Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Calorie Calculator

I think I seen it before, but I'm not sure. I'm trying to figure out how many calories I'm burning while I ride. I have one of those digital ones, but I don't think it's accurate. I can bike 10 miles at moderate speed the whole time and only burn 160 calories. :eek:

I'm 5' 6" 171 (small frame), so I need to lose about 20 pounds. I know I need to give up beer, but it's a working process.

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

Wow, so in my 10 mile rides I only burn 360 calories... :eek: :eek: :eek:

Wow, so in my 10 mile rides I only burn 360 calories... :eek: :eek: :eek:

Im not sure what is right. I use the 40~100 calories per mile rule of thumb. I don't take into effect hill climbs because I have to start and stop at the same place, so what goes up must come down. Riding a road bike on road with slick tires might be even lower then 40 calories. However, I usually use the number 50 calories per mile. That takes into account my less then stellar health as well as my heavy mountain bike and knobby tires.

But for 50 calories per mile you need to put some serious effort into pedaling or be climbing a significant hill.
If your legs don't hurt at least a bit and you're just sweating a little you have not put in a serious effort.
For my 20 mile rides at 17mph avg I normally calculate about 850 cal. And I'm absolutely drenched in sweat when I get home.

But for 50 calories per mile you need to put some serious effort into pedaling or be climbing a significant hill.
If your legs don't hurt at least a bit and you're just sweating a little you have not put in a serious effort.
For my 20 mile rides at 17mph avg I normally calculate about 850 cal. And I'm absolutely drenched in sweat when I get home.

remember that I am talking about a 30 pound mountain bike with knobby tires. Not a 15 pound road bike on slicks. I am usually averaging about 13~14 mph. at that time...

also sweat isn't a measure of calories burned, just a measure of how much water you lost.

My commute burns about 500 in 26 minutes, but it's a beast. My average power output (according to that site) is 335 watts. Seems to fall right in line with what my heart rate monitor calulates.

So yes, destroy yourself, and you too can burn lots of calories... :D

remember that I am talking about a 30 pound mountain bike with knobby tires. Not a 15 pound road bike on slicks. I am usually averaging about 13~14 mph. at that time...

also sweat isn't a measure of calories burned, just a measure of how much water you lost.

+1

Without a doubt a mountain bike probably burns more calories. However, this is one thing I've very unscientifically seen, my heart rate sees a better range on the roadie than it does on the MTB. On the MTB my average is 152-156 (I know, I know..) with the highest being around 177.

On the roadie, my average is 148 with a max being 182. Same route, although I did see it fit to chase a full-kit Cannondale rider that day. :) But I've done several rides, and that seems to be about on par.

From what I've observed, this seems to indicate that on the roadie I'm doing a good job of staying in the 70-ish percentage of my max HR, with some really nice controlled bursts up near that 100% (my max HR seems to be right about 185, I simply can't push beyond that). The overall average indicates that even with the pushes, I'm doing a great job of nto pushing hard overall.

On the MTB, I'm always in the red zone, it seems like. If I wasn't, I'd be going to slow, and be bored. But it also shows something telling, with my max being 177 (four different rides) it shows that I'm pushing too hard consistently to burst as hard when I need/want to. And I definitely can feel it. If I want to attack a hill, I run out of attack much sooner than I do on the roadie.

Whoa, long tangent there, but you get the idea. Overall it seems that, according to my HRM, I'm burning more calories on the MTB than I am on the roadie because I'm in the "red zone" much longer. Crazy stuff :)>

+1

Without a doubt a mountain bike probably burns more calories. However, this is one thing I've very unscientifically seen, my heart rate sees a better range on the roadie than it does on the MTB. On the MTB my average is 152-156 (I know, I know..) with the highest being around 177.

On the roadie, my average is 148 with a max being 182. Same route, although I did see it fit to chase a full-kit Cannondale rider that day. :) But I've done several rides, and that seems to be about on par.

From what I've observed, this seems to indicate that on the roadie I'm doing a good job of staying in the 70-ish percentage of my max HR, with some really nice controlled bursts up near that 100% (my max HR seems to be right about 185, I simply can't push beyond that). The overall average indicates that even with the pushes, I'm doing a great job of nto pushing hard overall.

On the MTB, I'm always in the red zone, it seems like. If I wasn't, I'd be going to slow, and be bored. But it also shows something telling, with my max being 177 (four different rides) it shows that I'm pushing too hard consistently to burst as hard when I need/want to. And I definitely can feel it. If I want to attack a hill, I run out of attack much sooner than I do on the roadie.

