Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Do I really burn 1640 calories in a workout?

Hello guys!

Ever since I started cycling on my new bike, I seem to not lose any weight. I must be building muscle or something. Today I went ahead and dropped a visit to a dietitian so that she can provide me with an eating plan. I told her I ride 5-6 times a week for about 1 hour. I hope she gets the counting right.

Well, my last workout went like this:


Cycle Computer HRM

Trip Distance: 14.17 miles Total Time: 1:25:00
Moving Time: 1:20:58 Calories: 1640
Avg Speed: 10.50 mph HRavg: 147 bpm
Max Speed: 14.18 mph
Avg Cadence: 69 rpm
Did I burn anything close to 1600 calories? I've set the HRM right (it's a Sigma Onyx Classic with a chestband), but is it counting right? I weigh 260 lbs.

What do you guys think? How should I estimate my calorie expenditure during my workout?

That seems high to me ...

I'd say divide that number by two & it will be closer to accurate. They say "vigorous" cycling burns around 700 kcal per hour. You might burn more than that based on your weight, but I doubt it's that high. It's better to underestimate calories burned than over estimate.

I'd say divide that number by two & it will be closer to accurate. They say "vigorous" cycling burns around 700 kcal per hour.

I'm around 185lbs at the moment. My power meter suggests I burn 500-550 calories an hour. That's at an average pace of 17mph, which means that I'm seeing mostly 19-20mph on the speedometer except when I slow down to 12-14mph to climb hills or stop completely for traffic. A significantly heavier rider would probably burn slightly more calories.

HRMs, cardio machines at the gym, and websites are notoriously inaccurate ways to estimate the number of calories burned. Numbers from a power meter are more accurate, though I'd take even those with a grain of salt!

I'm around 185lbs at the moment. My power meter suggests I burn 500-550 calories an hour. That's at an average pace of 17mph, which means that I'm seeing mostly 19-20mph on the speedometer except when I slow down to 12-14mph to climb hills or stop completely for traffic. A significantly heavier rider would probably burn slightly more calories.

HRMs, cardio machines at the gym, and websites are notoriously inaccurate ways to estimate the number of calories burned. Numbers from a power meter are more accurate, though I'd take even those with a grain of salt!

The OP is averaging around 10 mph ... so it's quite a bit less I'd say.

HRMs, cardio machines at the gym, and websites are notoriously inaccurate ways to estimate the number of calories burned. Numbers from a power meter are more accurate, though I'd take even those with a grain of salt!

Especially the gym machines; never trust one. Take it from an industry insider (I work for an equipment manufacturer).
All equipment calculates caloric expenditure on the same formula, and that formula is based on user input of AGE and WEIGHT, plus the variable input of HEART RATE. The key element in the formula is POWER at a given speed and resistance level, which is estimated. Cycles and ellipticals are the worst because there is variability in resistance levels (most are electromagnetically controlled) not only between manufacturers, but from unit to unit of the same company. The voltage tolerances on these things aren't that tight, and the mfg tolerance of flywheel to magnet distance will also vary the resistance level at the same voltage potential.
So, that power calculation carries an initial slop factor. Compound that with every company using a different multiplier for "mechanical inefficiency" from 20 - 25% and you've got some companies saying that Resistance Level 5 for a 35yo, 170lb user = 250cal/hr, and another telling you it's 380cal/hr.

My Garmin edge 500 (no power input) says I burned 971 for a 1:25 commute this morning, 19 miles @ 13.5mph. I weigh 362.

I was concerned *that* sounded too high. You're more than likely not burning 1600 calories in the same amount of time, especially at 10mph.

Sorry guys, I used the metric system. I corrected the original post to show values in imperial system. I weigh 260 lbs.

Regarding the power meters, don't they just cound the watts spent on the bicycle? And then converting to calories spent on it? I think they don't consider your overall energy spent, but only the energy spent on the bike.

I may not know any better.... perhaps ignorance IS bliss.
- BUT -
I have chosen to disregard amount of calories used... as claimed by my pedometer.
I ignore the various scales that claim to know what thirty minutes of any particular exercise will burn.
I'm not sure, but I think my bicycle computer may even claim to know how many calories I've burned as well.
Each of them can vary by a rather significant amount, and though I know "calories burned" may be an academic assertion based on a mathematical formula, I can't help but think that it may be information no more applicable to one person as it is the next. Bodies and their metabolic rates differ, and some bodies are VERY good at finding a way to do exercise while expending as little energy as possible.

