Biking in watts - ?
In CC when you put spinning in the search, it comes up as biking by watts. I actually don't know for sure what my watts were? Is there a way to figure that out?
I went about 19 miles in the hour-long class (according to the little computer on the bike), and I would say it was pretty vigorous. Is there a way to calculate watts? I feel dumb asking, but what are watts, exactly, anyway? I feel like I should know this...
...thanks in advance!
Watts=power. Say you biked at 200watts, that means you could have powered a few light bulbs. It's just how much power you are producing with effort.
Conversion, idk.
Basically what bmx said. In general I wouldn't worry about it. There are power meters for regular road bikes, and some high end stationary bikes have build in power meters.
UD
Read this: http://www.mayq.com/Best_european_trips/Cycli ng_speed_math.htm
and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performa nce
For me I stay lazy and use CC formula.
Right now, there is no way to measure wattage during a spin class or using a spin bike.
As the bikes become more upscale and more computerized, someone may take the plunge if they ever decide there is a market for it.
But your average spin bike with a friction resistance has no system of measuring the work and no calibrated resistance.
Here's perhaps a rough guide:
- going easy, but hard enough to make you breathe deeply through your mouth: 350-400 kCal/hour
- going hard enough to leave you a little wobbly when you get off the bike: 600-700 kCal/hour
- going deep into the pain, to the point you have to constantly egg yourself on to keep the cadence up and you're grunting and making other vocal noises from the effort, and you need to be peeled off the bike, and all you want to do is have a lie-down: 800-1000 kCal/hour
Not sure I would agree with that. It really depends on ones fitness level. Only real way to tell is to get a power meter. Which are damn expensive and work on road bikes mainly. The real expensive one works on track and mountain bikes.
UD
Original Post by umneydurak:
Not sure I would agree with that. It really depends on ones fitness level.
UD
Me neither. And that was kCal, not watts.
I guess both of you breezed past "rough guide." Those numbers are indeed in kCal. Ultimately, that's what people want to log for their activity logs.
Yes, the real way is to get your own power meter. Absent that (ta-da) the rough guide, based upon my own observations from my own power meter.
It is, as I say, a ROUGH GUIDE. I'm not particularly interested in nit-picking. Rough guide, get it?
Original Post by behanna:
I guess both of you breezed past "rough guide." Those numbers are indeed in kCal. Ultimately, that's what people want to log for their activity logs.
Yes, the real way is to get your own power meter. Absent that (ta-da) the rough guide, based upon my own observations from my own power meter.
It is, as I say, a ROUGH GUIDE. I'm not particularly interested in nit-picking. Rough guide, get it?
Well sir, if you read the OP, you can see that it says, "...comes up as biking in watts." Not, kCal. Get it?
Then do the math, weisenheimer. It's straightforward multiplication and division.
Original Post by behanna:
I guess both of you breezed past "rough guide." Those numbers are indeed in kCal. Ultimately, that's what people want to log for their activity logs.
Yes, the real way is to get your own power meter. Absent that (ta-da) the rough guide, based upon my own observations from my own power meter.
It is, as I say, a ROUGH GUIDE. I'm not particularly interested in nit-picking. Rough guide, get it?
Dude chill out. 
It's all guestimation and rough calculations in the end. Even with the power meter. Most have 2-5% error margin. On top of that they measure power, in Watts, being applied to the drive train (various parts based on the design of the power meter). From that and taking in to account time spent turning those pedals Joules are calculated. The thing is it's the amount of energy that was produced at the drive train, not how much energy our bodies expanded, Cal, producing it. The "conventional" wisdom taking in to account that our bodies are not all that efficient, loss of power in the drive train, etc is that we expand 1 Cal to produce 1J. Also a "rough guide". ;)
P.S. I am pretty sure kCal is redundant. :)
UD
well, when your computer says "19 miles" in one hour so technically you averaged 19 mph. if your a mediocre rider like myself, 19 mph is really good considering i average 17-18 mph on a good 30 miler, so i would classify your wattage as vigorous or higher. or another way of measuring your watts is 0 being easy and 10 being OUT OF BREATH....if you think of your ride as not being able to speak the whole entire time, its vigorous, if its conversational pace, its moderate, so on and so forth. i hope this helps, i struggle with this one too since i use my trainer nearly every day for intervals, etc.
Original Post by amethystgirl:
This is better than the debate about pasta...
... *awkward turtle* ...
That was funny. And now I realize how dumb we look arguing over the internetz. Sorry behanna, you were just trying to help out too.
Wait, is amethyst calling us snarky?!
Original Post by lee0harwell:
well, when your computer says "19 miles" in one hour so technically you averaged 19 mph. if your a mediocre rider like myself, 19 mph is really good considering i average 17-18 mph on a good 30 miler, so i would classify your wattage as vigorous or higher. or another way of measuring your watts is 0 being easy and 10 being OUT OF BREATH....if you think of your ride as not being able to speak the whole entire time, its vigorous, if its conversational pace, its moderate, so on and so forth. i hope this helps, i struggle with this one too since i use my trainer nearly every day for intervals, etc.
I think you mean "perceived effort" and not watts. Two different things. The power being generated, watts, does not change. What changes is how a person feels when they are generating that much energy.
For example lets take three riders that are the same gender, height, weight, proportions, on the same bikes, same course and conditions, well you get the idea. Only difference is one is a super fit Tour De France quality rider, another a wannabe racer who races, trains, but just not enough, lacks genetics etc, and a third rider whos' idea of exercise is changing the channel manually when remote breaks.
We put them on bikes and let tell them to maintain 200 Watts for 30 minutes. For super human pro rider it will feel like a very easy ride so perceived effort migt be around 2-3. For a less fit wannabe racer it might be around 5-6, and for couch potato it can go as high as 9. The same watts were produced by all three riders, just how they feel about it will vary.
Of course out of this a discussion about aerobic vs anaerobic exercise can come out. Anyone wants to derail this thread further? Sorry OP.
UD
Original Post by bmx419:
Original Post by amethystgirl:
This is better than the debate about pasta...
... *awkward turtle* ...
That was funny. And now I realize how dumb we look arguing over the internetz. Sorry behanna, you were just trying to help out too.
Wait, is amethyst calling us snarky?!
I would never.
Original Post by umneydurak:
Original Post by behanna:
I guess both of you breezed past "rough guide." Those numbers are indeed in kCal. Ultimately, that's what people want to log for their activity logs.
Yes, the real way is to get your own power meter. Absent that (ta-da) the rough guide, based upon my own observations from my own power meter.
It is, as I say, a ROUGH GUIDE. I'm not particularly interested in nit-picking. Rough guide, get it?
Dude chill out.
P.S. I am pretty sure kCal is redundant. :)
UD
kCal is redundant, kcal is not. By convention, 1 Cal (uppercase "C") equals 1 kilocalorie.
As I suspect you know, the "calories" we refer to in terms of food energy and energy expenditure are actually "Calories", not "calories".
Original Post by azdak:
kCal is redundant, kcal is not. By convention, 1 Cal (uppercase "C") equals 1 kilocalorie.
As I suspect you know, the "calories" we refer to in terms of food energy and energy expenditure are actually "Calories", not "calories".
Yes, thus the P.S. which was to address post #5
UD
Is there a safe diet pill for teens?
Orlistat, marketed as Xenical by prescription and over-the-counter Alli, is the only drug approved by the FDA for teens ages 12 to 16... Read more