Eddie Izzard

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Jack
Posts: 134
Joined: 22 Feb 2007, 11:22pm

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby Jack » 5 Mar 2010, 1:32pm

- - -and the reports mention a 155lb person but no mention of bike weight. I guess it wasn't a chopper they did the tests on (Dr Coyle has done a lot of work with Lance!).

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 51004
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby Mick F » 5 Mar 2010, 1:50pm

I'm 180lbs and no Lance Armstrong!

Has anyone else got any records? I know that other people keep records and own Garmins.
Mick F. Cornwall

mw3230
Posts: 1162
Joined: 31 May 2007, 11:22pm
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby mw3230 » 5 Mar 2010, 3:09pm

Jack -

Not knowing the context, I can't really comment on the bit about fat reserves but I think the bit about calories burned in a marathon is probably about right. The most cited research on the net seems to be that of Dr Edward Coyle, Director of the Human Performance Laboratory at the University of Texas.

I can't locate the actual paper (and I'd like to have a look if anyone knows how to access it) but there are lots of references to the results (many of which probably cite each other). From these second-hand reports it would seem that a 155 pound runner burns up 110 cal per mile and this roughly ties in with the 3000 calories per marathon figure.

His research with cyclists took showed that speed (because of wind resistance) had a significant impact.
At 10 mph 26 cal/mile
At 15 mph 31 cal/mile
At 20 mph 38 cal/mile
At 25 mph 47 cal/mile
At 30 mph 59 cal/mile


MickF -

Those figures are totally wrong with respect to what my Garmin 705, and before that, a 305 and the computer programs I have.


Over to you Dr Coyle!


Sorry for the cumbersome 'quoting' but I can't seem to include extracts from several posts like the experts are able to do!
Retired and loving it

User avatar
fraxinus
Posts: 146
Joined: 4 Oct 2009, 9:07pm
Location: West Midlands

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby fraxinus » 5 Mar 2010, 6:20pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8256589.stm

Ah it does say enough fat to sustain 40 marathons whatever that means.
I thought cycling burns 300 to 600 calories an hour depending on the intensity can not remember where I read that though.
So many bike rides so little time

Jonty

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby Jonty » 7 Mar 2010, 7:56pm

I also think running a marathon is harder than cycling 100 miles not that I've done either. I've done a few half marathons and a few 50 mile cycle rides and the former were much harder even though I was much younger when I did the runs compared with the rides.
But to do 43 marathons in 51 days in unbelievable for anyone never mind someone who hasn't trained much and is "thick-set".
That guy's got some guts.
jonty

Anura
Posts: 234
Joined: 5 Aug 2008, 3:18pm
Location: Near Risley Moss Warrington

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby Anura » 8 Mar 2010, 8:25pm

I watched that the other night, stayed up for it. I was very impressed by his guts. I also saw him in The Day of the Triffids but of course he was the baddie in that.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby meic » 8 Mar 2010, 8:41pm

Mick F wrote:Those figures are totally wrong with respect to what my Garmin 705, and before that, a 305 and the computer programs I have.

2008 I averaged 60.09 cals/mile
2009 I averaged 67.34 cals/mile
2010 so far, I average a massive 89.62 cals/mile. This figure consists of mainly riding a 44lb leviathan of a Raleigh Chopper!

I mainly ride at an ave speed of 12 to 14mph.


I agree that the figures given do totally disagree with those given by the Garmin, which merely reinforces my belief that those figures on the Garmin are totally unreliable.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
fraxinus
Posts: 146
Joined: 4 Oct 2009, 9:07pm
Location: West Midlands

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby fraxinus » 8 Mar 2010, 9:19pm

The point where Eddie tells the Doctor how much training he has done I found very funny. He could not believe it.
So many bike rides so little time

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby meic » 8 Mar 2010, 9:31pm

I just had a look at my copy of Sports Nutrition for Endurance Athletes (dont worry it was a Christmas present, I didnt buy it).

For someone of my weight a runner would burn

5mph 10.9 cal/min
7mph 15.4 cal/min
9mph 19.5 cal/min

and if you do the calculations they would all burn about 3,600 calories to run 27 miles.
This figure is on top of your resting metabolic rate.

Cyclists would burn

15mph 13.1
20mph 19.2
25mph 24.5

on flat ground with no wind (so those figures are no use then :lol: )
To do 27 miles they would burn 1400 at the slow pace going up to 1600 at the fast pace.

I dont know what level of fitness these figures are for but fitter athletes use less calories than unfit ones. That I think explains the discrepency, Dr Coyle was giving 60 cal/mile for a cyclist (probably of TdF standing) doing 30mph on a track and you get 60cal/mile on hilly terrain and you were probably both pushing your cycling to a similar effort level.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 51004
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby Mick F » 9 Mar 2010, 7:50am

meic wrote:I agree that the figures given do totally disagree with those given by the Garmin, which merely reinforces my belief that those figures on the Garmin are totally unreliable.