I've only recently taken an interest in calories that I might eat, but I don't put much stock into indicated calories burned.

I weigh 224. Yesterday morning I ran 8.19 miles in 122 minutes. By my calculations, I burned 1153 calories during that time. To estimate my running calorie expenditure I use the following formula which I got off of some running site several years ago: weight * distance * .63

Comparing that with a person cycling at an easy pace for roughly the same amount of time, I too think that 1640 calorie count is quite inaccurate (on the high side.)

Too high. Way too high. They almost are always too high. At my size I would have burned about 300 or a bit more calories per hour at that speed. At your weight maybe you'd burn close to 700 calories for one hour at 10 to 12 mph.

It was 1640 cal for almost an hour and a half guys... So how can I estimate and be in the safe side? I need to calculate the calories I burn. Only with lab testing?

30+/- cal/mile is usually reasonable.

A question for everyone out there who is interested in all these numbers:

What's with the recent push in the fitness world for all the picky analytic data? Just in the past month I've had to explain the concept of caloric calculation to a dozen customers, and in the prior 8 or 9 months no one could care.

Additional question:

By what provocation does someone see a Watts measurement on their equipment, a Calories measurement on their equipment, and then complain to my service department that "you're wrong, because when I put X Watts to calories into Google it told me this super low amount, not what your bike tells me" (ignorant of the fact that the direct calculation of Watts to calories per the mathematics they've provided accounts for a 100% efficient system).
Then they have the gall to refute the maths I provide to them, because the infallible almighty Google told them otherwise.


Sorry, just ranting really. Being in the fitness industry I deal with this crap all day long. I start wondering when "if your pants are tight, eat less and exercise more" stopped being good enough, and people who have difficulty remembering how to tie their shoes* decided that they need PhD thesis grade quantitative data about every bit of their food and exercise.

*Not a reference to anyone here on BF. Reference to customers on our support line, who likely couldn't figure out how to operate a computer and join this forum in the first place.

Soooo... Are these way off? Why would they include such measurements if they're so off? I mean every other measurement in these devices is fairly accurate. Why would they include such a faulty feature?

[QUOTE=CliftonGK1;12927665]What's with the recent push in the fitness world for all the picky analytic data? Just in the past month I've had to explain the concept of caloric calculation to a dozen customers, and in the prior 8 or 9 months no one could care.QUOTE]

Blame it on Dr. Oz.

Soooo... Are these way off? Why would they include such measurements if they're so off? I mean every other measurement in these devices is fairly accurate. Why would they include such a faulty feature?

The numbers are probably very accurate under a certain set of assumptions. Say 150 lb person, exercising at an even effort, etc. We just don't know what assumptions each manufacturer is using in their formula and if you are not matching those assumptions then the formula fails, often badly. Also for exercise equipment I'm sure there is some juicing the Cal burned count because it makes customers feel good and maybe buy more equipment.

14 miles @ 1640 calories means more than 110 calories per mile. If you were going up the side of a mountain, perhaps. If you weighed double what you do, even then I'd say it's a bit high unless you did some serious climbing.

I'm around 250 and reckon on around 40-50 calories per mile on average as a very rough-and-ready figure, which would give you a guesstimate figure of more like 600 calories. If you're taking on calories assuming 1600 then you're potentially miscalculating by 1000 calories per day. Over a week that could total 7000 calories, equivalent to two pounds of fat.

Personally I'd rather estimate low and lose a bit more weight than expected than estimate high and struggle.

A question for everyone out there who is interested in all these numbers:

What's with the recent push in the fitness world for all the picky analytic data? Just in the past month I've had to explain the concept of caloric calculation to a dozen customers, and in the prior 8 or 9 months no one could care.

.

My guess/theory is that morre people are seeing these numbers and then see the high number and wonder why they are not losing more weight. Examples the ellipticals as my club....show calories....and yes this has been arouund for a while, but my new HRM (a very basic Timex) shows calories, my old one did not. The mapmyride android app shows calories....and it doesnt even have my weight age. and so on.

