Road Cycling Essentials

Status
Not open for further replies.
FrenchTart said:
You were riding in a group and weigh a good 20kg less....you're also going to be pushing a 16mph average at a much lower hr than benny.

Strava and MFP and such do tend to overestimate (MFP hilariously so) but 30 kcal per mile for an untrained rider that's almost 90kg is far too low.
Click to expand...

That ride I was with a load of guys a fair chunk older than me and I took the front for about 90% of the ride.

I wasn't saying that 30 is what he would be doing, but 40-45 would be best to use as estimates if you're trying to lose weight imo. On the flat the amount of effort required is pretty much unaffected by weight.
 
FrenchTart said:
You were riding in a group and weigh a good 20kg less....you're also going to be pushing a 16mph average at a much lower hr than benny.

Strava and MFP and such do tend to overestimate (MFP hilariously so) but 30 kcal per mile for an untrained rider that's almost 90kg is far too low.
Click to expand...

But at the end of the day, when it comes to calories burnt it's about power as SoliD says. 30kcal/mile tallies up with my average riding pace, unless BennyC is pushing some big watts, he's not going to be burning much more calorie wise.
 
SoliD said:
That ride I was with a load of guys a fair chunk older than me and I took the front for about 90% of the ride.

I wasn't saying that 30 is what he would be doing, but 40-45 would be best to use as estimates if you're trying to lose weight imo. On the flat the amount of effort required is pretty much unaffected by weight.
Click to expand...

oli collett said:
But at the end of the day, when it comes to calories burnt it's about power as SoliD says. 30kcal/mile tallies up with my average riding pace, unless BennyC is pushing some big watts, he's not going to be burning much more calorie wise.
Click to expand...

45 isn't an unreasonable estimate to go for I guess. As I said, 50 will rapidly taper down to 40 as the rider gets to a reasonable level of ride-fitness.

I disagree that a much heavier (30% heavier in this case) rider won't be pushing higher watts at the same speed on the flat though. The difference is more pronounced on the hills but you just need to look at the FTPs of heavier riders to get a good idea of how much more energy you have to put out to move around. The differences are less at cruising speeds obviously but as soon as you start factoring acceleration times there's a load more watts being put out.
 
Last edited:
FrenchTart said:
45 isn't an unreasonable estimate to go for I guess. As I said, 50 will rapidly taper down to 40 as the rider gets to a reasonable level of ride-fitness.

I disagree that a much heavier (30% heavier in this case) rider won't be pushing higher watts at the same speed on the flat though. The difference is more pronounced on the hills but you just need to look at the FTPs of heavier riders to get a good idea of how much more energy you have to put out to move around. The differences are less at cruising speeds obviously but as soon as you start factoring acceleration times there's a load more watts being put out.
Click to expand...

Higher FTP required because they are bigger aerodynamic blocks though generally. This would probably even out with Benny being a slower rider therefore not having to fight the affects of the air as much as me for instance.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Any armchair cardiologists want to take a look at my first rate with a heart rate monitor? The wind was ridiculous, so there are some silly bits, but even accounting for that my heart rate looks very high. Average of 164bpm and a high of 189bpm when I was sprinting at 26mph.
Click to expand...

Doesn't look too bad to me, but depends entirely on your own physiology. Does look very spiky though with peaks and troughs, not sure if you are purposefully riding in that manner, or maybe you aren't applying effort evenly across rides?
 
SoliD said:
That ride I was with a load of guys a fair chunk older than me and I took the front for about 90% of the ride.

I wasn't saying that 30 is what he would be doing, but 40-45 would be best to use as estimates if you're trying to lose weight imo. On the flat the amount of effort required is pretty much unaffected by weight.
Click to expand...

FrenchTart said:
45 isn't an unreasonable estimate to go for I guess. As I said, 50 will rapidly taper down to 40 as the rider gets to a reasonable level of ride-fitness.

I disagree that a much heavier (30% heavier in this case) rider won't be pushing higher watts at the same speed on the flat though. The difference is more pronounced on the hills but you just need to look at the FTPs of heavier riders to get a good idea of how much more energy you have to put out to move around. The differences are less at cruising speeds obviously but as soon as you start factoring acceleration times there's a load more watts being put out.
Click to expand...

