Training & Nutrition - How many calories to go one mile?

Somebody at the trail yeasterday, who seemed very knowledgeable, told me that it takes 125 calories of energy to pedal one mile, whether you go fast or whether you go slow. I go at about 15- 16 mph. I am getting a computer sometime this week to know for sure. Is this true? - Ted

No,
And it's easily disproved. Take a steep mountain road One mile long. Going up will burn more calories than going down. It will also burn more calories than
a mile on the flat. A way to get an accurate measure of energy expenditure would be to keep track of how many watts you put out. But that is a rather expensive way to learn you've been pedaling harder :)

I see your point, but could we assume for simplicity, that we are on a low grade such as the local rail to trail, that really doesn't change very much. - Ted

Even then there are alot of variables.. Your weight for one.. speed for another.. fitness level for a third. There are alot of calorie counters on-line that will give you a estimate of how many calories you burn while cycling.

(Veryvery approximately)
12 mph easy cycling = 300 c/hour = 25 c/mile
25 mph racing = 1000 c/hour = 40 c/mile

I think your best bet would be to get a good heart rate monitor...enter in your variables - fitness level, weight, age, activity, etc. - go out and hit some trails, then see how much you burn. I'm sure a power meter would be much more accurate, but they are pretty pricey.

You hit some trails and do a lot of climbing for a good period of time and you're gonna burn some calories. Don't forget to replenish on those long rides!

Not true.

Now it does depend on your body weight and it does depend on your speed.

For me, at 130 lbs travelling about 15 mph, I burn approx. 500 calories/hour.

Therefore:
In 4 minutes I cover 1 mile.
In 4 minutes I burn 33.333 calories.

It always strikes me just a bit funny when people vastly overestimate how many calories they are burning. I've watched people put in about 15 minutes of light exercise and then tell me that they must have burned at least 5 or 600 calories. Um . . . no . . . sorry . . . we've got to actually put in some effort to burn calories.

I've always used as a rough rule of thumb 40 cals/mile cycling and 160/mile running

'Bicycling' magazine has a small chart each month that compares various activities, including several for cycling, and the calories burned. This month one of the entries is something over 800 calories/hour drafting at 19 mph. Slower speed burns somewhat less and higher speed burns somewhat more. A four hour 'race' burns ~4,000 calories.

The 125/hour for MTB riding is very low. If one is hitting it at all it will be closer to the 1,000 calorie mark than the 125. That is why MTB races, other than the marathons, are generally considerably shorter than road races. Not only are the bikes heavier but there is a lot of additional work involved in throwing the bike and one's self around for a couple of hours up and down some hills, jumps, sand and mud.

Also, check 'Bicycling' magazines website. They may list some of the charts there. Have fun!!

As a first approximation, it doesn't matter how fast you ride, a slow rider will use calories at a low rate for a long time, a fast rider will use calories at a high rate for a short time. Same distance, same calories.
On closer examination, the fast rider is fighting against much higher drag forces. Aerodynamic drag increases with the square of velocity. Double the speed, quadruple the aerodynamic drag. The fast rider would use more calories to cover the same distance.

Well, I don't recall ever seeing a reference of anyone ever measuring the calories burned per mile riding. You could do it by measuring CO2 produced by the rider. But even then, you would have to assume which fuel was being burnt (carbohydrate or fat) because they give different calorie yields per unit C02. So even CO2 production is not a direct measure.

In poking around on the web, I have seen estimates of 55 calories per mile to 30 calories per mile. It depends on the weight of the rider and riding conditions. Faster speed increases calorie figure a bit because wind resistance becomes the big factor. Climbing hills will increase the calorie figure also. I would think that riding a course with stops and many turns would also increase the calorie figure.

I think the above range is pretty good for road bikes. I think heavy old mountain bikes would have a higher calorie figure and the surface you were riding on would have an effect also. Shoot it might get all the way up to 125 calories per mile for a really nasty sandy course. But that would be extreme.

According to the literature, a human stores about 2,000-2,500 calories of carbohydrate. The 50 calorie figure means that if you are riding flat out, you can go 40-50 miles before depleting carbohydrates (called bonking except in England). Of course, if you ride a bit slower part of the way, it comes on a bit later. Anyrate, our local club tends to warm up and then ride near their anaebic threshold and they generally start to deplete around 50-60 miles so they almost never have rides that long. Now lighter riders, probably don't store 2,500 calories of carbohydrate so they probably can deplete their carbohydrates using a lower rate of burn per mile - like 35 calories or even 30. So I think the 55-30 calories per mile is a decent figure. If you weigh 120 lbs, you are probably on the low end and if you weigh 240+ lbs, you are probably on the high end.

Thanks for a very intelligent diatribe! - Ted

very good info

Lots of variables. Old rule of thumb was approximate 100 calories per mile while jogging and 50 calories biking easy. Should be close enough for government work.