Soooo... Are these way off? Why would they include such measurements if they're so off? I mean every other measurement in these devices is fairly accurate. Why would they include such a faulty feature?

I don't know who started it, but let's say it was Precor who first came out with a feature like calorie count. Shortly after the IHRSA show where it gets revealed, Landice, StarTrac and SportsArt will all have their versions of it. It doesn't matter if it's correct, it matters that it's there, using a similar algorithm and comparable within X% of the competition's results... Maybe fudge the numbers with a 1.05 multiplier so people think they're getting a better workout on your equipment instead of the other guy's stuff. (Yes, it's just like tire manufacturers calling a 23 a 25 to claim theirs is lighter than the competition.)
Now it's become so common, people expect it to be there. Even if you were the dead-set-honest company that advertised "We don't have calorie count because the Wattage estimation is crap!", people would buy the competitor's stuff because it has more doodads. (The recent doodad is integrated televisions, because treadmills are so boring you need to watch TV when you could just go outside and enjoy the RealLife-3D experience.) :lol:

Soooo... Are these way off? Why would they include such measurements if they're so off? I mean every other measurement in these devices is fairly accurate. Why would they include such a faulty feature?

It makes people feel good about having bought the product. It's basically marketing.

The numbers are probably very accurate under a certain set of assumptions. Say 150 lb person, exercising at an even effort, etc. We just don't know what assumptions each manufacturer is using in their formula and if you are not matching those assumptions then the formula fails, often badly. Also for exercise equipment I'm sure there is some juicing the Cal burned count because it makes customers feel good and maybe buy more equipment.
The input to the HRM were: my age, my sex, my weight and whether I'm fat or fit. I chose fat obviously. Then I tried to keep my HR constant for all the time during the exercise.

We just don't know what assumptions each manufacturer is using in their formula and if you are not matching those assumptions then the formula fails, often badly.

You can find out easily what the assumptions are. When you enter "user data" for a program mode on the equipment, what are the default weight and age values? Typically between 150 and 175 pounds, and 35 to 38 years of age.
You can see why the "assumptive" formula in something like a Quick Start mode where you enter no user data would fail horribly if you're 47 years old and weigh 265 pounds.

The input to the HRM were: my age, my sex, my weight and whether I'm fat or fit. I chose fat obviously. Then I tried to keep my HR constant for all the time during the exercise.

What I am saying though is that the company's formula is a model that probably only works on a very narrow range of data. You can enter all the variables you like but more than likely the model they are using fails outside of the range they used to calibrate it.

Lets say for the calibration test they accurately measured a runner or cyclist used 100 calories in 15 mins, and say they weighed him at 150 lbs and his average heart rate was 130 bpm, so they do the test a bunch of times get a scatter plot and try and fit a formula to the data. Basically they end up with something like A(15mins)+B(150lbs)+C(130 bpm)+ D(age)+ etc = 100 Cal. But most likely the scatter plot didn't come close to looking like a function at all but just a random placing of points. So the Constants (A,B,C,D....) are of questionable accuracy.

I have a cheap Bell computer. Today I rode 59 miles with a 12.5 average speed.
It shows I burned 3362 calories.

I am 65 years old and the computer thinks I weigh 220, lost some since is was set.
On a scale of one to five for fitness, I entered 3.

That is 56 calories per mile.

What I am saying though is that the company's formula is a model that probably only works on a very narrow range of data. You can enter all the variables you like but more than likely the model they are using fails outside of the range they used to calibrate it.
Oh I see. I'm too big for my watch now...

Damn... I'll just keep cycling in the recommended HR then and follow my dietitian's eating plan...

Thanks a lot for your comments guys.

Forgot to ask the question,,,,

How long have you been riding? I gained for the first month. About
ten pounds. But I felt much better after the first couple weeks.
Then I reduced my food intake drastically and the weight really
started dropping.

Oh I see. I'm too big for my watch now...

Damn... I'll just keep cycling in the recommended HR then and follow my dietitian's eating plan...

Thanks a lot for your comments guys.

No, the model is just bad.

