 Poster: A snowHead
|
Just curious, which one burns more calories in a day, presuming the mileage covered is the same? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Snowboarding - purely for the bending/ sitting down to strap in all the time
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Telemarking
Between alpine skiing and snowboarding, there are so many variables that I don't think you can make any useful judgement. That said, I reckon a beginner would burn more calories snowboarding, as they'll likely fall over more, so will need to expend more energy getting back up
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
Snowboarding - purely for the bending/ sitting down to strap in all the time
|
This really doesn't burn significant kcal.
Good snowboarders and good skiers probably burn similar - gravity is doing the hard work. At the more beginner level snowboarding might edge it as a lot more falling and having to get back up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@boarder2020, compared to not standing up and sitting down to strap in - it does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I actually burn less calories in a day using step ons than I do when I’m watching TV 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sking with a snowboarder - so you can give a pull or push on the flat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was going to say Telemark skiing as well  @viv,
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
@Nadenoodlee, I would guess strapping in uses up less than 1kcal. For reference walking is around 3-6kcal for a whole minute vs the 10secs or so to strap in and is arguably a more demanding movement. Unless you are a beginner falling over and just being incredibly inefficient it's basically negligible over a whole day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How long is a string?
If you make small radius turns non-stop, it takes more energy than if you just straight line it. So everything in between those 2 extremes. Probably a bigger amount of work if you ski switch…
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Nadenoodlee wrote: |
| @boarder2020, compared to not standing up and sitting down to strap in - it does. |
yeah but it's a numpty thing, to sit down. Competent snowboarders never do that!
I think it's likely the same effort. Snowboards are more elegant in powder, so perhaps more efficient.
Agree that Telemarking requires more effort even when you can do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@viv, @Peter S, Cross country skiing, especially skating if your technique is not good tops the lot, and most sports as well 
Mind you the SH's group of snowboarders I happened to ski past the other day, where they were all flailing around on their butts stuck in a stream on a gnarly runout were all expending far more calories than me on skis.
Though I've been there, seen it, and done it, and it's on runouts/terrain* like that, is where snowboarding has its limitations, but can provide heaps of amusement to others 
*After a wide open off-piste bowl, the vallons then descend into gulleys along with buried streams littered with trees and bushes and following a narrow ski/board track you just don't know what is around the next tight turn, might be a drop/dip or an exposed stream and rocks etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I imagine it depends who's doing it , ive seen plenty of skiers going down the piste looking like they're not using any energy and making it look effortless and loads of snowboarders getting so tired they have to sit down all the time !
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Ignore the strapping in..I never used to sit down to strap in anyway...I honestly think boarding uses more energy. With skiing one leg gets rested while the other works, with boarding both legs are being used constantly.
My caveat is that I only boarded for about 10 or so weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
My apple watch tells me i burn about 1600calories for a days snowboarding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Are we talking breakable crust or a PITA traverse? The answer will vary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Just looking at my (Garmin) watch stats for last few weeks, average day was 6.5 hours, 58km distance and calories burned of about 1300 for snowboarding.
Biggest day was 4,500 calories burned. But I was flogging myself uphill all day and I think the watch got a bit keen on that calculation although I’ve got home 10kg lighter than when I left.
First (and last) time I tried skiing I reckon I burned 3,000 cals on two hours of learner slope laps trying not to kill my knees and hoping nobody saw me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Ok......perhaps I need to rephrase the question to try to see if we can get to what I was wondering, here goes...
If we have identical twins, one skis the other boards, they are considered to be identically skilled in their disciplines, which is high. They are going downhill on the same slope at the same speed in good snow conditions......so as little variables as we can get.
Now is one likely to be using more energy (and therefore more calories than the other)? I have never boarded so have no idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Both snowboarding and skiing on a groomed slope with a softish (penetrable) surface are pretty easy so I wouldn't expect much difference in lazy holiday maker cruisey turns. In both cases gravity is doing all the hard work. Start more actively turning for performance, laying down big carves or short radius S turns or then mogul zip lines and energy expenditure will go up.
