reasonable calories-per-mile rule of thumb for me?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Westwood MA (just south of Boston)
Posts: 2,215
Bikes: 2009 Trek Soho
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
reasonable calories-per-mile rule of thumb for me?
exasperated at the wildly high calories-burned estimates produced both by website calculators and by my Garmin, I've come up with a rule of thumb and wanted to check it out with you.
(note: I know there are highly accurate calculators out there that take all sorts of things into account, but I need more of a baseline to work with in general)
a few threads pointed me to some data on calories per pound-minute, based on speed: https://www.bicyclesource.com/body/tr...urn-rate.shtml
I took the calories per pound-minute and multiplied by 60 and my current weight (285) to get the per-hour burn for me at various speeds. I then divided each figure by that speed to get an estimate of my calories per mile. the table looks like this:
mph cal/pound-mile cal/hr cal/mile
8 0.0295 504.45 63.05625
10 0.0355 607.05 60.705
12 0.0426 728.46 60.705
14 0.0512 875.52 62.53714286
15 0.0561 959.31 63.954
16 0.0615 1051.65 65.728125
17 0.0675 1154.25 67.89705882
18 0.074 1265.4 70.3
19 0.0811 1386.81 72.99
so it's pretty much in the 60 calories/mile range, unless I get to higher speeds which I usually don't. the website says there is a premium for climbing, but I want to do a conservative estimate.
does this sound like a reasonable rule of thumb? I care because I'm trying to calculate my calorie "deficit" each day of calories consumed - basal metabolic - calories burned exercising
(note: I know there are highly accurate calculators out there that take all sorts of things into account, but I need more of a baseline to work with in general)
a few threads pointed me to some data on calories per pound-minute, based on speed: https://www.bicyclesource.com/body/tr...urn-rate.shtml
I took the calories per pound-minute and multiplied by 60 and my current weight (285) to get the per-hour burn for me at various speeds. I then divided each figure by that speed to get an estimate of my calories per mile. the table looks like this:
mph cal/pound-mile cal/hr cal/mile
8 0.0295 504.45 63.05625
10 0.0355 607.05 60.705
12 0.0426 728.46 60.705
14 0.0512 875.52 62.53714286
15 0.0561 959.31 63.954
16 0.0615 1051.65 65.728125
17 0.0675 1154.25 67.89705882
18 0.074 1265.4 70.3
19 0.0811 1386.81 72.99
so it's pretty much in the 60 calories/mile range, unless I get to higher speeds which I usually don't. the website says there is a premium for climbing, but I want to do a conservative estimate.
does this sound like a reasonable rule of thumb? I care because I'm trying to calculate my calorie "deficit" each day of calories consumed - basal metabolic - calories burned exercising
Last edited by mtalinm; 06-10-10 at 10:26 AM. Reason: formatting table
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,645 Times
in
6,054 Posts
If you're trying to work out your deficit per day, I'd suggest simplifying the math a bit, and thinking in terms of calories per hour of cycling, rather than per mile. It's not just that the math is less ugly, but the answers you get will be more accurate. There are less assumptions going into it ( average speed in particular ) and you won't be tempted to hammer through the miles as quickly as possible to get on with your day.
I did the counting calories thing for several months, and dropped a lot of weight in the process. So you're definitely on the right track.
I did the counting calories thing for several months, and dropped a lot of weight in the process. So you're definitely on the right track.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 11,375
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
On a per mile basis it's tough to figure because there are so many factors to consider:
Rider weight, bike weight, tire width/pressure/tread, terrain, speed, wind, rider position, etc.
I've seen estimates from 25 - 55 cal/mi, with outliers of 18 and 65. Typically, I use 35 cal/mi as a baseline for comparative purposes.
Rider weight, bike weight, tire width/pressure/tread, terrain, speed, wind, rider position, etc.
I've seen estimates from 25 - 55 cal/mi, with outliers of 18 and 65. Typically, I use 35 cal/mi as a baseline for comparative purposes.
__________________
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Westwood MA (just south of Boston)
Posts: 2,215
Bikes: 2009 Trek Soho
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you're trying to work out your deficit per day, I'd suggest simplifying the math a bit, and thinking in terms of calories per hour of cycling, rather than per mile. It's not just that the math is less ugly, but the answers you get will be more accurate. There are less assumptions going into it ( average speed in particular ) and you won't be tempted to hammer through the miles as quickly as possible to get on with your day.