Forgot to ask the question,,,,

How long have you been riding? I gained for the first month. About
ten pounds. But I felt much better after the first couple weeks.
Then I reduced my food intake drastically and the weight really
started dropping.
I've been riding for a week and a day :)

No, the model is just bad.
You think? Which one do you recommend?

Making mathematical models fit measured data is often the hardest part of research. I have seen models in my field that have had millions of dollars of research thrown at them, that still don't work. I wouldn't put any stock in a calories burned equation that was likely barely researched at all.

You think? Which one do you recommend?

Power meter is the only accurate way. Very expensive. I'd recommend not worrying about how many calories you burn and more on how many you eat.

Forgot to ask the question,,,,

How long have you been riding? I gained for the first month. About
ten pounds. But I felt much better after the first couple weeks.
Then I reduced my food intake drastically and the weight really
started dropping.
I just came with a better answer with the help of ridewithgps activity tracking:
Total Trips Ridden: 8, totalling 143.4 kilometers
Total Routes Mapped: 17, totalling 494.3 kilometers
Total Elevation Gain: 552 meters
Total time on bike: 8 hours, 11 minutes

It's about 89 miles in total.

I checked their site and I can't find any mention of how they calculate calories, I know that Garmin and Polar both explain their methodology on their site. I am 280 pounds and burned 950 on a 27 mile ride (1:55) the other day. Frankly, I use the information for comparison purposes and don't add to my daily intake based on those numbers. Now if I don't use the HRM, my garmin will more than double the calculated calories.

I checked their site and I can't find any mention of how they calculate calories, I know that Garmin and Polar both explain their methodology on their site. I am 280 pounds and burned 950 on a 27 mile ride (1:55) the other day. Frankly, I use the information for comparison purposes and don't add to my daily intake based on those numbers. Now if I don't use the HRM, my garmin will more than double the calculated calories.
Yeah, that's what's bothering me. Being a chestband HRM it's supposed to be fairly accurate...

Power meter is the only accurate way. Very expensive. I'd recommend not worrying about how many calories you burn and more on how many you eat.

This. The weight loss battle is won at the table. Working out and cycling give you a means to increase the calorie deficit needed to lose weight. If your nutrition isn't spot on, you will gain weight even if you are getting adequate exercise.

Not an insult, but there's no way you could have burned that much calories, you aren't generating much power going 10mph for 1hr 20 minutes.

I use this:

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

According to this calculator, if the OP was on a road bike, based on average speed, weight, cadence, and trip time indicated, only 271 calories was burnt.

I burn about 1200 calories to work, doing 24 miles in 1hr 20 minutes, average speed 18mph, ~80 cadence, I weigh 250, usually 0 wind in the mornings, not counting that monster of a bridge I cross (Dumbarton). In the afternoon-evenings I run directly into headwind with windspeed ranging 10 - 20mph. For ~5 miles of the ride (sigh I hate that bridge and the road leading to/away from it) I deal with gusts of 20-25mph since there aren't anything slowing wind down which kicks my butt...My trip home I burn around 2200 - 3000 calories depending on how bad it gets, same trip in 1hr 30 minutes average speed of about 15.75 - 16.25. Wind resistance makes a huge difference.

This is one of the very few calculators that actually take into consideration of drag, air density, cadence, wind speed, height, weight, and slope all in one shot. How things are calculated is spelled out for you, no tricks.

Not an insult, but there's no way you could have burned that much calories, you aren't generating much power going 10mph for 1hr 20 minutes.

I use this:

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

According to this calculator, if the OP was on a road bike, based on average speed, weight, cadence, and trip time indicated, only 271 calories was burnt.

I burn about 1200 calories to work, doing 24 miles in 1hr 20 minutes, average speed 18mph, ~80 cadence, I weigh 250, usually 0 wind in the mornings, not counting that monster of a bridge I cross (Dumbarton). In the afternoon-evenings I run directly into headwind with windspeed ranging 10 - 20mph. For ~5 miles of the ride (sigh I hate that bridge and the road leading to/away from it) I deal with gusts of 20-25mph since there aren't anything slowing wind down which kicks my butt...My trip home I burn around 2200 - 3000 calories depending on how bad it gets, same trip in 1hr 30 minutes average speed of about 15.75 - 16.25. Wind resistance makes a huge difference.

