What burns more calories?

[Michelle]

which one of these do you think burns more calories? I think this particular survey was talking about regular "freestyle" snowboarding. I would think hard boot snowboarding burns more calories, unless you are doing tricks in the park? Anyway, I was surprised by the results.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Michelle

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

Lots of variables, The way I do it? Either Cross Country skiing or Snowshoeing.

[Steve Prokopiw]

Just my own comparison of softbooting to hardbooting...Based on the level of intensity when high performance carving,I would say carving;in hard boots particularly.Of course,making more than five or six turns in a row would help burn more calories. But when I think back to my soft boot days and compare that to a top to bottom carving run ,or even a long run split in two or three parts like interval training,I think that hardbooting is a higher intensity(ie muscles firing harder for longer duration) activity than what I typically did on soft boots. Conclusion; long bouts of high intensity carving will burn off more oatmeal stout than jib bonking. :-)

Edited April 18, 2014 by Steve Prokopiw

[BlueB]

Moguls on hard boots.

[BobD]

Certainly alpine snowboarding for me. I've often thought that a hard carved turn on an alpine board is equivalent to 3 or 4 hard turns on skis in terms of energy used.

[piusthedrcarve]

I haven't done snowshoeing or cross country but they seem to burn more calories. But I say riding Madd 158 on 800 feet mild downhill with making slalom turns from start to finish surely burns calories a lot.

[b0ardski]

I only use long skinny snowshoes that glide so biased to xc.

Using poles to propel your carcass along is way more of a whole body workout, ie much greater muscle mass burning calories at the same time.

I could see snowshoeing being similar or more work depending on snow conditions; in deeper heavy fresh pnw snow I found skinny skis to be less work, especially breaking trail. However on packed trails using the arms and shoulders to sustain or gain momentum on xc skis, coupled with way more fast twitch engagement to maintain balance gets my vote.

between ski vs alpine board, carving hard, the pressure onto the snow spread out over twice as much edge is less work in my experience.

sig worthy quote Steve,

long bouts of high intensity carving will burn off more oatmeal stout than jib bonking. :-)

Edited April 18, 2014 by b0ardski

[dingbat]

Really depends on how you go after each one. You can lazily kick your xc skis around a golf course on the flat, or you can get after hustling up some serious hills. You can straight line and swish your back foot around on a soft boot board, or you can lap a couple rails in the park, unstrapping and running back up hill after each try.

Anyway, I voted snowshoeing.

[Neil Gendzwill]

If calorie burn is what you're after, you need something you can do steady-state for a long time. XC or snowshoe fits that bill, snowboarding is too much time on the lift and fiddling.

In terms of short-term cardio, I'm with BlueB - a fast burn down a big set of bumps is a heart-thumper.

[bigwavedave]

XC skiing hands down! XC athletes consistently top the charts in aerobic capacity. Consume more oxygen=burn more calories.

Alpine skiing is likely at the bottom of that list.

[SunSurfer]

As close to a definitive answer as you'll get!

https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/winter-activtities

and for anyone who wants to check out almost ANY type of other physical activity start here.

https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories

A MET is equal to the energy produced per unit surface area of an average person seated at rest and is equivalent to an oxygen consumption of 3.5 ml/kg/min. The surface area of an average person is 1.8 m² (19 ft²). Metabolic rate is usually expressed in terms of unit area of the total body surface (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55.

The max METs in the Compendium of Physical Activities charts that I can find is 15.8, but that is only equivalent to a VO2 of roughly 55ml/kg. Endurance athletes competing at Olympic level commonly can achieve VO2s of 80+ml/kg. For the cyclists here I found a reference suggesting Greg LeMond's max VO2 was 92.5ml/kg, and Miguel Indurain's 88ml/kg. In my mid 30s I was tested as a "fit normal subject" in our hospital's cardio-pulmonary exercise lab and hit a VO2 max of 60ml/kg, so 55 is not that extraordinary.

and for anyone who wants more try starting here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent

Edited April 19, 2014 by SunSurfer

[Allee]

Shovelling snow was right up there. There's a lot of people did a lot of that this winter.

[Neil Gendzwill]

In my mid 30s I was tested as a "fit normal subject" in our hospital's cardio-pulmonary exercise lab and hit a VO2 max of 60ml/kg, so 55 is not that extraordinary.

60 is a rocking level of fitness for anybody, congrats on that! I have no idea what my VO2 max is, but probably under 50 as my best VDOT in racing shape a couple of years ago was 47.

[jasonhurst]

Snowshoeing for sure.