How do calorie counters work on ergs etc & how accurate?

[bob01]

Hi.
I read what your are saying.

Are watts produced and calories expended linearly related? I would contend one is exchanging far more EXTRA oxygen in an hours time trial than tootling along chatting on a 4 hr easy ride

Wish I could chuck out 400 watts for an hour.... Lol

EPOC is a factor.... As is muscle density/ size. When it comes to burning calories

The point I was originally commenting/questioning was the assertion that 1.25 hrs hard on the ergo burnt the same calories as a 2 hr walk!!!

[jamesg]

On the erg heat is considered as 4 x work done (as delivered to the handle and measured using flywheel speeds), plus a certain amount for being alive (300 kCal/h).

The erg knows nothing about how efficient we are: 4 or 25% is an estimate. Since we know little about what else we do and how much we eat, 10% accuracy would be good enough. Our weight is what counts.

[hjs]

Hi.
I read what your are saying.

Are watts produced and calories expended linearly related? I would contend one is exchanging far more EXTRA oxygen in an hours time trial than tootling along chatting on a 4 hr easy ride

Wish I could chuck out 400 watts for an hour.... Lol

EPOC is a factor.... As is muscle density/ size. When it comes to burning calories

The point I was originally commenting/questioning was the assertion that 1.25 hrs hard on the ergo burnt the same calories as a 2 hr walk!!!

They roughly are, only when you go anaerobic, we get less efficient, but that only last a short time.
You are very much mistaken that a hour burns more energy then a 4 hour ride, the last does a lot more. If you use 200 on the 4 hour and 400 during the hour, its double.

A hard erg for one can be slow still. And a walk can be easy but also be very brisk. But in general thats correct.

My point was, the difference between a hard session and a steady one is not that big, and second a steady one does recover much faster. Volume is the main component, simply put, more work, so more energy used. Epoc does matter ofcourse, but really if the goal is losing weight, volume is key. If you go for shorter higher intensity, recovery is much more difficult. And normal training will suffer.

[bob01]

With easy to moderate exercise is fuelled aerobically ...oxygen inhaled...so probably within that zone distance is the factor
Eg. A 2 mile walk equates with a 2 mile jog. But as soon as one approaches or goes beyond threshold then the metabolic disturbance and damage requires extra energy to repair....

[hjs]

With easy to moderate exercise is fuelled aerobically ...oxygen inhaled...so probably within that zone distance is the factor
Eg. A 2 mile walk equates with a 2 mile jog. But as soon as one approaches or goes beyond threshold then the metabolic disturbance and damage requires extra energy to repair....

We only function very shortly anaerobicly, and even that anaerobic energy needs to to covered by oxygen. So energy use can be 100% derived from oxygen used (not inhaled). Epoc ditto, its extra oxigion used on top of base use.

Example on the erg, you do a 30 min steady session, say at 2k plus 20 seconds, firm but no racing.

Next sesh, also 30 min, but here 1 min on, 1 min off, on pieces at 2k pace.

The first session will cover a lot more meters, the second will be more tough, and have more epoc. But certainly not more to cover the lost meters/work.

And the interval session can,t be done daily, you certainly would burn out, the steady session can be done yearround if you want to.

[Psychopasta]

I think the Erg must know 'exactly' how much work you are doing against it. But, how much work are you doing in order to get that much work done? There's no way to know the efficiency of the operator, so they have to do a guesstimate of that part. Best not overthink it, and just accept it as a ballpark number. - Pasta

[Citroen]

I think the Erg must know 'exactly' how much work you are doing against it. But, how much work are you doing in order to get that much work done? There's no way to know the efficiency of the operator, so they have to do a guesstimate of that part. Best not overthink it, and just accept it as a ballpark number. - Pasta

That's it, in a nutshell. Unless they know your physical characteristics (and do the complex maths) there nothing more they can do. You can see why they picked an arbitrary 300 cal and arbitrary 175lb (~80Kg) weight as it made their maths easier.

The PM2 is, basically, a FPGA with a burned in program. They could do more with PM3 and beyond as it's based on a microcontroller. The thing they did with PM3 was emulate the PM2 with all the quirks and wrinkles left in (hence the strange rounding down of values, the integer (rounded down) stroke rate and the pace to only 1/10th of a second).

[edinborogh]

i read somewhere that a study found out the EPOC effect is over rated and burns at best no more then 80 Cal.

the more important thing is to understand what is a calorie as an energy unit and where is it coming from. if from Sugars ( carbs ) - its not helping with weight lose and takes your muscle gains if you lift weights. however a 60%-65% effort ( based on Max HR ) will burn LESS calories overall all, but much more fat based calories that will be more effective for weight loss.

i have been doing long SS during 2017 and dropped from 83Kg to 68Kg without changing my diet. when ever i had a plato - i just lifted a bit of weights, added a bit of intensity to my rows ( every few Km pulled hard for 500 meters ) and that helped.

since my knee surgery back in December i was out till April, got in to full rowing in May ( did a total of 215Km during May 2018 ), and still having a hard time doing 5K, but from 74Kg i am now 72Kg.