This is one of the very few calculators that actually take into consideration of drag, air density, cadence, wind speed, height, weight, and slope all in one shot. How things are calculated is spelled out for you, no tricks.
I entered the exact values at this site and it gave me as a result 307 calories for an hour and 20 mins. Isn't this way too low?

I have a hunch that it calculates only the amount of calories spent on the bike itself. Besides it doesn't even take in consideration your effort.

EDIT: And it seams that these calories are the 22% percentage of the total calories estimated. If you do the math 307/0.22 equals 1395 calories. A number very close to what ridewithgps estimated.

Not an insult, but there's no way you could have burned that much calories, you aren't generating much power going 10mph for 1hr 20 minutes.

I use this:

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



According to this calculator, if the OP was on a road bike, based on average speed, weight, cadence, and trip time indicated, only 271 calories was burnt.

I burn about 1200 calories to work, doing 24 miles in 1hr 20 minutes, average speed 18mph, ~80 cadence, I weigh 250, usually 0 wind in the mornings, not counting that monster of a bridge I cross (Dumbarton). In the afternoon-evenings I run directly into headwind with windspeed ranging 10 - 20mph. For ~5 miles of the ride (sigh I hate that bridge and the road leading to/away from it) I deal with gusts of 20-25mph since there aren't anything slowing wind down which kicks my butt...My trip home I burn around 2200 - 3000 calories depending on how bad it gets, same trip in 1hr 30 minutes average speed of about 15.75 - 16.25. Wind resistance makes a huge difference.

This is one of the very few calculators that actually take into consideration of drag, air density, cadence, wind speed, height, weight, and slope all in one shot. How things are calculated is spelled out for you, no tricks.

There is huge variability in calories depending on what tires you imput in the calculator. And as you noted, the wind resistance makes a huge difference. I wonder how accurate it is. . . I can get all sorts of different numbers for the OP with the calculator but my guess is that 270 is way too low, given his size. But it illustrates how many variables there are. That is why I don't generally bother trying to figure out how many calories I burn exercising. However, I know it is less than the OP.

Yeah, that's what's bothering me. Being a chestband HRM it's supposed to be fairly accurate...

Telemetry HRM just means that your HR data is more accurately reported than if you're using something like a treadmill or stationary bike with contact HRM plates which can vary in sensitivity based on hydration levels, sweat, motion, etc.
Either way, the calculation is the pretty much the same for all the equipment out there. I'm not sure what multiplier yours is using with the choice of "fit" or "fat" for body type. Something proprietary, I'm guessing.

I agree with the OP!

If your pants are to tight, ride more and eat less.
Or buy bigger pants!

How about ride for fitness and diet for weight loss!

I seriously would question burning half a days worth of calories in a single work out unless your running a marathon or doing some kind of strenuous exercise over the course of several hours. That being possible for you, burning that many calories is most likely not healthy on a regular basis. You just can't recover. Especially at 200 lbs give or take that does not seem a reasonable number.

You can stifle weight loss by overtraining as well, especially with that much exercise while starving the body of calories. Your better off doing one or the other in an extreme way - exercise really hard but eat enough of good foods, or exercise less intense and be super strict with carbs and calories. Doing both is asking too much of your body. Once your body goes into starvation mode youre not losing fat- you're burning muscle, bone mass, and playing with dehydration.

I entered the exact values at this site and it gave me as a result 307 calories for an hour and 20 mins. Isn't this way too low?

I have a hunch that it calculates only the amount of calories spent on the bike itself. Besides it doesn't even take in consideration your effort.

EDIT: And it seams that these calories are the 22% percentage of the total calories estimated. If you do the math 307/0.22 equals 1395 calories. A number very close to what ridewithgps estimated.

I don't think its too low...Drag plays a huge factor on your ride, I do my darnest to keep things within ~2mph compared to no wind, and its a lot harder to do so, and having wide shoulders doesn't help. Keep in mind, that even at 0 wind, the amount of work required to go from say 10mph to 20mph basically quadruples. Your relative velocity is basically any head (positive)/tail (negative) wind + your average velocity, not counting things like rolling resistance, ride position (If I get into a lot of headwind I'll almost spend all my time in the drops), etc.