I never look at the calories on my Garmin, but use Ascent and the figures I quoted are from there, not Garmin Edge 705. Ascent takes all the data from your unit and re-calculates everything.
If you reckon the figures are wrong, I suggest you email Rob, the program developer, and tell him! :wink:
http://www.montebellosoftware.com/index.html
http://www.montebellosoftware.com/webpa ... ntact.html
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby meic » 9 Mar 2010, 2:39pm

I am not about to go and argue with someone about the figures that their software knocks out. It is enough for me that I dont have to accept them myself, if he wants to believe that's fine but personally I do not believe that a GPS even with cadence meter and pulse monitor will gather enough information to correctly determine calorific usage.

Finally I expect that most of his figures are based on using the actual measured calorific expenditure of athletes, which after going through two mathematical processess with assumptions and inaccuracies, are now being used to dispute the original figures on which they are based. :)

Just my viewpoint which I am not going to make much effort to prove and am willing to learn otherwise but for the record that is how i see it.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 51004
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby Mick F » 9 Mar 2010, 2:58pm

I think you're probably right, Meic though I think that I haven't a clue how the calorie consumption is calculated, but I'm sure the programmers do as good a job as they can. Therefore it must be as accurate as it can be - considering the inputs:
Age
Weight
Heart Rate - average and peak
Speed - ditto
Gradient and Elevation Profile
Bike and Equipment Weight

I weighed my bike - 23lbs
I weighed my Raleigh Chopper and trailer with some ballast loads - 82lbs !!!!

A runner carries nothing, bike riders carry a heavy load sometimes, so cyclists must use more calories than runners for the same "effort."
I used "Effort", because we still haven't worked out what the equivalent ride would be compared to a running marathon. If we could, I reckon a cyclist would use more calories than a runner.
Mick F. Cornwall

Jonty

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby Jonty » 9 Mar 2010, 6:24pm

When I was running and playing squash and climbing and doing a bit of boxing I ATE ABOUT 8,000 calories a day! And I was always hungry.
I never went over 10 stone 10 lbs (height, just under 5 9).
An important consideration is that one can eat when cycling but the idea has never even entered my head whilst running. I'm sure if I'd tried it I'd been sick.
I've never heard of anyone eating whilst running.
When cycling you can keep reserves in the tank by eating - continuously if you want to. I prefer to have something to eat every hour when cycling and I don't like going longer than 1.5 hours without a mosh.
Apparently one is more likely to bonk when cycling compared with running. I've never seen anyone bonk at running but I've seen a few cycling (can't get off their bikes, shaking, foaming at the mouth etc.)
Fortunately the next stage - spasms and death - has been averted by the sudden appearance of a spanish omlette with chips, salad, rhubard crumple and 3 cups of tea.
When you run out of energy when running you simply have to stop or eventually you'll end up crawling along the ground like one of those Channel swimmers trying to get ashore.
It seems it's easier to deplete your reserves when cycling without being aware of it.
I suppose the relatively easy cyclical motion of pedalling combined with the advantages of gearing, means that you're less aware of increasing exhaustion and total energy depletion.
jonty (what's for supper?)

fatboy
Posts: 3456
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 1:32pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby fatboy » 10 Mar 2010, 8:09am

Jonty wrote:I've never heard of anyone eating whilst running.
When cycling you can keep reserves in the tank by eating - continuously if you want to. I prefer to have something to eat every hour when cycling and I don't like going longer than 1.5 hours without a mosh.
Apparently one is more likely to bonk when cycling compared with running. I've never seen anyone bonk at running but I've seen a few cycling (can't get off their bikes, shaking, foaming at the mouth etc.)


It's just called "The Wall" instead but it's the same beast! The reason it is less noticed is that most people don't run over 20 miles (on a marathon around 23-25 miles were the worst) as it's too uncomfortable with the pounding and jarring but you can ride a bike all day! To give you an idea of how ilogical one can get with "The Wall" I wouldn't go to a drinks station on the London Marathon "because I would have to go further" (about 2 foot further!).

I did a running event that involved checkpoints and they handed out Bread Pudding which was suprisingly un-vomit making and lovely!
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly

fimm
Posts: 328
Joined: 7 Sep 2009, 3:29pm

Re: Eddie Izzard

Postby fimm » 11 Mar 2010, 10:55am

Jonty wrote:I've never heard of anyone eating whilst running.


Welcome to the world of the Ultramarathon... My boyfriend did a double marathon (actually it was 56 miles) on Saturday, as it happens. He had a "run-walk" strategy - run 20 minutes, walk 2. And in those two minutes he ate - gels, sweets, mini flapjacks. I would guess the faster guys didn't walk so much, but they would still need to take on energy.

On the subject of "which is the hardest?" - a swimmer, a cyclist and a runner were arguing about this, so the story goes, and so they decided to string all three events together and thus the Ironman triathlon was born. That is a 2.25 mile swim, 112 miles on the bike, 26.2 miles run.

Oh, and we watched the Eddie Izzard programme on iPlayer and I thought it was good and he was a very determined person!
Of course it's a race...