Climbing for eggheads

[starbaby]

Last night, I spent a few minutes on the treadmill at the YMCA with a clipboard and pen. If you have ever used one of those things, you know that they give you the number of calories burned per hour, based on you weight, speed of travel (mph) and rate of ascent (slope of grade in %). For example, I know that I can burn as many calories per hour walking at 3.5 mph at a 10% slope as a person running at a considerably faster speed while they run on a flat surface. Not only is this much better on your bones (walking on a slope rather than running), it is better conditioning for what I want to do anyways. To climb mountains.

So I ran the machine through all sorts of speed settings and slope angles and created a grid of points that I plotted. I would upload a graph that shows it all, but I don't know how to do that yet. Although this seems like a useless excercise for everyone, except for those who like looking at graphs, if I did my math right, it does give you one piece of valuable information. From it, you can deduce the number of calories burned in 1 mile of distance and the number of calories burned in climbing 1000 feet of elevation. Here is the result. It's pretty easy to remember...

Calories burned during climbing = 100 calories per mile of distance + 150 calories per 1,000 feet of climbing.

So, if you're concerned about loosing weight on a hike: Here is an example: Climbing Marcy from the Loj?

You'll burn: 100 cal/mile X 15 miles + 150 cal/1,000 ft X 3,000 feet = 1950 cal.

Voila.

3,500 calories is 1 pound of fat, so eat accordingly.

Please note one item. I couldn't figure out how to program the weight, so this is probably for some default weight. You can expect that if you weigh more (or if you carry 30 lbs on your back), the calories burned will probably scale with your total weight.

[Little Rickie]

I use a Polar heart rate monitor. It's programed with my: age, weight & fitness level and it tells me how many calories I've burned for the, session, day, week and cumulative totals along with some other helpfull stats. I like this because there is no fooling on how hard I'm working and it's all in my watch.

At 3.5 mph & 10 degrees of elevation on the treadmill I'm burning 700+ calories an hour. Now if I could just keep that up for the full hour...

[Wldrns]

...Calories burned during climbing = 100 calories per mile of distance + 150 calories per 1,000 feet of climbing...

Interestingly, the average unloaded comfortable hiking speed over good flat terrain is 3mph (1.5 miles in 30 minutes) according to my own experience and also to Naismith's Rule. Also Naismith says to add another 30 minutes for every 1000 feet of climb.

So, by your calculation, a mile and a half of flatland hiking in 30 minutes burns 150 calories. This equals 1000 feet of vertical ascent requiring an additional 30 minutes plus 150 calories. Coincidence??

[Hobbitling]

is that on top of the 1800-2000 calories we burn anyway in a day? it must be. Plus if you are carrying a pack, you can probably burn even more calories.

[starbaby]

Awsome observation, right. Both rules seem to be consistent with the conclusion that the work of travelling 1.5 miles on the flat land is equivalent to 1,000 feet of vertical. Neat.

[starbaby]

is that on top of the 1800-2000 calories we burn anyway in a day? it must be. Plus if you are carrying a pack, you can probably burn even more calories.

Let me think about this... All my computations are based on the readout of the treadmill. I assumed that if you set the speed to zero on the treadmill, the "calories burned" would go to zero...not to the 50 cal per hour you burn standing around. So I would have to say that the calories predicted from my formula are additional to your normal-baseline calories consumed. So add them on top to the 1800 calories you need per day.

And if your carrying a pack, I would figure things this way (without looking it up), if you weigh 150, and your pack is 50 lbs, then you scale my estimate by: 200 / 150 or, mulitply the value estimated above by 1.33.

SB

[Little Rickie]

And if your carrying a pack, I would figure things this way (without looking it up), if you weigh 150, and your pack is 50 lbs, then you scale my estimate by: 200 / 150 or, mulitply the value estimated above by 1.33.

SB[/QUOTE]

I would press a few buttons on HRM and increase my weigh by 50lbs for the duration of the exercise session, save the stats and then change my weight back to my original setting when I'm done. Your numbers seem a little low but I don't weigh 150 lbs either.

[starbaby]

I couldn't figure out how to change the weight setting that the machine was displaying. But your right, you could get the answer by changing the weight setting on the machine.

PS. I weigh 155 lbs (I lost 60 lbs these past two years).

[redhawk]

I figured out scientifically that if I put one foot in front of the other, I will eventually get to where I want to go...

Geez, I go to the woods to get away from all the calculating and stuff.

K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid), or "Keep It Spiritual Son"

[starbaby]

oh well, I'm a physicist by profession. I cant' live without thinking about numbers, graphs, data. If I didn't do these kind of things, I would shrivel up into a singularity and implode upon myself into nothingness in a flash of energy.

[Hobbitling]

dude, you are a geek!

Now we biologists on the other hand...

[starbaby]

Biologist !? You mean..

Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species...

[kwc]

Personally I get a "better" workout when I use the elliptical machine at the gym ... you can change the resistance to meet your needs, choose various programs (hills, random, etc.), as well as the time. And you can "pedal backwards", something you can't do on the treadmill (unless you're extremely talented), and that works a different set of leg muscles. I typically burn far more calories on the elliptical than on the treadmill (regardless of the slope of the treadmill) in an equal amount of time.

[Little Rickie]

Personally I get a "better" workout when I use the elliptical machine at the gym ... you can change the resistance to meet your needs, choose various programs (hills, random, etc.), as well as the time. And you can "pedal backwards", something you can't do on the treadmill (unless you're extremely talented), and that works a different set of leg muscles. I typically burn far more calories on the elliptical than on the treadmill (regardless of the slope of the treadmill) in an equal amount of time.

My wife swears by the elliptical. I haven't tried one yet but when I do I'll have my HRM on and will gather my stats. I'm talking about getting an accurate indication of how hard I'm exercising & the HRM is the best way of doing that.

The machines are nice but the real calorie burn on the trail with some weight on your back is way big and for real. It's the best.

PS. I weigh 155 lbs (I lost 60 lbs these past two years).

physicist Biologist geek you all need real jobs

[Little Rickie]

What happened to the "Senior Resident Curmudgeon" post?