Vertical feet vs. calories: a power meter game.

[Primoz]

I would love to play this game, but I don't really think I have decent option to get this data. With Polar, I can see total calories for training, but there's no way to get calories per section. And if you count whole training, I think results are pretty twisted and definitely not comparable to climbing only. For me only way would be to remember starting calories shown on watch on bottom of climb, and then check calories on watch on top of climb, but there's simply no way to remember these number until end of training
As for data... yeah I am data junkie even on bike, in running shoes or on skis. The more data the better. It's not that they would have any use nowadays, when I go out for fun only, but it's still cool to follow all possible data, even though only really useful data during training is HR.... and on bike ascend, so I know if I need to go another climb if I'm just 50m under 1000m mark on end of training

 

[Tom K.]

As for data... yeah I am data junkie even on bike, in running shoes or on skis. The more data the better.

This is great, because it means when I finally come over to ride with you, I won't even need to turn on my Garmin, but you'll be able to tell me how awesome our stats were at the end of each day!

 

[Primoz]

I can tell this now already. It will be AWESOME... even if we will be crawling real slow uphill

 

[tball]

I wonder if this is a game of who can become the skinniest and go the slowest?

A calorie is a measure of energy. The energy required to climb a hill depends on how much you weigh, wind resistance, and other resistance (rolling, mechanical, etc.).

Assuming other resistance is similar between most riders, I think that leaves weight and wind resistance as the primary factors.

So, go slow to reduce wind resistance and lose weight, and this should be easy.

I'm decades out from a physics class. Am I off base?

 

[Seldomski]

I wonder if this is a game of who can become the skinniest and go the slowest?

A calorie is a measure of energy. The energy required to climb a hill depends on how much you weigh, wind resistance, and other resistance (rolling, mechanical, etc.).

Assuming other resistance is similar between most riders, I think that leaves weight and wind resistance as the primary factors.

So, go slow to reduce wind resistance and lose weight, and this should be easy.

I'm decades out from a physics class. Am I off base?

Yes it's pretty simple to calculate the energy required to climb (for a 100% efficient machine).

Minimum energy required is (mass moved)*(gravity constant)*(height gain). Then you add in the losses to drag and the inefficiencies of the machine (human) itself. In this case, the losses would be mostly the inefficiency of the human body. The bicycle itself is extremely efficient. The other loss would be aero drag (mentioned previously).

Lifting a 70kg object 1 meter (~3 feet) takes ~690 J energy (0.16 kcal).

 

[scott43]

I can tell this now already. It will be AWESOME... even if we will be crawling real slow uphill

I'm already crawling!!! 8.3 kmh is crawling, yes?!

 

[Tom K.]

I wonder if this is a game of who can become the skinniest and go the slowest?

In the words of Kramer: I'm out!

Assuming other resistance is similar between most riders, I think that leaves weight and wind resistance as the primary factors.

Yup, lightest climber should win this contest.

So, go slow to reduce wind resistance and lose weight, and this should be easy.

Famous in bike racing circles: Losing weight is so easy, all you have to do is not eat!

 

[cantunamunch]

I wonder if this is a game of who can become the skinniest and go the slowest?

...and have the most efficient drive train ... and have the fewest flat sections in between climbs.

Which is where the real issue comes in: is 1% enough non-flat? 2%? 3%? 4.5%?

A calorie is a measure of energy. The energy required to climb a hill depends on how much you weigh, wind resistance, and other resistance (rolling, mechanical, etc.).

Assuming other resistance is similar between most riders, I think that leaves weight and wind resistance as the primary factors.

So, go slow to reduce wind resistance and lose weight, and this should be easy.

I'm decades out from a physics class. Am I off base?

Point being, a non-skinny with an upright non-aero bike might have to find a way to sustain 5.5-8% climbs to do it - enough climbing to make up for the flat transfer sections getting home - but they still can succeed.

 

[cantunamunch]

Yup, lightest climber should win this contest.

Nope. The climber with the least roller-coaster vertical should win this contest.

If playing with the Garmin algorithm, this game specifically punishes carrying momentum from the last hill on to climb the next one.

 

[Primoz]

I'm already crawling!!! 8.3 kmh is crawling, yes?!

8.3km/h into 25% climb... you are faster then lightning

 

[Tom K.]

Nope. The climber with the least roller-coaster vertical should win this contest.

If playing with the Garmin algorithm, this game specifically punishes carrying momentum from the last hill on to climb the next one.

OK, Mr. Fuss-Budget!

If we are all doing the same climb, wouldn't the lightest climber win?

I mean, the lighter you are, the fewer calories required to climb a given hill, down to the asymptotic limit of the bike's weight itself.

I love the term "asymptotic limit"!

 

[scott43]

I love the term "asymptotic limit"!

I demonstrated that to my seven year old the other day. He seemed nonplussed...

 

[cantunamunch]

OK, Mr. Fuss-Budget!

If we are all doing the same climb, wouldn't the lightest climber win?

Sure - but I'm asking no one to match climb for climb with others. If an individual's goal is to ~double one's own ratio, it becomes a mental game, a suffering game and a route finding game.

He seemed nonplussed...

Tell him to not burn his matches early and save some nonplussed for high school and infinite series

 

[tball]

If playing with the Garmin algorithm, this game specifically punishes carrying momentum from the last hill on to climb the next one.

I think the Garmin algorithm for calculating calories is crap, at least when using a power meter.

This ride has rolling hills, and I still won the game. 540 calories for 557 vertical feet. Huh?

There is no way I only burned 540 calories. Garmin is whacked.

I rode 1:06 at 16 mph. There are many charts out there showing I probably burned double the calories Garmin calculated.

Caveat on my performance above: I was restricted to 145 bpm by my cardiologist, and the next day, I had a cardiac MRI that determined my aortic valve was leaking so bad I needed a new one. How's that for an excuse for being slow.

 

[cantunamunch]

I think the Garmin algorithm for calculating calories is crap, at least when using a power meter.

This ride has rolling hills, and I still won the game. 540 calories for 557 vertical feet. Huh?

View attachment 173816

There is no way I only burned 540 calories. Garmin is whacked.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that ^that is fundamentally whacked. Notice your work units are set to kJ.

541kJ is only 129 kcal. It's basically telling you you burned two apples tops. I mean ... congratulations on some extremely good aero

That said, are you happy with that wattage being accurate? 'Coz the kJ numbers do check out against that power. If you are tempted to troubleshoot, the power number is where I'd start.

I wouldn't really think about that bottom chart much - because there is a thing where gyms try to figure out 'metabolic' calories vs. actually useful work-done calories and we really don't want to dive into that mess.