Whoa, long tangent there, but you get the idea. Overall it seems that, according to my HRM, I'm burning more calories on the MTB than I am on the roadie because I'm in the "red zone" much longer. Crazy stuff :)>

my fiancee has a beat up murray thats probably 10 years old. When we ride, she has a heart rate monitor and when we do well to keep in the 70% range she shows a burn of 60 cal/mile, when we go into the 80+ range we show a burn of 70 per, however a good majority at that point is cals from protein.

I honestly don't care if I burn 50 or 60 a mile, I get out and ride, my metabolism is speed up for the entire day. I eat rationaly and in the last month im down 11 pounds. and that includes the fact that I am on three different steroids (so figure more once those stop)

That site link is down. Is there an updated link-http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm ?

Here's another, not quite as user friendly, but it uses the same metric as the Kreuzotter site. The Kreuzotter site seems to be down for the count.

Here is one I use: http://www.mapmyride.com/calculate_calories

I hunted up the owner of record of the Kreuzotter site and sent email. Hopefully, it's only a technical glitch.

***Here's another, not quite as user friendly, but it uses the same metric as the Kreuzotter site. The Kreuzotter site seems to be down for the count. ***


Link?

:)

I hunted up the owner of record of the Kreuzotter site and sent email. Hopefully, it's only a technical glitch.


fyi....it has been down for over a week. likely the end of it. later.

Whoops, forgot the link! :p

http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetricNum.html

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o260/TomStormcrowe/Snarky%20Images/ec247047.jpg

If you want accuracy, get a heart rate monitor.

If you want accuracy, get a heart rate monitor.

The OP asked about Calories, not heart rate. An HRM doesn't have a clue as to Calories burned. One reviewer called the Polar Calorie function a random number generator. - TF

The OP asked about Calories, not heart rate. An HRM doesn't have a clue as to Calories burned. One reviewer called the Polar Calorie function a random number generator. - TF

I think that is true to some minor extent, but with an HRM you can get some information not available from typical calorie counters, as the HRM takes into consideration your heart rate (how hard you are working) as well as your weight (and age) to produce a result based on your entire ride. I use mine for all of my activities, and while I am not sure of the exact accuracy, the results are consistent and it does give me a way to track my progress as well as a way to count approximate calories burned. The HRM as a calorie counter and fitness progress device is a good tool IMHO. Not perfect, but good.

Im not sure what is right. I use the 40~100 calories per mile rule of thumb. I don't take into effect hill climbs because I have to start and stop at the same place, so what goes up must come down. Riding a road bike on road with slick tires might be even lower then 40 calories. However, I usually use the number 50 calories per mile. That takes into account my less then stellar health as well as my heavy mountain bike and knobby tires.The low end of that range is probably about right. Biking is a far more efficient method of moving yourself than walking is. I figure about a 3:1 ratio between walking and riding as to energy expenditure. If it takes 30+ miles of walking to burn a pound of fat, it'll take 100 miles of biking. That'd be about 35 calories/mile.

Biking is a bad way to burn calories unless you are hauling stuff and doing hills. I actually think people gain weight biking once you factor in Gatorade and energy bars.

well, I just plugged the ride I just did into mapmyrun, with my specifics (I am a clydeasaurus) and got 545 calories for a 9 mile ride w/ some hills. That is about 60 cal/mile

Biking is a bad way to burn calories unless you are hauling stuff and doing hills. I actually think people gain weight biking once you factor in Gatorade and energy bars.



Not convinced at all with that. I've lost 15Kg since I started cycling with minimal changes to my diet and I'd never seen so many skinny people in one place until I went to a cycling club.

I don't bother with energy bars for anything less than three hours and drink water so that could have some effect, but really I think that exercising hard for 90 minutes every other day and 30 mins of commute does appear to cause weight loss. If not I'm just really really ill in a way that lowers my resting heart rate and causes me to feel healthier.

Here is one I use: http://www.mapmyride.com/calculate_calories
any idea of the veracity of this calculator? I plug my weight/calories etc daily (ish) into physicsdiet.com and I don't want to throw off the rolling average. I operate on the basic In/out system and try not to analyze too much, though I need to stabilize my average intake a day. Im around 1800-2000 right now. Im plateauing, so im thinking to shake things up with a couple days a week of partial commutes, then full.

http://www.physicsdiet.com/Charts.aspx?t=WeightLoss&time=All

Neat site! Thanks!

I used Tom's suggestion (mapmyride) and at 40 minutes my weight, height, and speed (10-13 mph probably) I came out at 552 for the ride back to my car tonight, and 414 this morning. Does anyone know why some calculators use distance traveled/weight/time and some use time/weight/height but no distance? I didn't spin the whole time, so Im assuming those calcultors are all calculating constant spinning?

Biking is a bad way to burn calories unless you are hauling stuff and doing hills. I actually think people gain weight biking once you factor in Gatorade and energy bars.No, biking is a good way to burn calories and to lose weight. You burn far less per mile than on foot, but you're going faster, so you burn the same or more per hour. And...it's so much more fun than walking/running that you'll do it more often.

While I will occasionally look at how many calories I burn while riding, I typically just go ride because that is what I enjoy doing. If I didn't, I would be find something else to do. If I stop losing weight over time, then darn, I get to ride more. If you are trying to figure out to the nearest calorie how many you are burning, it is like you are saying that you don't want to ride your bike any further than you have to.

The OP asked about Calories, not heart rate. An HRM doesn't have a clue as to Calories burned.

It certainly has a better clue than some "calorie guide" that generically estimates how many calories you should burn in an hour of cycling.

Here's one of the formuas to calculate caloric burn from heart rate, or to be more precise, the same formula that takes into account VO2 max and withough VO2 max

Using VO2max
Men: C/min = (-59.3954 + (-36.3781 + 0.271 x age + 0.394 x weight + 0.404 x VO2max + 0.634 x HR))/4.184
Women: C/min = (-59.3954 + (0.274 x age + 0.103 x weight + 0.380 x VO2max + 0.450 x HR)) / 4.184

Without VO2max
Men: C/min = (-55.0969 + 0.6309 x HR + 0.1988 x weight + 0.2017 x age) / 4.184
Women: C/min = (-20.4022 + 0.4472 x HR - 0.1263 x weight + 0.074 x age) / 4.184
weight is in kg

HR can be used to calculate a very accurate caloric burn based on the working load of the heart, and you can configure an excel sheet to crunch the numbers for you, or Access Database, either one.

Here's one of the formuas to calculate caloric burn from heart rate, or to be more precise, the same formula that takes into account VO2 max and withough VO2 max

Using VO2max
Men: C/min = (-59.3954 + (-36.3781 + 0.271 x age + 0.394 x weight + 0.404 x VO2max + 0.634 x HR))/4.184
Women: C/min = (-59.3954 + (0.274 x age + 0.103 x weight + 0.380 x VO2max + 0.450 x HR)) / 4.184

Without VO2max
Men: C/min = (-55.0969 + 0.6309 x HR + 0.1988 x weight + 0.2017 x age) / 4.184
Women: C/min = (-20.4022 + 0.4472 x HR - 0.1263 x weight + 0.074 x age) / 4.184
weight is in kg

HR can be used to calculate a very accurate caloric burn based on the working load of the heart, and you can configure an excel sheet to crunch the numbers for you, or Access Database, either one.


"HR can be used to calculate a very accurate caloric burn ..." This simply is not true. HR between two people (same age, same weight) at the same power (which IS proportional to calories burned) can be 50 BPM different. That's on the order of a 30% error. The same person can have a significant difference in HR for the same power on two different days or even at two different times during the same ride. How can an HR calculation possibly show calories burned? - TF

Did you see the weight and age variables in there?


"HR can be used to calculate a very accurate caloric burn ..." This simply is not true. HR between two people (same age, same weight) at the same power (which IS proportional to calories burned) can be 50 BPM different. That's on the order of a 30% error. The same person can have a significant difference in HR for the same power on two different days or even at two different times during the same ride. How can an HR calculation possibly show calories burned? - TF

It certainly has a better clue than some "calorie guide" that generically estimates how many calories you should burn in an hour of cycling.

Not really. HRM Calories are plus/minus 50% (Actually, all the data I've seen has shown plus. I assume that's because plus sells more HRMs). A good "calorie guide" with an honest assessment of the ride could be that close. Unfortunately, they also are competing for users and high estimates sell. - TF

Did you see the weight and age variables in there?

Yes, that is why I said that the two riders with the possible 30% HR difference were the same weight and age. - TF

TurboTurtle, it's pretty simple, really, and yes, there will be some variance on individuals (We all sit somewhere on a bell curve, but most tend toward the center of that curve), but X amount of effort tends to raise the HR to level Y. In that case, dataset Y can be used to compute real effort or workload, which can be used as a statistical predictor for caloric burn on most, but not all individuals.

The basic point I'm getting at here is that what we have is a baseline and individual datasets can be adjusted for that persons particular metabolic quirks. What we have is a starting point that works well enough to give a relatively reliable result for most people.

Not really. HRM Calories are plus/minus 50% (Actually, all the data I've seen has shown plus. I assume that's because plus sells more HRMs). A good "calorie guide" with an honest assessment of the ride could be that close. Unfortunately, they also are competing for users and high estimates sell. - TF

Oh...so...you say a HRM is "not really" going to be a better estimate than a "calorie guide" that is "also competing for users and high estimates sell".

You're contradicting yourself.

