bbbean 

These numbers are VERY close to my own observed numbers.

CNC2204

So by that formula a 270lb rider [me] on a 20lb carbon bike [loaded] riding 3.5hrs 50 miles averaging 16 mph on mostly flats would be how many calories per hour and what total burn ?

dalava

About 500 per hour.

gregf83 

250W for 60 minutes will burn between 900 and 1000 Cals. 900 would be a minimum if you were at the very high end of efficiency (25%). Most people are between 18-24% efficient and will hence burn more than 900 Cals if putting out 250W.

dalava

Garmin's calorie guess work numbers do more damage than helping because they overstate by such a wide margin. A cyclist may feel they can eat whatever they want after a long ride, but in fact, they haven't really burned all that much.

dalava

Agreed on the efficiency, but there are benefits to understating the Kcal number. Here is a good article on this from PT: Powertap: kilojoules and calories burned ? Dave McCraw

gregf83 

That confirms pretty much exactly what I posted.

colnago62

What you say can be true. The answer to the original question of which burns more per hour is running.

Hiro11

I weigh almost exactly 150 lbs. We have a 68 mile pace ride that we typically do on Saturday mornings at about ~22 MPH average (flat course, a group of 4-5). This is the combined average, including stops. When I pull, I pull at 25+ mph on this ride. It's about my limit. By the end of the ride, Strava is telling me I burn about 2,400 calories. Judging by how hungry I am after this ride, I guess that's possible but it seems high. 3,800 calories over a much slower 50 mile ride seems ludicrously high unless you're over 300 lbs.

Also, based on my experience you can burn a ton of calories cycling. It's like anything else though, you've got to go fast to really torch the calories. I would say I burn more calories running for an hour than cycling, though. Swimming fast is an even more powerful calorie blowtorch. Again, though this is all dependant on going fast. If I dog paddled 500 yards over the course of an hour, I'm not burning anything.

colnago62

I rode with a guy who was on the swim team in college. Man, he had amazing capacity at threshold.

Drew Eckhardt 

At the same intensity.

It's fiction like most estimates which aren't power-based (cyclists have a narrow range of efficiency from 20-25% so you can be pretty accurate when you measure output at the rear wheel / crank / pedals)

3800 calories in 4 hours is 260W. 260W on level ground is about 24 MPH solo riding a road bike on the hoods. 260W average over 4 hours suggests a 350-400W+ one hour power which is at least 27 MPH . You guys aren't that fast.

caloso

It's a little higher than my observations but definitely in the ballpark.

DXchulo

Allow me to talk out of my ass for a minute...

I would say that the average runner burns more calories per hour than the average cyclist. However, the average cyclist can spend more hours per week riding than the average runner can spend running. So the potential is there to burn a lot more calories if you put in a lot of hours. But does the average cyclist actually do that? Probably not.

Take any calories burned estimate with a grain of salt. The only way to really know is with a power meter. You're better off decreasing your calorie intake by a given percentage, which is something you can actually measure fairly accurately with well under $100 worth of equipment.

caloso

I don't know about the typical runner and the typical cyclist. However, a typical week on the bike for me is about 10 hours. When I last trained for a marathon, I don't think I ever spent more than 6 hours per week (of actually running).

StanSeven

I trained pretty hard with running. There's no way my cycling comes even close to the same intensity. There are so many diversions cycling such as traffic, intersections, down hills, etc.

Hiro11

I also swam in college. When you're doing 10K+ yards a day, you do indeed get extremely fit. When I was 18 I completed 100X100 @ 1:20 in a yards pool, holding right around 1:07 / 100. Those were the days. I was no where near as good as some on my team. Other guys held sub 1:00, which is insane. Top drawer competitive swimmers are some of the most impressive athletes out there, IMO.

milkbaby

One question for the OP who rode for 4 hours: Are you asking about running in comparison to cycling because you and your buddy are planning on a 4 hour run instead of ride next time?

CNC2204

No. Not a runner.
Low impact from here on.

We do the 50 mile ride in 3 hours usually.

The 4 hour ride was 30 degrees the whole time, it kicked my butt.

With vents taped and toe covers on my road shoes it was 60 degrees the last ride.

I had forgotten i pulled the duct tape off my shoes and the toe covers alone were no match for the cold.

The 3rd & 4th hour my feet were frozen like moon rocks.

I just wanted it to be over.

Now i have full shoe/ankle covers and chemical toe warmers but wont ride 50 miles in 30 degrees anymore.

Doge

I found when using a Concept II rowing machine, a bicycle with a Power Tap and HR monitor and formula when going about as hard as comfortable at about 85% max HR in any of these the two machines say, and the calculation works out to about 1,000 Cal an hour. I can barely do an hour at that rate - and last I did was 3-4 years ago. That is at 200lbs plus. I can burn the fewest calories cycling. Basically for a given effort by you - the Cal count is close. My son races. In a regular race he burns few calories than in a TT. I believe a running race and a TT burn about the same Cal/hour. Sure runners use more - per MPH. I understand the argument that a rower, a swimmer, an X-Country skier by bringing in more of their body can use more calories. Its just that cycling quads are enough to drive someone to the top of their HR. Still the highest VO2 max numbers come from skiers. That might be the drugs, that may be the sport.

mcours2006

I would agree with this. As I wrote in an earlier post, cycling is easier on the body and so can be done for longer duration. I rarely run for more than two straight hours, but I routinely ride for longer than that. I rarely do consecutive running days of more than one hour, but I've routine done that as well. Riding is likely done at a lower sustained intensity, and so energy expenditure is likely lower than that of running, but you can definitely burn more calories riding just by the virtue that you can do it more.

fstshrk

Powermeter ?

My powermeter measures energy output pretty accurately.

fietsbob

The finish Line sprint is probably past aerobic.. so dont Break away too early.

TMonk

The powermeter measures the work that you exert on the pedals (or hub or crank or whatever), NOT the energy required to product that work.

But, again, the two values (KJ of work exerted on the bike, and kcal your body burns in doing said work) tend to be similar.

Looigi

Did not read all the previous posts. If you're breathing hard, it's aerobic. If you're not, it isn't.

gregf83 

It's aerobic until it isn't. The higher you are above your threshold power the more anaerobic exercise becomes. You'll still be breathing hard but the oxygen processed isn't enough so you rely on anaerobic sources of energy.