I did the counting calories thing for several months, and dropped a lot of weight in the process. So you're definitely on the right track.
I did the counting calories thing for several months, and dropped a lot of weight in the process. So you're definitely on the right track.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 11,375
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
Only if you're constantly riding the same terrain. I can burn fewer calories per hour at the velodrome doing 23mph than riding hill repeats at 8mph.
__________________
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
#6
Senior Member
A heart rate monitor will tell you a lot.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,645 Times
in
6,054 Posts
The calorie feature on my CatEye seems to be moving time * some rate which is adjusted by my average speed. And the desktop software I feed my GPS track logs into calculates this based on saddle time, too, plus who knows what else? This leads to things like my commute to work burning fewer calories than the one home, because I'm going more slowly, which is the case because it's all uphill. It also takes longer, so, even if I discount the effort involved and go purely based on time, I get the right answer with calories per hour.
Could you elaborate on this? I happen to have a heart rate monitor that records my HR into my GPS tracks, some skill at making computer software, and a bit of weight to lose. I'm always open to improvement...
#8
Downtown Spanky Brown
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Enola, Pennsyltucky
Posts: 2,108
Bikes: Motobecane Phantom Cross Pro Kona Lana'I
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
60 calories a mile is pretty high, I typically figure 30 cals a mile through rolling terrain. Naturally this swings with your terrain and intensity that you're riding at so...really it's hard to say one way or another.
Last edited by bautieri; 06-21-10 at 07:19 AM.
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Westwood MA (just south of Boston)
Posts: 2,215
Bikes: 2009 Trek Soho
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
well i decided to stick with 50 (my original guesstimate) even though the data suggests 60 for my weight. I think 30 would be for someone lighter
that's why I prefer per mile instead of per hour
that's why I prefer per mile instead of per hour
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
exasperated at the wildly high calories-burned estimates produced both by website calculators and by my Garmin, I've come up with a rule of thumb and wanted to check it out with you.
(note: I know there are highly accurate calculators out there that take all sorts of things into account, but I need more of a baseline to work with in general)
a few threads pointed me to some data on calories per pound-minute, based on speed: https://www.bicyclesource.com/body/tr...urn-rate.shtml
I took the calories per pound-minute and multiplied by 60 and my current weight (285) to get the per-hour burn for me at various speeds. I then divided each figure by that speed to get an estimate of my calories per mile. the table looks like this:
mph cal/pound-mile cal/hr cal/mile
8 0.0295 504.45 63.05625
10 0.0355 607.05 60.705
12 0.0426 728.46 60.705
14 0.0512 875.52 62.53714286
15 0.0561 959.31 63.954
16 0.0615 1051.65 65.728125
17 0.0675 1154.25 67.89705882
18 0.074 1265.4 70.3
19 0.0811 1386.81 72.99
so it's pretty much in the 60 calories/mile range, unless I get to higher speeds which I usually don't. the website says there is a premium for climbing, but I want to do a conservative estimate.
does this sound like a reasonable rule of thumb? I care because I'm trying to calculate my calorie "deficit" each day of calories consumed - basal metabolic - calories burned exercising
(note: I know there are highly accurate calculators out there that take all sorts of things into account, but I need more of a baseline to work with in general)
a few threads pointed me to some data on calories per pound-minute, based on speed: https://www.bicyclesource.com/body/tr...urn-rate.shtml
I took the calories per pound-minute and multiplied by 60 and my current weight (285) to get the per-hour burn for me at various speeds. I then divided each figure by that speed to get an estimate of my calories per mile. the table looks like this:
mph cal/pound-mile cal/hr cal/mile
8 0.0295 504.45 63.05625
10 0.0355 607.05 60.705
12 0.0426 728.46 60.705
14 0.0512 875.52 62.53714286
15 0.0561 959.31 63.954
16 0.0615 1051.65 65.728125
17 0.0675 1154.25 67.89705882
18 0.074 1265.4 70.3
19 0.0811 1386.81 72.99
so it's pretty much in the 60 calories/mile range, unless I get to higher speeds which I usually don't. the website says there is a premium for climbing, but I want to do a conservative estimate.
does this sound like a reasonable rule of thumb? I care because I'm trying to calculate my calorie "deficit" each day of calories consumed - basal metabolic - calories burned exercising
I think 1386.81 is extremely high.