Oh...so...you say a HRM is "not really" going to be a better estimate than a "calorie guide" that is "also competing for users and high estimates sell".

You're contradicting yourself.

No, I'm saying that they are both wrong and of equal value [Edit: as long as you understand their limitations]. - TF

TurboTurtle, it's pretty simple, really, and yes, there will be some variance on individuals (We all sit somewhere on a bell curve, but most tend toward the center of that curve), but X amount of effort tends to raise the HR to level Y. In that case, dataset Y can be used to compute real effort or workload, which can be used as a statistical predictor for caloric burn on most, but not all individuals.

The basic point I'm getting at here is that what we have is a baseline and individual datasets can be adjusted for that persons particular metabolic quirks. What we have is a starting point that works well enough to give a relatively reliable result for most people.

This is a far cry from, "HR can be used to calculate a very accurate caloric burn ...".

I would agree that it can be a useful tool for someone who understands its limitations. HR is highly variable from person to person as well as for the same individual at different times. It also responds to much more than just workload.

TF

i have used both the online calculators and HR devices to track estimates of my calorie expenditures during activities. they are only just estimates, but they can be very helpful in a weight loss program. many folks around here have dropped significant weight counting calories using these very estimates. later.

With the codicil of: Learn your actual metabolic rate and required effort, then HR is a very accurate measure of effort since each individual requires X amount of watts effort to achieve a specific HR, and that varies from individual to individual as to exactly what value = X. ;) We aren't in disagreement, really, and stress induced HR increase also increases caloric burn, just at a different rate. I'm discussing it from the standpoint of metabolism and exercise exclusively, though. If your RHR is 58 and you raise it 30%, that requires very close to the same effort to raise from a RHR of 68 by a factor of 30%, so the wattage and corresponding caloric burn will be close.


This is a far cry from, "HR can be used to calculate a very accurate caloric burn ...".

I would agree that it can be a useful tool for someone who understands its limitations. HR is highly variable from person to person as well as for the same individual at different times. It also responds to much more than just workload.

TF

With the codicil of: Learn your actual metabolic rate and required effort, then HR is a very accurate measure of effort since each individual requires X amount of watts effort to achieve a specific HR, and that varies from individual to individual as to exactly what value = X. ;) We aren't in disagreement, really, and stress induced HR increase also increases caloric burn, just at a different rate. I'm discussing it from the standpoint of metabolism and exercise exclusively, though. If your RHR is 58 and you raise it 30%, that requires very close to the same effort to raise from a RHR of 68 by a factor of 30%, so the wattage and corresponding caloric burn will be close.

Still do not agree. I don’t believe that, "..each individual requires X amount of watts effort to achieve a specific HR,..." is true. There are many factors that raise or lower HR within the individual, not just workload. Stress related HR increase does not result in a significant calorie burn. My writing this negative reply probably raised my HR by 10-15 beats. Was that ~10-15% increase in caloric burn? No, but the HRM would say it was (I realize that it is not linear). X watts on a solo ride can be 30 BPM lower than the same wattage in a race or 50 lower than when I was just buzzed by a gravel truck. Am I burning significantly more calories? No. Hydration has a huge affect on HR as does fatigue.

There is also the problem of learning, "your actual metabolic rate". How do you calibrate it? Against an on-line 'calorie counter'? Even if you have access to a power meter and estimate it from the work, that estimation is only plus/minus ~20%.

You can do a long term comparison to actual weight loss and daily caloric intake (i.e. weighing everything you eat), eventually getting a pretty good idea of your non-cycling metabolic rate and your cycling rate, and adjust the Calorie readings from the HRM to reflect this data. And over the long term, this is where the HRM Calorie function may have some value. But if I were to take the value for a single ride and believe that it was better than plus/minus 50% of actual, I would be kidding myself.

It can be more useful if you only look at it as a relative value. If over a week’s time my HRM says I burned 20% more Calories than it said I burned last week (and there are no major changes in my life) and I eat the same as last week, I will lose weight.

What I'm saying (big round numbers): Two people can have a 30% difference in there HR for a given workload (same age and weight). The HR for a certain workload/caloric burn can be 20% different for the same person on two different days. The calculation of MaxHR from age can contribute another 20% error. The HRM does not have the data necessary to compensate for these errors.

TF

OK, well, I'm not going to argue back and forth. ;) It works for me, and I'm a practical guy. If it works, I use it and if it doesn't, I don't. There really isn't ANY metric that's 100% accurate, and I deal with statistical accuracy over a long term data trend rather than day to day, so this accounts very nicely for daily changes. System theory allows for daily variables by spreading the trend over a long group of datasets and these level any variances. What can I say, I'm a bit of a math geek. ;)