Yeah I have the sigma comp as well, it tells me I burn like 10k calories...Stopped using it long ago. If I were to use the rule of thumb for medium speed rides in no wind that some of the experienced riders suggested in other forums (50 calories/mile for 18-22mph), I get 2350 for my 47 mile commute, this calculator tells me 2337 @ 18mph, fairly close. Obviously it doesn't take account of all factors, but its a good estimate, probably closer than 90% of the calculators out there.

At an average speed of 10.5 mph and a cadence of 69 and an average HR of 147, my guess is you're burning at best around 400 calories an hour. If you were a TDF caliber rider, putting out 350 to 600 watts, then maybe 1600 C / hr would be reasonable, but then you'd also be covering about 35 miles in that hour, not 10.5.

I have a Garmin 500. When I slow down to 10-11 mph on a flat, I'm burning around 200 calories an hour. I don't start burning the calories until I'm over 80% of my max HR.

Your 5 rides a week are probably burning about 2,000 to 2,500 calories total. That's why they say that losing weight is 80% diet and 20% exercise. You can change that ratio a little bit if you are putting in more than 5 hours a week doing hard workouts, but even then, diet will account for around 70% of your weight loss. If you're putting on weight, you need to examine what you're eating, especially if you're consuming lots of easily digestible carbs -- sugar, white flour, polished rice, fruit juice, pop, potatoes, etc.

I've been riding for a week and a day :)

Ride everyday, really watch what you eat and see me in two months. That will
be $100, pay on your way out.

Sorry guys, I used the metric system. I corrected the original post to show values in imperial system. I weigh 260 lbs.

Regarding the power meters, don't they just cound the watts spent on the bicycle?


Yes.



And then converting to calories spent on it? I think they don't consider your overall energy spent, but only the energy spent on the bike.Metabolic efficiency for cycling varies over a narrow range from about 20-25%. Since a kilojoule is 4.2 Calories one kilojoule on the bike is fueled by .95 - 1.19 Calories which you can safely round to 1.

The better number is around 640-900 kcal for 80 minutes of riding.. At 60-70% of max HR you will be burning at 8 cal / minute.. At the maximum you will be burning 16 cal / minute but this requires you to be riding at 95% / max heart rate..

Trip Distance: 14.17 miles Total Time: 1:25:00
Moving Time: 1:20:58 Calories: 1640
Avg Speed: 10.50 mph HRavg: 147 bpm
Max Speed: 14.18 mph
Avg Cadence: 69 rpm
Did I burn anything close to 1600 calories? I've set the HRM right (it's a Sigma Onyx Classic with a chestband), but is it counting right? I weigh 260 lbs.

What do you guys think?


No way.

With decent training program (6-12 hours a week) and thousands of quality miles in your legs riding at a one-hour time trial pace (20 - 25 MPH on flat ground riding a road bike on brake hoods; or a mountain bike with slicks a bit slower) you might manage 700-1000 calories in one hour or 500-600 calories over that distance which you'd finish in 33 - 42 minutes of actual riding.

At 10.5 MPH on flattish ground you might be burning about 180 Calories an hour and 320 at 14.18.

250 Calories for your ride might not be too out of line.


How should I estimate my calorie expenditure during my workout?In order of increasing cost and potential accuracy

1) Estimate the power you can produce riding at a steady speed on flat ground or a sustained known grade at various perceived exertions and extrapolate

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html

Calories = Watts * seconds / 1000

Up-hill will be more accurate since most of your power is going into hauling your weight up the hill, you know your weight plus the bike weight, and power requirements are linear with speed versus flat ground where your energy is going into overcome aerodynamic drag with power required to overcome it increasing with the cube of speed and you don't know your CdA.

2) Use a device which records your GPS coordinates (ex: Garmin Edge 500, about $200 new plus any sensors you want) and feed it into a web site which can do the same thing for each second of your ride.

3) Use a power meter. Calories = kilojoules. Used first generation wired Powertaps start at about $200 built into a 700C wheel with electronics, used second generation wired units $300 built into wheels with electronics, used wireless about $600 built into wheels (use your own ANT+ computer like a Garmin), and new wireless hubs start at about $750 (add $50-$100 for a rim, $20-$40 for spokes and nipples, and $40-$90 for labor if you don't build your own wheels). Crank based power meters are available for more money.