I think 600-700 cals /hr is about right for HIGH effort exercise,
Something like running would be higher (a weight bearing exercise), but exercise like cycling, rowing and swimming, (not weight bearing) it would be extremely hard to get over 700/hr.
#11
Senior Member
I think a lot of this averages out, though, and gets you something consistent enough in the end. Very few people climb hills for an hour straight, and while it's easier to ride on the flats for an hour, it's actually pretty difficult here to find 10 to 15 miles of flat path or roadway. You aren't going to know the biologically correct answer ( 327.9 kCal for the last 30 mins ) but if you calculate it the same way every time, you have something reliable to work with. I guess the same could be said for calculating per mile ... I've been convinced that's not as reliable, though.
Could you elaborate on this? I happen to have a heart rate monitor that records my HR into my GPS tracks, some skill at making computer software, and a bit of weight to lose. I'm always open to improvement...
but even without a computer, keeping your heart rate at a target can help you keep your workout in the range that you want it to.
#12
Senior Member
19 0.0811 1386.81 72.99
I think 1386.81 is extremely high.
I think 600-700 cals /hr is about right for HIGH effort exercise,
Something like running would be higher (a weight bearing exercise), but exercise like cycling, rowing and swimming, (not weight bearing) it would be extremely hard to get over 700/hr.
I think 1386.81 is extremely high.
I think 600-700 cals /hr is about right for HIGH effort exercise,
Something like running would be higher (a weight bearing exercise), but exercise like cycling, rowing and swimming, (not weight bearing) it would be extremely hard to get over 700/hr.
#13
Oscillation overthruster
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Duncan, BC
Posts: 1,532
Bikes: Cinelli Mash / CAAD9 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
So do many of you not trust the typical calorie calculators such as LoseIt! or iMapMyRide where they say that a 220 pound man riding at 30kph for 30kms (one hour) burns 1200 calories?
(19-20mph for one hour)
(19-20mph for one hour)
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: La Verne CA
Posts: 5,049
Bikes: Litespeed Liege, Motorola Team Issue Eddy Mercxk, Santana Noventa Tandem, Fisher Supercaliber Mtn. Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
7 Posts
a more accurate measure is 8 cal per minute at moderate pace, 12-16 cal per minute at hard efforts..
#15
Senior Member
On a mountain bike, with knobbies, and energy sapping gsuspension, it would be something on the order of 350 W to go 20mph, which would get to the 1200 C/hr number.
But add some wind, and thing change. Even a 5 mph tailwind will save 50 watts or more at this speed. 50 watts is 180 calories an hour.
#16
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Westwood MA (just south of Boston)
Posts: 2,215
Bikes: 2009 Trek Soho
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
interesting...how can I learn more about this? the tables I had found are based on speed/distance/weight not heart rate. I'm tracking heart rate, so I could calculate that way instead.
I'm generally riding a road bike with hands on the tops, though sometimes on a hybrid
I'm generally riding a road bike with hands on the tops, though sometimes on a hybrid
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
heartrate matters more than "weight bearing" or not. If you can't hold your heart rate at high enough level, because your legs aren't strong enough, then sure, you'll have a hard time burning a thousand calories an hour on a bike. If you can, then you can burn a lot of calories on a bike.,
Just using your quads, they are easier to tire and then you can't raise your heart rate. When I cycle (at a fairly hard effort) it is hard for me to get over 140, but when I
roller blade I get over 150 and I feel like I am hardly working.
I just got a powertap (probably the only real way to get good numbers) for my Mtb so I think I will be getting some pretty accurate Kj expended numbers. I can't wait.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I had a friend (400+ lbs) who put his weight into an elliptical machine it it said he burned 3500 cals in 47 minutes. And ellipticals are one of the most useless fat burning contraptions out there.
#19
Senior Member
But Weight bearing increases heart rate a lot more. Your gluts and hamstrings are 40% of your muscle mass, and engaging them can really increase your heart rate.