According to the literature, a human stores about 2,000-2,500 calories of carbohydrate. The 50 calorie figure means that if you are riding flat out, you can go 40-50 miles before depleting carbohydrates (called bonking except in England). Of course, if you ride a bit slower part of the way, it comes on a bit later. Anyrate, our local club tends to warm up and then ride near their anaebic threshold and they generally start to deplete around 50-60 miles so they almost never have rides that long. Now lighter riders, probably don't store 2,500 calories of carbohydrate so they probably can deplete their carbohydrates using a lower rate of burn per mile - like 35 calories or even 30. So I think the 55-30 calories per mile is a decent figure. If you weigh 120 lbs, you are probably on the low end and if you weigh 240+ lbs, you are probably on the high end.

Um.... What literature? According to everything I have ever read on the subject, your body does NOT store carbs, carbs automatically get converted to sugar by the liver and when that sugar goes unused the sugar is stored in the form of fat.
Furthermore, I don't eat but 30 carbs a day, so if I am only consuming (let's say) 300 carbs a week MAX, how can I burn 2,000 let alone the 3,800 or so I need to maintain my Mountain Biking fix!?!

Somebody at the trail yeasterday, who seemed very knowledgeable, told me that it takes 125 calories of energy to pedal one mile, whether you go fast or whether you go slow. I go at about 15- 16 mph. I am getting a computer sometime this week to know for sure. Is this true? - Ted

Seems awfully high. I weigh in around 250 and reckon on 40-50 calories per mile on average. A lot of the time going faster simply means you burn calories faster but for a shorter time although as your speed increases so it takes more and more work to reach and maintain the speed, so when I reckon what I've burned if I've taken a ride reasonably easily I figure 40 and if I've really pushed myself hard I figure closer to 50.

If you want to know more accurately you'll need something to measure it, it's pretty obvious that going up a big hill uses a lot more energy than coming back down again. Since my rides start and finish in the same place I work on the basis that the gains and losses associated with hills even out - all I want is a rough figure for how many calories I burned during my ride.

Um.... What literature? According to everything I have ever read on the subject, your body does NOT store carbs, carbs automatically get converted to sugar by the liver and when that sugar goes unused the sugar is stored in the form of fat.
Furthermore, I don't eat but 30 carbs a day, so if I am only consuming (let's say) 300 carbs a week MAX, how can I burn 2,000 let alone the 3,800 or so I need to maintain my Mountain Biking fix!?!


No carbohydrates are stored in the liver and muscles in the form of glycogen which is a form of carbohydrate.

If you assume 40 calories a mile and you're not anaerobic, either you are fat, or you will be soon. Go with 20 calories a mile a modest 130bpm heart rate and you'll be better off.

If you assume 40 calories a mile and you're not anaerobic, either you are fat, or you will be soon. Go with 20 calories a mile a modest 130bpm heart rate and you'll be better off.

I figure a generic 15 cal/mile throughout the range of riding. If it's an underestimate and I'm actually burning more then that's just great. But I don't use it for figuring out how much to eat, I use the scale for that.

If you assume 40 calories a mile and you're not anaerobic, either you are fat, or you will be soon. Go with 20 calories a mile a modest 130bpm heart rate and you'll be better off.Unless you're riding very slowly 20 Cals/mile is very low regardless of your weight. Based on power data, my rides vary between 30 and 48 Cals/mile and average around 36.

If you assume 40 calories a mile and you're not anaerobic, either you are fat, or you will be soon. Go with 20 calories a mile a modest 130bpm heart rate and you'll be better off.

That would be the former, I'm still somewhere around 250.

here's a pretty good online calculator for power and Kcals (Metric and English available)
http://bikecalculator.com/wattsUS.html
it doesn't (as many calcs don't) handle rides of variable terrain very well
for fairly flat rides it works, and for steady-ish climbs it works
a ride which combines both types is best broken into sections, and calc'd by sections.

then there is of course kruezotter - great tool
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
also available at
http://www.noping.net/english/

and - copied from a post on cyclingcrowd...

The HPV speed calculator:
http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/simul/HPV_Simul.asp

The XLS spreadsheet for the HPV calculator, from Gerrit Govaerts with
help from Walter Zorn (whose Kreuzotter site is down):
http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/simul/simulation.xls

Some other bike speed calculators:
http://www.me.psu.edu/lamancusa/ProdDiss/Bicycle/bikecalc.htm
http://sportech.online.fr/sptc_idx.php?pge=spen_esy.html

A page with a spreadsheet for bike speed calculations:
http://www.whitemountainwheels.com/SpeedPower.html

And, of course, Analytic Cycling, with oodles of calculators:
http://www.analyticcycling.com/

knock yourselves out...

one thing to watch out for: Garmins, etc. are notoriously high in their estimates. I usually figure about 30 a mile. I weigh about 140-145.

one thing to watch out for: Garmins, etc. are notoriously high in their estimates. I usually figure about 30 a mile. I weigh about 140-145.

SOME Garmins are high. The 500 uses a different algorithm, which appears to be much more accurate. My ride today was 66 miles with 2700 feet of climbing, with an average speed of 16.5 mph, and my weight of 222. Total calories = 2005, or 30 calories per mile.

Wow ... it's been 8 years since this thread started!!

I wonder how many of the people in the first 14 posts are still here.