Human Power (Cycling) & Energy Expenditure

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sirsh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Human Power
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the power output of cyclists during one hour of cycling and the corresponding energy expenditure in calories. It explores the discrepancies between calculated energy expenditure based on power output and typical calorie burn estimates provided by various sources.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the record power output for cyclists is around 400-500 watts for an hour, leading to a calculation of approximately 368 calories burned based on energy conversion.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the human body is not 100% efficient, suggesting that actual calorie expenditure is higher than the mechanical work output.
  • It is proposed that the calculated calorie expenditure includes factors such as respiration, body heat generation, and increased blood flow, while the power output reflects only mechanical work.
  • A later reply agrees with the distinction between mechanical work and overall energy expenditure, reinforcing the idea of efficiency differences among cyclists.
  • One participant mentions that racing cyclists may exhibit greater efficiency compared to non-racers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the human body's efficiency affects energy expenditure calculations, but the discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact reasons for the discrepancies in calorie burn estimates.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not address specific assumptions about individual metabolic rates, weight, or other factors that could influence energy expenditure calculations.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in sports science, exercise physiology, cycling performance, and energy expenditure calculations may find this discussion relevant.

Sirsh
Messages
262
Reaction score
10
I have come across something that has me stumped which has something to do with the records of power output by cyclists over a one hour period.

The record of the most power (watts) generated by a cyclist is in the realm of 400-500 watts for an hour, so 400-500 Wh.

Now, we know that one watt (W) of energy is equal to one joule per second (J/s) and for one watt hour there would be the equivalent joules/hour which is 3,600 J/h.

If we are to convert the power output of the cyclist into joules/h then we would have (using 450 Wh) 1,620,000 joules/h or 1,620 kJ/h.

My confusion lies here, if the cyclist has expended/burnt 1,620 kJ in that hour of riding, this equates to approximately 368 calories/hour (using 4.4 kJ = 1 Calorie).

Now if you are to go on any website to figure out how many calories you have burnt over the course of riding for an hour, they generally will give you in excess of 3 times this amount.

Why is this? is there something wrong with what I have done, or is the power that the cyclist generated not depended on weight and other factors that would be incorporated in the calculation of energy expenditure?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
russ_watters said:
The human body is far from 100% efficient.

So the calculated calorie expenditure would incorporate things like respiration/body heat generation/increased blood flow etc.?

Whereas the 400-500W is purely the mechanical work that they can generate?
 
Sirsh said:
So the calculated calorie expenditure would incorporate things like respiration/body heat generation/increased blood flow etc.?

Whereas the 400-500W is purely the mechanical work that they can generate?
Correct.
 
And racing cyclists are probably a lot more efficient than the rest of us.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 169 ·
6
Replies
169
Views
16K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
19K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
2K