Skiing and calories
Discussion
BUPA reckon 400 calories per hour for moderate downhill.
I reckon a scrap of nothing who floats onto the pistes at 10, stops for a couple of hours for lunch at 12 then gets a couple more gentle runs in before tea could easily get away with 400 calories for the whole day.
A much bigger unit pushing it hard from the first lift of the day until the last possible run down could pretty easily top 2,000.
Only you could even begin to estimate what would be right for you, and even then you'll almost certainly be completely and utterly wrong, so why worry about it? Just enjoy the skiing!
I reckon a scrap of nothing who floats onto the pistes at 10, stops for a couple of hours for lunch at 12 then gets a couple more gentle runs in before tea could easily get away with 400 calories for the whole day.
A much bigger unit pushing it hard from the first lift of the day until the last possible run down could pretty easily top 2,000.
Only you could even begin to estimate what would be right for you, and even then you'll almost certainly be completely and utterly wrong, so why worry about it? Just enjoy the skiing!
S100HP said:
I'll tell you in a few weeks, I'll be tracking my activities with my fenix 5.
A couple of guys I was skiing with had garmin fenix and 935. We were very surprised at the calorie/intensity measures given.We were 50/50 red/black and off piste. Didn't feel too intense and thought the devices grossly overestimated.
I always gain a kilo or 2 with all the booze and cheese
oddman said:
A couple of guys I was skiing with had garmin fenix and 935. We were very surprised at the calorie/intensity measures given.
We were 50/50 red/black and off piste. Didn't feel too intense and thought the devices grossly overestimated.
I always gain a kilo or 2 with all the booze and cheese
I find that strange as its based off heart rate so you'd assume fairly accurate, unless the algorithms are totally wrong. I've found its estimations for cycling and running fairly accurate.We were 50/50 red/black and off piste. Didn't feel too intense and thought the devices grossly overestimated.
I always gain a kilo or 2 with all the booze and cheese
Greg66 said:
Skiing is definitely one of those sports where the better you get the less effort you have to put in. Good technique saves you a ton of effort.
Not a truer word spoken.Those rigid beginners adopting a militant snowplow position, meandering their way down whilst appearing to have a broom handle up their jacket must be knackered and incredibly sore by the end of day 1.
Always feel physically ready/fit for a ski trip however altitude catches me out on occasion.
okgo said:
The garmin figures will be garbage.
Estimates for cycling miles away vs powermeter, will be even worse for something like skiing I would have said.
Based on what evidence? Its based on HR/Weight etc, so more accurate than a finger in the air, at least there is data behind it. Estimates for cycling miles away vs powermeter, will be even worse for something like skiing I would have said.
okgo said:
S100HP said:
Why do you believe that, when its based on HR/Weight etc?
Because a powermeter is based on KJ of energy expended, so assuming most people are in the usual bucket efficiency wise then it will be very very accurate. The garmin numbers are quite a way wide of that.If your power meter tells you you expended 400 calories, you expended 400 calories (obviously this doesn't include the energy you used to "stay alive" over the period you were exercising).
This is my understanding at least, someone who knows better may correct me.
BMWBen said:
It's actually even better than that I think... The chemistry in our cells used to create motion is the same for everyone, and has ~25% efficiency. The power meter measures the total KJ of energy that you output, and because the efficiency is a biological constant that comes from our cell chemistry you have exactly how much energy the body used to create that motion.
If your power meter tells you you expended 400 calories, you expended 400 calories (obviously this doesn't include the energy you used to "stay alive" over the period you were exercising).
This is my understanding at least, someone who knows better may correct me.
My issue with people thinking a fitbit or whatever cracker toy they have will do that is that my HR for burning a certain number of cals will be far lower than (well, when I was fit) than others, even if we had the same max HR, how would anything know that? I might be being stupid there?If your power meter tells you you expended 400 calories, you expended 400 calories (obviously this doesn't include the energy you used to "stay alive" over the period you were exercising).
This is my understanding at least, someone who knows better may correct me.
okgo said:
BMWBen said:
It's actually even better than that I think... The chemistry in our cells used to create motion is the same for everyone, and has ~25% efficiency. The power meter measures the total KJ of energy that you output, and because the efficiency is a biological constant that comes from our cell chemistry you have exactly how much energy the body used to create that motion.
If your power meter tells you you expended 400 calories, you expended 400 calories (obviously this doesn't include the energy you used to "stay alive" over the period you were exercising).
This is my understanding at least, someone who knows better may correct me.
My issue with people thinking a fitbit or whatever cracker toy they have will do that is that my HR for burning a certain number of cals will be far lower than (well, when I was fit) than others, even if we had the same max HR, how would anything know that? I might be being stupid there?If your power meter tells you you expended 400 calories, you expended 400 calories (obviously this doesn't include the energy you used to "stay alive" over the period you were exercising).
This is my understanding at least, someone who knows better may correct me.
The really significant issue is that if for an hours exercise, it's 200 calories out, and you do that 5 times a week... 1000 cal difference. That would be the difference between significant weight loss and significant weight gain. Potentially very demoralising and would put you right off if you had either as your target, were using your device to guide your intake, and the information you were getting was that wrong.
It's not a harmless problem IMO and the idea of HR based devices giving you a calorie readout should be well and truly debunked. They're worse than useless.
okgo said:
The garmin figures will be garbage.
Estimates for cycling miles away vs powermeter, will be even worse for something like skiing I would have said.
Agree - my mates' devices were equating the intensity of 3 hours, technically but not especially physically taxing, skiing with (comparing at our own data) a ride up mont ventoux or a half marathon.Estimates for cycling miles away vs powermeter, will be even worse for something like skiing I would have said.
TBF I think Garmin's calorie algorithms for running are fairly accurate; cycling less so.
DuncB7 said:
Greg66 said:
Skiing is definitely one of those sports where the better you get the less effort you have to put in. Good technique saves you a ton of effort.
Not a truer word spoken.Those rigid beginners adopting a militant snowplow position, meandering their way down whilst appearing to have a broom handle up their jacket must be knackered and incredibly sore by the end of day 1.
Always feel physically ready/fit for a ski trip however altitude catches me out on occasion.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff