New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Calories bunred while skiing

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
So I came across this site, which describes how many calories will be burned during various exercises, including skiing.
http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm

Now, we all spend a considerable amount of time waiting in line and sitting on the lift chairs. Do you think that is part of the "skiing" time, or not. So if I was 190lbs (I wish), and ski'd at a moderate effort for six hours (if only) then would I burn 3108 calories?

I think not. I'm thinking you need to deduct time spent waiting and riding up, and only count the time spent coming down the hill.
post #2 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowSnake
I'm thinking you need to deduct time spent waiting and riding up, and only count the time spent coming down the hill.
AGREED!! I checked out the website and can't believe I would burn a couple of thousand calories/day skiing with moderate effort. Interesting post!
post #3 of 20
Keep in mind that if it's really cold, there is the thermogenesis factor. So your body will be using fat as fuel while waiting in the lift line. Probably not a significant amount, though.
If you are really obsessed, Copper has this slopetracker thing you can rent, which tracks where and how you skied, and how many calories you burned.
post #4 of 20
I don't know how much and whether I truly believe the numbers. All I know is that my gut seems to be the same size as the start of this season. My quads are hard as rocks but the gut, well will the word jello tell you anything?
post #5 of 20
mmmmmmmm, there's always room for Jell-O.
post #6 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowSnake
So I came across this site, which describes how many calories will be burned during various exercises, including skiing.
http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm

Now, we all spend a considerable amount of time waiting in line and sitting on the lift chairs. Do you think that is part of the "skiing" time, or not. So if I was 190lbs (I wish), and ski'd at a moderate effort for six hours (if only) then would I burn 3108 calories?

I think not. I'm thinking you need to deduct time spent waiting and riding up, and only count the time spent coming down the hill.
You're right. It probably won't happen. There are too many variables to consider to set up a table like that and make it representative of the entire population.

The only true way to measure caloric energy expenditure is through a bomb calorimeter (which wouldn't really work for skiing) or through measuring O2 consumption while skiing. Other than that, it's just an educated guess as to how much one person or another person burns.
post #7 of 20
I think it is the calories that are burned when you are actually skiing. You will have to find another list for calories burned while sitting on the lift.
post #8 of 20
I also think there is something wrong with the list. IMHO, it's only a rough guide.

When I vigorously ski down a bump run as fast as I can, my legs are burning and rubbery, my pulse is racing and I'm breathing hard by the time I'm at the bottom. To get the same calories burned when snowshoeing, I would have to be running in them. My vigourous effort downhill skiing is more like running up stairs; I must be terribly inneficient . I would look at all the activities and figure that my calory output ranges from 200 to 1500 depending more on my effort than the actual activity.
post #9 of 20
One of these days I'm going to wear my heart rate monitor (which has a calorie counter) while skiing and find out for sure.....

L
post #10 of 20
The problem here is figuring out how much time you're actively skiing and how much time you're standing around or sitting on the lift.

Skiing for 6 hours would, I'd guess, mean you spent about 18 hours at the mountain with very few breaks.

Divide your on-mountain time by 3 to get an idea of how much time you actually spent moving
post #11 of 20
Thread Starter 
I figured I would estimate how long, on average, it would take to complete one non-stop run down the mountain, and count how many runs I get in a day. Then do the math to come up with the estimate of calories burned.

Its clearly just a ball-park number, but if you're tracking calories, you need some sort of guess.
post #12 of 20
The HRM would do all of jonnythan/SnowSnake maths, keeping track of in-zone and out-of-zone time totals.

What no one has pointed out yet is that, at 604 calories per hour, that's 6 hours of skiing and NOT eating to lose 1 lb fat. How many skiers do you think can do that?
post #13 of 20
Exercising isn't about burning calories while you're exercising.

It's about getting your heart in better shape, getting your muscles in better shape, and teaching your body to burn more calories when you're sitting still.
post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex
What no one has pointed out yet is that, at 604 calories per hour, that's 6 hours of skiing and NOT eating to lose 1 lb fat. How many skiers do you think can do that?
On a ten-day ski trip to Colorado, I lose 3/4ths of a pound per day. It is a combination of (a) lots of exercise (I go with my brother, and we ski NASTAR gates every day, as we have a sibling rivalry thing going) and (b) less appetite at high altitude.

And, remember, (1) the calories burned skiing are in addition to the ones you burn naturally, in digesting food, sleeping, maintaining temperature etc., and (2) even if you don't lose weight skiing, you increase muscle mass, having a leaner, fitter body (less fat, more muscle) even at the same weight.
post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfdean
On a ten-day ski trip to Colorado, I lose 3/4ths of a pound per day. It is a combination of (a) lots of exercise (I go with my brother, and we ski NASTAR gates every day, as we have a sibling rivalry thing going) and (b) less appetite at high altitude.

And, remember, (1) the calories burned skiing are in addition to the ones you burn naturally, in digesting food, sleeping, maintaining temperature etc., and (2) even if you don't lose weight skiing, you increase muscle mass, having a leaner, fitter body (less fat, more muscle) even at the same weight.
Of course the average punter hits the bar and restaurant as part of the ski holiday experience offsetting any athletic gains....especially for the Latte skiers. And a glass of white wine = about 20 mins on the rowing machine = 200 calories.
post #16 of 20
I'm pretty sure that the first 10 or so minutes of aerboic activity almost exclusively use energy from the most accessible sources like blood sugar and glycogen stores (Carbs really aren't bad. They do add pounds for people who sit on their ass 24/7/365 and don't use this energy though). As a consequence, you don't start burning the less accessible energy source (body fat) until after around 10 consecutive minutes of aerobic activity.

Riding up the lift frequently interrupts this process.

Skiing will burn up some blood sugars and glycogen that would otherwise be converted to fat but it isn't the best fat burning (or weight loss) workout available. Not to say that skiing won't gradually burn away fat and it isn't a great workout, but straight aerobic workouts are the best for losing fat and losing weight.

Skiing is more of a combination of aerobic, strength, balance, etc workouts combined.
post #17 of 20
Interesting. I have a friend who was doing Weight Watchers. I don't know much about WW but I do know that every food has a point value and you are allowed a certain number of points per day. You get more points if you exercise.

She was allowed something like 16 points on days she didn't exercise. A day of downhill skiing, though, gave her an extra 8 points!
post #18 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbubnis
I'm pretty sure that the first 10 or so minutes of aerboic activity almost exclusively use energy from the most accessible sources like blood sugar and glycogen stores (Carbs really aren't bad. They do add pounds for people who sit on their ass 24/7/365 and don't use this energy though). As a consequence, you don't start burning the less accessible energy source (body fat) until after around 10 consecutive minutes of aerobic activity.

Riding up the lift frequently interrupts this process.

Skiing will burn up some blood sugars and glycogen that would otherwise be converted to fat but it isn't the best fat burning (or weight loss) workout available. Not to say that skiing won't gradually burn away fat and it isn't a great workout, but straight aerobic workouts are the best for losing fat and losing weight.

Skiing is more of a combination of aerobic, strength, balance, etc workouts combined.
Skiing isn't anywhere close to being an efficient way to burn calories and lose weight. Aerobic workouts, running, are better - but studies show that the most time-efficient method to burn calories is weight training. As the body attempts to rebuild broken-down muscles, it will be burning off calories at an accelerated rate for 24-48 hours after you drop your last weight. Compared to running where your body stops burning calories at an accelerated rate shortly after you step off the treadmill.

Most sports are not efficient methods of burning calories - skiing, basketball, football, baseball - all have way too many rest periods which prevent you from entering the fat burning stage of a cardio workout. A sport like soccer, where there are few breaks in the action, is best for burning calories.

But, hey, even the worst calorie-burning sport is 1000x better than sitting on your butt and watching TV!
post #19 of 20
Thread Starter 
Well, I just got back from Utah. I left five pounds of fat back there! I know that I'm not dehydrated, so it wasn't simply water loss.

And I ate whatever and drank as much local beer as I could stomach.
Although, there was one day where I never left the room. Two days without sleep and a case of strep throat pretty much killed my apetite for the day.

I think being active all day has something to do with it. That's better than a one or two hour workout.
post #20 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowSnake
Well, I just got back from Utah. I left five pounds of fat back there! I know that I'm not dehydrated, so it wasn't simply water loss.

And I ate whatever and drank as much local beer as I could stomach.
Although, there was one day where I never left the room. Two days without sleep and a case of strep throat pretty much killed my apetite for the day.

I think being active all day has something to do with it. That's better than a one or two hour workout.
Yes. But when I said 'time-efficient' I meant hour-for-hour. Sure, being active all day beats being in the gym for 60 minutes. But hour-for-hour, sports like skiing, basketball, football etc aren't that great at burning calories.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: