Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - I burned HOW MANY Calories?

This was my workout tonight, notice the kcals.

Start Time Apr 18, 2011 9:31 PM
Distance 13.20 miles
Duration 1h:25m:00s
Avg Speed 9.3 mph
Max Speed 39.5 mph
Calories 1226 kcal
Altitude 776 ft / 1075 ft
Elevation 519 ft ↑ / 512 ft ↓

Does that seem right? I burned over 1000 Calories on my ride?

Not a chance. While I can't give you a reasonable guess as I don't know your weight or your perceived effort (intensity) of the ride, but I figure that's at least 50% high. Where did that info come from?

I use endomondo.com to track my workouts. I may be choosing the wrong type of activity. I am choosing "Cycling, sport".

I'm thinking it's high as well.

Well I'm stuck between two options. "Cycling, Sport" and "Cycling, Transport". I'm probably close to Transport but I'm going to stroke my ego and stick with "Sport" and just ignore the calories burned thing.

I think Garmin Connect is overly generous with the calories burned thing too. Here's yesterday's ride:
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/79929388
The week before:
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/78514622
It's always like this. Somebody here or on teamestrogen told me the calories reading is never accurate.

WW does the same thing with their "activity points." As soon as you average over 12 MPH, you get tons of points that, IMO, are more appropriate to a 17-18 MPH ride (or faster). I guess as long as you don't have a continually variable sliding scale, you have to draw the demarcation line somewhere. I just think they drew it too low.

Estimates for cycling are wild, and at times very laughable. For general cycling I figure 30 calories a mile. If your busting your butt on hill climbs, intervals, or sprinting...figure more. Cycling is pretty efficient so caloric burn tends to be low. I'd say your ride burned between 400-450 cals.

I call these "Garmin Calories". They are useful in the measurement of workload. But to compare food Calories to "Garmin Calories" is a mistake. After the initial big jump in conditioning, I find them useful on a weekly basis. More to keep myself from overdoing it (I'm an old fart). If I expend alot of "Garmin Calories" in the beginning of the week then I know to back off and get more rest later. I'm not training for competition.

I would estimate between 20 and 55 a mile, depending on how hard you are working and how much you weigh. One thing most of these calculators seem to miss is the amount your weight effects how many calories you burn. This is more important for weight bearing exercises like walking or running as you are working against gravity. It probably is less of a factor in cycling, except hill climbing.

Here are some of the factors to consider:

On one hand, online estimates of kcal's burned are notoriously unreliable.

But on the other hand, it is entirely possible to burn 1,200 kcals in 85-minutes. In fact, it's possible to burn quite a bit more.

But on the other hand, your average speed is somewhat low for this.

But on the other hand, if you weigh alot, perhaps this isn't too far-fetched.

And on the other hand, if there were hills (your elevation gain & max speed leads me to believe that there were), this would definitely be possible.

This may help a lot, especially if you're a math geek

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

Metabolic equivalent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#mw-head), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#p-search)
The metabolic equivalent of task (MET), or simply metabolic equivalent, is a physiological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiological) concept expressing the energy cost of physical activities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#cite_note-0) as multiples of resting metabolic rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resting_metabolic_rate) (RMR) and is defined as the ratio of metabolic rate (and therefore the rate of energy consumption) during a specific physical activity to a reference rate of metabolic rate at rest, set by convention to 3.5 ml O2·kg-1·min-1 or equivalently 1 kcal·kg-1· h-1 or 4.184 kJ·kg-1· h-1. By convention 1 MET is considered as the resting metabolic rate obtained during quiet sitting.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#cite_note-2) MET values of physical activities range from 0.9 (sleeping) to 18 (running at 17.5 km/h or a 5:31 mile pace).
Although the RMR of any specific person may deviate significantly from the above mentioned conventional reference value,[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#cite_note-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#cite_note-4) MET values of physical activities provide a rough indication of the intensity of physical activities such as manual labour or exercise. MET is actually an index number and not an energy unit: a physical activity with a MET value of 2, such as walking at a slow pace (e.g., 3 km/h) would require for a specific person twice the energy that person consumes at rest (e.g., sitting quietly).
More specifically, MET is used as a practical means of expressing the intensity and energy expenditure of physical activities in a way comparable among persons of different weight. Actual energy expenditure (e.g., in calories or joules) during a physical activity depends on the person's body mass, therefore the energy cost of the same physical activity will be different for persons of different weight. However, since the RMR is also dependent on body mass in a similar way, it is assumed that the ratio of this energy cost to the RMR of each person will remain more or less stable for the specific physical activity and thus independent of each person's weight.
The 1-MET reference value of 1 kcal·kg-1·h-1, is used by convention and refers to a typical metabolism at rest of an "average" individual. Even so, it must not be confused or misused as an approximation of basal metabolic rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate) (BMR), which is the minimum metabolic rate obtained under specified conditions. This is illustrated by the fact that sleeping for instance has a MET of 0.9, while normal sleeping metabolism may be greater than the BMR.
Contents

[hide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#)]


1 Scope of usage of the MET concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#Scope_of_usage_of_the_MET_concept)

1.1 Epidemiology and public health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#Epidemiology_and_public_health)


2 Limitations in the usage of MET to calculate actual energy expenditure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#Limitations_in_the_usage_of_MET_to_calculate_actual_energy_expenditure)
3 Notes and references (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#Notes_and_references)
4 Sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#Sources)
5 See also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#See_also)
6 External links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#External_links)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metabolic_equivalent&action=edit&section=1)] Scope of usage of the MET concept

[/URL]


[[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metabolic_equivalent&action=edit&section=2"]edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent)] Epidemiology and public health

The MET concept is implicitly based on a statistical approach and has been primarily designed to be used in epidemiological surveys, where survey respondents answer the amount of time they spend for specific physical activities.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#cite_note-5)
Moreover MET is used to provide general medical thresholds and guidelines to a population.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#cite_note-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent#cite_note-7) Since MET is a measure of intensity and rate, the concept of MET-minute can be used to quantify the total amount of physical activity in a way comparable across different persons and types of activities. Thus brisk walking at 5 km/h for half an hour (a moderate intensity activity of 3.3 MET) accounts for about 100 MET-min and is in this aspect equivalent to running at 10 km/h for ten minutes (a vigorous intensity activity of 10 MET). This way the total effort expended in different activities over a period of time can be accumulated: health benefits of physical activity increase with increasing levels of activity and do not plateau until quite high levels.


Physical Activity MET Light Intensity Activities < 3 sleeping 0.9 watching television 1.0 writing, desk work, typing 1.8 walking, 1.7 mph (2.7 km/h), level ground, strolling, very slow 2.3 walking, 2.5 mph 2.9 Moderate Intensity Activities 3 to 6 bicycling, stationary, 50 watts, very light effort 3.0 walking 3.0 mph 3.3 calisthenics, home exercise, light or moderate effort, general 3.5 walking 3.4 mph 3.6 bicycling, <10 mph (16 km/h), leisure, to work or for pleasure 4.0 bicycling, stationary, 100 watts, light effort 5.5 Vigorous Intensity Activities > 6 jogging, general 7.0 calisthenics (e.g. pushups, situps, pullups,jumping jacks), heavy, vigorous effort 8.0 running jogging, in place 8.0 rope jumping 10.0

http://www.everydayhealth.com/Calories-Burned-Biking.htm I use this. I hope it is right.

Here are some of the factors to consider:

On one hand, online estimates of kcal's burned are notoriously unreliable.

But on the other hand, it is entirely possible to burn 1,200 kcals in 85-minutes. In fact, it's possible to burn quite a bit more.

But on the other hand, your average speed is somewhat low for this.

But on the other hand, if you weigh alot, perhaps this isn't too far-fetched.

And on the other hand, if there were hills (your elevation gain & max speed leads me to believe that there were), this would definitely be possible.

How many hands do you have?

That's good info, Storm. I like reading stuff like that.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/Calories-Burned-Biking.htm I use this. I hope it is right.

I used this and it told me burned 721 calories. I know Endomondo knows when I'm climbing a hill, going fast, slow, etc. so I wonder if it is detailed enough to factor all that in? We all know that 10 miles on a downhill grade isn't the same as 10 miles on an uphill grade, etc. Accelerating isn't the same as maintaining pace and on and on.

MapMyRide has a calorie counter but I don't believe it. Doing some research here I find some old threads on it, but, I am wondering what people's thoughts are on this.

My ride yesterday, 25.3 miles at exactly 16.0 mph. 1:32

MapMyRide says 1412

http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php tells me I burned 1818 calories; boy this seems like a lot.

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm which has a lot of data input and takes into consideration drag in the form of rolling resistance and projected frontal area tells me I burned 1002 calories, which seems a lot more realistic.

And, lastly http://bikecalculator.com/wattsUS.html tells me about 824. This seems like the most reliable.

That sure seems like a huge discrepancy between the three sites. I've decided to use the BikeCalculator and estimate my calories burned at 30 cal/mile. That seems fair enough.

Any thoughts?

Saw a chart on the net, some where, can't seem to locate it now.

32 calories per mile per hundred pounds at 10mph. 55 at 15mph, 100 at 20.

This was flat ground with no wind.

That sure seems like a huge discrepancy between the three sites. I've decided to use the BikeCalculator and estimate my calories burned at 30 cal/mile. That seems fair enough.

Any thoughts?

Without knowing how much you weigh, it's difficult to know if that's a reasonable estimate or not...

I'm around 185lbs at the moment and typically average 15-16.5mph. If I ride for an hour at that pace, the power meter suggests I've burned 500-550 calories. That's for a relatively flat (~100-200 ft of elevation gain), but windy route.

That's right in the 30-32 calories/mile range that you're using. If you're around the same weight and fitness level that I am, your numbers are probably similar. Contrary to popular belief, cycling is a very efficient form of exercise so body weight doesn't typically make a huge amount of difference in the number of calories burned, unless you're traveling at relatively high (for a bicycle) speeds where aerodynamics start to play a larger role.

When I log my commute miles on myfitnesspal (14 miles at 12-14mph) it estimates 860 calories and I am around 235lbs. Note that is each way, so round trip is 28 miles and I burn 1700 calories. No wonder i eat so much more on the days I bike to work.

David

I'm 265lbs and rode for right at 1.5 hrs at almost 10mph. If Endomondo.com takes into account the change in elevation then weight certainly comes into play much more than maintaining pace on level ground. Still I don't know if I burned over 1000 kcals.

Regardless of all that I'll keep riding the same and striving to increase distance and/or pace so in the end nothing changes. However it is always a good feeling to see the results of effort.

I think your calorie count is way off. On my last ride this weekend, my Garmin 500 showed the following stats:
Miles: 65
Time: 3:55
Vertical Feet: 3000
Avg. Speed: 16.6
Avg. HR: 138
Total Calories: 2,104
Avg. Calories per mile: 32
Avg. Calories per hour: 525

I'm a 63 year old male, weighing 224 lbs. I've tried lots of different calorie counters, and most of them seem wildly off. Maybe the manufacturers are trying to make you feel good or something. My max HR is about 170, so I was averaging 81% of max on the ride.

Chaco has just introduced a factor that matters a lot: heart rate.

True. However without it I'd like to have the best guess possible. So many variables that I'll probably stick to the 30 calories a mile rule that someone suggested.

use that number only for comparison against other readings from the same device. You can be conservative and cut it in half and use that as an estimated caloric burn.

I'll be honest, when I was a clyde and in serious "weight loss mode," I pretty much ignored the amount of calories burned during exercise and just kept my daily intake to a specific limit. That way any extra cals burned during exercise were a nice bonus.

I have a Garmin FR60 and an Edge 800. On a 38 mile bike trip averaging 15 MPH I burnt 1350 calories. This is with a Heart Rate Monitor and programming in my age, weight and activity level. If I look at my bike program on my phone it will show that I burnt 2500 calories. Big difference. I thought the Garmins were way low while the Phone program was high. But even the Garmin I am learning that it may not be accurate but is pretty close.