Interesting points & observations about the HR-Monitors.....I'd further suppose caffiene and other stimulants would also throw off the equation as well?
I've often wondered.....as I continued to ride my same typical route of 14.5 miles on my mountain bike (a year ago), I was doing it in faster time, in higher gears and it was less taxing: this because I was getting in better shape and losing some weight. As the weeks progressed, I noticed I was doing the ride using fewer and fewer calories. The HR-Monitor used to report some 1,100 calories and at one point it was as low as 770 calories (after several months).
Part of me figured it's not right: to move a set amount of weight "X" from 1,200 feet altitue to 2,000 feet altitude should require a set amount of energy. But then I thought, that's not right...because some means of moving the weight are more efficeint then others. What did I do? Develop more muscle fibers? Develop muscles that generate power using less glucose? Or did I develop more mitochondria to produce more power and a more efficient rate? I dunno, it's all quite fascinating and in the end all we have are our theories and what science tries to tell us.
Back on subject. If a person stays well hydrated....I don't think they'd burn more calories exercising in 84 degree weather then if they were in 72-degree weather. The higher temps just make it more difficult for the body to cool itself...so you sweat more. Intensity changes calories burnt, but not temperature (barring extremes).
I've often wondered.....as I continued to ride my same typical route of 14.5 miles on my mountain bike (a year ago), I was doing it in faster time, in higher gears and it was less taxing: this because I was getting in better shape and losing some weight. As the weeks progressed, I noticed I was doing the ride using fewer and fewer calories. The HR-Monitor used to report some 1,100 calories and at one point it was as low as 770 calories (after several months).
Part of me figured it's not right: to move a set amount of weight "X" from 1,200 feet altitue to 2,000 feet altitude should require a set amount of energy. But then I thought, that's not right...because some means of moving the weight are more efficeint then others. What did I do? Develop more muscle fibers? Develop muscles that generate power using less glucose? Or did I develop more mitochondria to produce more power and a more efficient rate? I dunno, it's all quite fascinating and in the end all we have are our theories and what science tries to tell us.
Back on subject. If a person stays well hydrated....I don't think they'd burn more calories exercising in 84 degree weather then if they were in 72-degree weather. The higher temps just make it more difficult for the body to cool itself...so you sweat more. Intensity changes calories burnt, but not temperature (barring extremes).