I think in general put me in a massive long powder chute or in soft snow in trees and I'd expend less energy on a board just because of the intuitive surfy nature and easier pivot. All that might be reversed of course the second I took a header.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Richard, Lol, good answer. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| ... I think in general put me in a massive long powder chute or in soft snow in trees and I'd expend less energy on a board just because of the intuitive surfy nature and easier pivot. All that might be reversed of course the second I took a header. |
I think if people can actually ski and snowboard - most can't - then the only significant difference is the number of turns you make. So if you're doing little Austrian ski instructor style ski turns down the whole mountain, you'll burn more than you would if you were doing Regis Roland style big carves down there.
Of course if you're "in the back seat" or otherwise still learning to ride/ ski, then those issues will likely cost you much more in energy than the type of gear you're on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| All that might be reversed of course the second I took a header. |
A skier taken a header would have to go hunt down his skis and poles… massive calories burn!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I've boarded La Grave probably six or more weeks, and I used to get to P1 in absolute sweaty mess and it didn't matter if I took Chancel or Vallons traverses, though. I think Vallons in good condition is easier than Chacel.
The extent of the vertical in one run from P3 is immense and after the wide open bowls you pay for it again with gnarly run outs and traverses.
On skis it's far less demanding and I arrive at P1 with hardly a sweat on.
Switching back to skis after 15 years of boarding was done because boarding especially touring was a bit of a PITA, and as I witnessed this week run outs even if you're very skilled can still be a PITA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skiing - snowboarders spend so much time sat in the middle of the piste smoking whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I think it might depend somewhat on the lines one chooses. If you have the choice, which "touring" types might not.
With helicopters it's a bit different. If the guide takes you onto flat stuff, then you've either been rude to her, or she's not very good. There's a Monashee run called "how flat it is". It's a ski shuffle across a big old glacier. That's certainly harder work on a snowboard, although I've done it with a group of skiers I did not hold up. But no one (skiers or borders) wants to pay money to ride something like that anyway. If there's a run with a flat (or bad snow) down the valley bottom, they just pick up higher up.
If you're in a forest when it "flats out" that's trickier, and there are some notorious tree run-outs... they require more practice from snowboarders than skiers. I mean: most skiers can shuffle and sideslip through there, where as most snowboarders will take a pounding. You can tell from the first turn which category folk are in, and run selection is dependent upon that turn... Not a luxury touring people would have, although I suppose all of those can shuffle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| king key wrote: |
Ok......perhaps I need to rephrase the question to try to see if we can get to what I was wondering, here goes...
If we have identical twins, one skis the other boards, they are considered to be identically skilled in their disciplines, which is high. They are going downhill on the same slope at the same speed in good snow conditions......so as little variables as we can get.
Now is one likely to be using more energy (and therefore more calories than the other)? I have never boarded so have no idea. |
I ride both board or ski, honestly couldn't believe there's much in the way of difference from either in this scenario. Anecdotal and nothing measured though, I've pretty good handle on energy expenditure for any of the activities I do and across quite different physical emphasis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can just about hold a carve on both planks and the old ironing board on differing radius turns...Boarding uses more energy if you forget about laughing while skiing. I honestly find boarding harder on the thighs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Gored wrote: |
| Sking with a snowboarder - so you can give a pull or push on the flat |
Amen to that. Skiing with my brother in AdH I was a sweaty mess towing him around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Blackblade wrote: |
| Gored wrote: |
| Sking with a snowboarder - so you can give a pull or push on the flat |
Amen to that. Skiing with my brother in AdH I was a sweaty mess towing him around. |
Just give him your poles. You can skate, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
More sticks + more weight + more movement = more calories burned.
Calories burned per hour...
* Snowboarding = 200-600
* Skiing = 300-600
* Telemarking = 300-700
* Cross-country = 300-800
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Calories burned per hour...
* Snowboarding = 200-600
* Skiing = 300-600
* Telemarking = 300-700
* Cross-country = 300-800
|
I think those numbers are somewhat optimistic! However let's for arguments sake say you can really reach that rate of energy expenditure. The issue is you cross country skiing is the only one you can actually do for an hour continuously. All the others you have to stop for lifts, which is going to massively effect how much you can actually expend over an hour.
I would think the average telemarker is burning much more kcal than their equally matched skier, it seems way more demanding. However ime most telemarkers do shorter days as their quads are the limiting factor. So while they will use more energy while skiing, this might be offset by less time actually skiing for some. It's a bit like comparing running and cycling, running burns more per minute but cycling general is done for longer time periods.
