calorie.

[jimboalee]

Over breakfast at the Kilternan Golf and Country Club, Co Dublin, on the morning before the first stage of the 1998 Tour de France, George Hincapie said something very interesting. He commented about the size of the breakfast after a question from myself.
"Only on race days. When training, the first part of the ride is to get rid of some bodyfat".
When questioned further, he said "The first dozen miles is to 'warm up'.

To reinforce this, I recently found an article:-

http://www.northlan....mmon+rides.html

It says that there is no need to specifically feed a 'Commute or social' ride; and for an interval session, ride it on an empty stomach with negligable deliberate carb' feeding.
This says to me that a ride of one hour duration can be supplied by the body's stored energy, whatever measurable fat% the individual has.

If the object of training is to shed fat and gain muscle, reduced carbs and increased protein would be the way forward.

Discuss...

[jimboalee]

Oh, and another issue FabFoodie.

I haven't CONSUMED calories during the first hour, I've EXPENDED them.