Just using your quads, they are easier to tire and then you can't raise your heart rate. When I cycle (at a fairly hard effort) it is hard for me to get over 140, but when I
roller blade I get over 150 and I feel like I am hardly working.
I just got a powertap (probably the only real way to get good numbers) for my Mtb so I think I will be getting some pretty accurate Kj expended numbers. I can't wait.
Just using your quads, they are easier to tire and then you can't raise your heart rate. When I cycle (at a fairly hard effort) it is hard for me to get over 140, but when I
roller blade I get over 150 and I feel like I am hardly working.
I just got a powertap (probably the only real way to get good numbers) for my Mtb so I think I will be getting some pretty accurate Kj expended numbers. I can't wait.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Which is what I meant by "legs aren't strong enough". If you ride more, you'll get better at it. Cycling uses muscles differently than running (or skating, but I don't know anything about hte biomechanics of skating), but the big muscles are all used. I assure you that serious riders can get their heart rate to whatever figure they care to.
On flat ground no wind on my "fast" 21lb hardtail with 2.2 inch 45psi knobs I can do 18-19mph at about 135bpm, If I go to 19-20
it is about 147bpm and pushing it at 21-23 I get around 159-165 and am breathing really hard, but this would be hard to maintain for even 5 miles.
Roller blading with ski poles I get to 155bpm and can go for 2+ hours and 25+ miles and I am not really breathing that hard.
Weight beariing you use your gluts and hamtrings way more than cycling,swimming rowing etc.
#21
Bastion
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ohio/Chicago
Posts: 208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Good rule of thumb for me is between 12-18 calories a minute. 12 would be around 14 mph and 18 would be around 19-21 mph average.
#22
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Upland Ca
Posts: 19,895
Bikes: Lemond Chambery/Cannondale R-900/Trek 8000 MTB/Burley Duet tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Yup, our fun rides are 2 hours straight climbing. You guys get pretty technical about calorie intake usege etc.. All I know is that when we train for a ride, we drop an ez 20 lbs without counting calories. Eating sensibly and lots of CLIMBING. One a training ride last year, a dude had a Garmin, said we burned 5000 calories on the 60 mile 6,500ft ride. That's the only time in 15 years I've heard anything about my calories burned! Not that it mattered to me!
#23
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Westwood MA (just south of Boston)
Posts: 2,215
Bikes: 2009 Trek Soho
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I routinely average 140 bpm and have had a couple of sessions averaging 160.
i put my ideal weight into Garmin instead of my actual weight and now it is spitting out more realistic calorie consumption.
coupled with tracking my intake, it is really making a difference! scale says I've dropped five pounds in the past 10 days, and I feel it too
i put my ideal weight into Garmin instead of my actual weight and now it is spitting out more realistic calorie consumption.
coupled with tracking my intake, it is really making a difference! scale says I've dropped five pounds in the past 10 days, and I feel it too
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: La Verne CA
Posts: 5,049
Bikes: Litespeed Liege, Motorola Team Issue Eddy Mercxk, Santana Noventa Tandem, Fisher Supercaliber Mtn. Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
7 Posts
the 16 cal / per minute threshold is based on working out at 95% + of your max heart rate..
Hard solo rides for me are at 85% of max average for an entire ride.. If I am in the 90% of max avg range, those are very fast group rides where I am struggling just to keep on the wheels..
Hard solo rides for me are at 85% of max average for an entire ride.. If I am in the 90% of max avg range, those are very fast group rides where I am struggling just to keep on the wheels..
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: La Verne CA
Posts: 5,049
Bikes: Litespeed Liege, Motorola Team Issue Eddy Mercxk, Santana Noventa Tandem, Fisher Supercaliber Mtn. Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
7 Posts
To see how off the garmin 305 is, I used it on a fairly fast beach ride down the SA trail.. Here is the crazy calorie data.. 2:24 ride for 48 miles gave me a calorie count of 3587 calories. Even at the max 16cal/minute threshold that should only be 2300 calories..
MY HR was 150avg - 178 max.. So take what the Garmin is telling you with serious skepticism.. I normally use a Polar or Suunto HR when I ride which gives more realistic numbers..
MY HR was 150avg - 178 max.. So take what the Garmin is telling you with serious skepticism.. I normally use a Polar or Suunto HR when I ride which gives more realistic numbers..