If the goal is simply burning kcal cross country skiing should be pretty unbeatable; full body movement, highly aerobic, low impact so you can do it for hours at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
However ime most telemarkers do shorter days as their quads are the limiting factor.
|
That’s not at all true. Their days are limited no more than alpine skiers, by the hours the lifts are running!
I happen to ski regularly with a telemarker for quite a few years. Not a super fit one at that either. (I beat her on bike) Just another cubical dweller who lives in the mountain. She never quits before us. She wasn’t the first to call for lunch or break either. On powder days, we all ski first to last lift. Nobody is quitting until the lift stops. I remember one day we were skiing moguls at Mary Jane. I was pretty proud of myself for going down the whole way without stopping. She went down the run non-stop also!
Apart from techniques, 2 significant factors allow any half decent telemarkers to ski all day long: 1) the need to ride lift back up once down; 2) one can still make alpine turns even with only toe fix. So there’s no need to quit for the day due to burning quad.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Sun 16-03-25 2:22; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@boarder2020, XC is way more energy consuming, if only for ten mins compared to boarding & skiing, there's simply no comparison, though tonight on TV there were highlights from the SkiMo World Champs and on the up they were certainly caning it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Weathercam, last winter the Chinese ski mo team were training in my local mountains. They were quicker uphill than the lifts !
Real nice group of people too. But absolute weapons uphill and downhill. They gave me one of their team jerseys but I was about 3 times too fat to get in it
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@abc, of course some telemarkers can go all day. However, my experience is many have a lot of muscle fatigue (understandable) and do less hours than those skiing "normally'. So at least for some the increased energy expenditure is offset by the less time. Which was my main point - time matters, at the extreme case it's no good having a huge energy expenditure rate if you can only hold it for 10mins it and then are destroyed.
@Weathercam, yeah the elite cross country guys might be doing 1000kcal+ an hour and can actually hold that for multiple hours. It's similar to cycling in that you can rack up huge volume. 1000 hours per year is considered very normal for x country.
You really don't have to tell me it's harder. I can vouch for any kind of touring being harder than downhill. Like I say gravity is doing all the hard work.
@hang11, yeah it's crazy. Kilian just knocks out 4km up and down half days as some regular training. With skimo becoming an olympic sport the standard is only going to go up too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@boarder2020, I know you were responding to @Whitetroll’s numbers, which I suspect he just pulled out of his hair. No way xc skiing tops out at only 800/hr! I bet you can comfortably add an extra zero to the end of his made-up numbers 
As for telemarker, some are more efficient than others. Those you know who need to quit early due to muscle fatigue, are you sure they’re not just showing off their telemark with deep knee bends?
Same with alpine turns, I can just wiggle my butt down the hill. Or someone can do some deep arc carving, which will seriously work their muscles! So the range of 300-600 is way off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| Blackblade wrote: |
| Gored wrote: |
| Sking with a snowboarder - so you can give a pull or push on the flat |
Amen to that. Skiing with my brother in AdH I was a sweaty mess towing him around. |
Just give him your poles. You can skate, right? |
Yes, I can. Funnily enough though he seems to prefer to be towed !
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| abc wrote: |
@boarder2020, I know you were responding to @Whitetroll’s numbers, which I suspect he just pulled out of his hair. No way xc skiing tops out at only 800/hr! I bet you can comfortably add an extra zero to the end of his made-up numbers
As for telemarker, some are more efficient than others. Those you know who need to quit early due to muscle fatigue, are you sure they’re not just showing off their telemark with deep knee bends?
Same with alpine turns, I can just wiggle my butt down the hill. Or someone can do some deep arc carving, which will seriously work their muscles! So the range of 300-600 is way off. |
I think, to be fair, that @Whitetroll's numbers are as valid as any others. The variance is so great that the average means practically nothing.
If you think about it, there's probably as much variation in skiing as there is in walking/running. Does going for a stroll get anywhere near the calorific output of running a marathon ?
However, unlike runners/walkers, we just refer to it as 'skiing' or 'snowboarding'. I can ski in such a way that I could probably do it continually all day without getting tired ... or I could knacker myself in a couple of hours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