Lots of variables coming in to play then, do the Strava stats from my ride help shed any light at all?
 
Thomas. PLease. said:
Doesn't look too bad to me, but depends entirely on your own physiology. Does look very spiky though with peaks and troughs, not sure if you are purposefully riding in that manner, or maybe you aren't applying effort evenly across rides?
Click to expand...

Quite a bit of stopping and starting, and also some horrible headwinds, but may also just be my lack of skillz :p
 
BennyC said:
Lots of variables coming in to play then, do the Strava stats from my ride help shed any light at all?
Click to expand...

Other people may be able to make more comments on the stats but from what I can see:

1) Although you didn't have to stop much your speed was up and down a lot so there was a lot of periods where you were having to accelerate. This will have increased kcal burn for you given your higher weight (or size) compared to some cyclists. Conversely, slowing down will obviously mean that you're burning less. Were you freewheeling much or was it just the wind?

2) Looking at the power figures that Strava is suggesting - Do you have your correct weight and bike weight entered into your profile? The figures don't look that weird (edit: Actually, some of them do look quite odd now I look over it again). The estimated kcal Strava comes up with will be partially based on these figures.

3) I know you've already mentioned an HRM but I'd also pick up a cheap speed/cadence monitor. This is kind of unrelated to all this but a cadence monitor will really help you improve your cycling.
 
Last edited:
robjf said:
That's exactly what's happened to me.

What's the best outer to get? The Shimano stuff? then get a load of ferrules and a decent cutter and some new inners. Am I missing anything? Could do with some of that inner housing stuff but can't see where to get it?

Thanks :)
Click to expand...

Buy what you can afford to replace. Better to have a well maintained set of cheaper cables that you replace as soon as they become worn than a really expensive set of cables that you keep forever. It doesn't seem to make much of a difference anyway, most outers have perfectly good reviews. Just make sure to get stainless inners.

I think Clarks do a complete set for about a tenner, or you can get everything individually on wiggle or wherever for less.
 
For the money you can get jagwire kits for and how good they are I would always spend that amount. I've had some Clarks cables in the past and the difference in quality although not noticeable at first. You soon realise the constant adjustment required to keep it in check.
 
SoliD said:
For the money you can get jagwire kits for and how good they are I would always spend that amount. I've had some Clarks cables in the past and the difference in quality although not noticeable at first. You soon realise the constant adjustment required to keep it in check.
Click to expand...

I've not really thought about it before but now you mention it my gears and brakes have played *much* more nicely since I moved to Jagwire stuff.
 
FrenchTart said:
Other people may be able to make more comments on the stats but from what I can see:

1) Although you didn't have to stop much your speed was up and down a lot so there was a lot of periods where you were having to accelerate. This will have increased kcal burn for you given your higher weight (or size) compared to some cyclists. Conversely, slowing down will obviously mean that you're burning less. Were you freewheeling much or was it just the wind?
Click to expand...

There was very little freewheeling, just hideous wind. I would have been happy to descend faster but the lads I was with aren't speed freaks and I didn't know the roads.

2) Looking at the power figures that Strava is suggesting - Do you have your correct weight and bike weight entered into your profile? The figures don't look that weird (edit: Actually, some of them do look quite odd now I look over it again). The estimated kcal Strava comes up with will be partially based on these figures.
Click to expand...

My Height & Weight is correct but have been meaning to get around to entering in my bike. Currently there's nothing entered so this might be skewing data.

3) I know you've already mentioned an HRM but I'd also pick up a cheap speed/cadence monitor. This is kind of unrelated to all this but a cadence monitor will really help you improve your cycling.
Click to expand...

It's on the cards :) Initially I wanted to get going on a budget but fairly safe to say I've got the bug and am enjoying myself so happy to splash a bit in the next few months.
 
To be honest.... I'm a massive wuss on descents so I can sympathise with them :p

Your bike is going to be at least a 10% increase in weight. Definitely worth logging.

If your phone supports Ant+ you can pick up a very cheap speed/cad sensor from Decathlon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom