Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Puget Sound
    My Bikes
    2007 Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30
    Posts
    999
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    does cycling really burn that many calories?

    I just did a calculation based on my weight (229 lbs) that indicated that cycling at 14-16 mph would burn 1374 calories per hour. My ride today was 31 miles at 15.2 mph. I've walked on a treadmill and tried to burn 1000 calories per hour. I'm completely wasted after 2 hours. But 2 hours on the bike at the pace mentioned above and I feel fine. The bicycling calculation is from thedailyplate.com.

  2. #2
    RacingBear UmneyDurak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    8,190
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's waaaaaaay over estimating. On my two hour ride I burn around 1300 calories (if I convert Kj to C) thats with average 18-19mph.
    I see hills.... Bring them on!!!
    Stay calm and bring a towel.

  3. #3
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    39,936
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I estimate (roughly based on some calculators, etc. plus a personal calculation of quantity of weight lost vs. calories consumed) that I burn about 500 calories per hour. If you weigh a bit more than me, yours might be around 600 calories per hour. Approximately.

    Walking burns about 300-400 calories per hour.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Puget Sound
    My Bikes
    2007 Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30
    Posts
    999
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    what "calorie calculators" are you using to come up with your numbers? I can see that weight would have a significant effect on calories burned when doing a weight bearing exercise such as walking or running, but it doesn't seem as though it would be as significant on the bike (unless you are climbing... that's when I know I'm putting much more effort into my cycling as I watch the light weights fly by me.)

  5. #5
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    39,936
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Have a look under the Health and Nutrition section on my Links page. The first three there have calorie counters.

    http://www.machka.net/links.htm

    But I also base my calculations on actual experience.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Puget Sound
    My Bikes
    2007 Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30
    Posts
    999
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I found calculators on 2 of 3 websites from your web page. One said 1099 calories per hour and the other said 976 calories per hour based on my weight and average speed per hour. It still seems high. I trust the calorie calculations on the treadmill. Based on the effort between the treadmill and the bicycle, 600-700 calories per hour seems about right.

  7. #7
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    39,936
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you are aiming to lose weight, base your calculations on your goal weight not your current weight. The numbers will probably be somewhat more accurate, and you won't be thinking, "Oh good, I've burned this many calories so I can eat this amount of food".

  8. #8
    Omega Fan BryanW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Sussex, UK
    Posts
    479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use a chart in a 20-year-old book, but it agrees with UmneyDurak's ~650 per hour at 18-19 mph. At 15 mph, it gives 400 calories per hour, or 24 per mile. It takes no account of weight, aero, hills, flappiness of clothing etc, but as a basemark it's always seemed accurate.

    I wonder how much of the US/UK obesity crisis is caused by people using online calculators that tell them they've spent 1000 calories walking down the road to the pub?
    Don't laugh at me, I was once like you.

  9. #9
    Senior Member garysol1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Avon , Ohio
    Posts
    9,865
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why not get a good Heart Rate monitor with a calorie burn function? While they are not 100% accurate they will give you a good idea of the work you have done.

  10. #10
    Aut Vincere Aut Mori Snuffleupagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    My Bikes
    Irish Cycles Tir na Nog, Jack Kane Team Racing, Fuji Aloha 1.0, GT Karakoram, Motobecane Fly Team
    Posts
    4,166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    At 185-190lbs on a "steady state" training ride averaging ~280 watts per hour, I'll put 900kJ of work into the PowerTap. That is between 800-1000 calories. On easy, easy sub 150 watt recovery rides I'll put out 500ish calories per hour. On an hour long hard effort I'll put out more than 1100 calories.

    If you're using the fitday calculators, I've found that over rollers I need to adjust the effort down a notch. For example, a hard two hour ride might net me 1900 calories per the power tap. If I use the 16-19mph cycling option, it's a close reflection of reality. If I use the 20+mph, it over estimates.

    Also, please remember that you're an experiment of n=1. If you are consistent you will see results. If you're curious, you could get RMR testing at many higher end gyms, or at a hospital to better calculate your basal metabolic needs, get a polar HRM with the "own cal" feature, and subtract a solid 20% from those readings for cycling, and go from there.

  11. #11
    Videre non videri
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    My Bikes
    1 road bike (simple, light), 1 TT bike (could be more aero, could be lighter), 1 all-weather commuter and winter bike, 1 Monark 828E ergometer indoor bike
    Posts
    3,204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As a rough guide. 400-600 kcal/hour is about right for the majority, if we're talking regular distance riding. Not TT-like conditions, long intervals or hill repeats...

  12. #12
    Triathlon in my future??? flip18436572's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southwest Iowa
    My Bikes
    Junk, that is why I am here. :-)
    Posts
    2,193
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would say that at my weight of 233 and riding at your pace and keeping a cadence of 90, I would barely burn 400 calories in an hour as my heart rate would never get to anything more than 100-105. It would depend upon the workout and your heart rate. Guessing around 600 max.
    2007 Jamis Ventura Comp
    2006 Jamis Explorer 2.0
    2000 Specialized Hardrock (bought used)
    Swim, Bike, Run and sounds like fun

  13. #13
    Videre non videri
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    My Bikes
    1 road bike (simple, light), 1 TT bike (could be more aero, could be lighter), 1 all-weather commuter and winter bike, 1 Monark 828E ergometer indoor bike
    Posts
    3,204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Weight doesn't make much of a difference if you're in a flat area and don't stop/start often. If you ride in a hilly area, weight will make a huge difference.

  14. #14
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    39,936
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And even if you're riding in hills, you may work hard going up, but you're not exerting that much energy going down.


    I wonder how much of the US/UK obesity crisis is caused by people using online calculators that tell them they've spent 1000 calories walking down the road to the pub?

    I wonder too! So many people I've talked to overestimate what they are burning, and underestimate what they are eating.

  15. #15
    Videre non videri
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    My Bikes
    1 road bike (simple, light), 1 TT bike (could be more aero, could be lighter), 1 all-weather commuter and winter bike, 1 Monark 828E ergometer indoor bike
    Posts
    3,204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Machka View Post
    And even if you're riding in hills, you may work hard going up, but you're not exerting that much energy going down.
    In terms of time, though, time spent going down is typically very short compared to the time spent climbing.

    If you climb a 10 % grade for 3 km at 12 km/h, it takes you 15 minutes. Assuming it's safe to do so, you could easily descend the same route in four minutes. So, you spent 19 minutes riding up and down, but 15 out of those 19 were spent at a high level of effort, and only four coasting or gently pedalling. The average speed would be 19 km/h.

    Compare that to riding 6 km on a flat road at 19 km/h...

  16. #16
    RacingBear UmneyDurak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    8,190
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Machka View Post
    And even if you're riding in hills, you may work hard going up, but you're not exerting that much energy going down.


    I wonder how much of the US/UK obesity crisis is caused by people using online calculators that tell them they've spent 1000 calories walking down the road to the pub?

    I wonder too! So many people I've talked to overestimate what they are burning, and underestimate what they are eating.
    Just curious what is your opinion of power meters values they report. Most display total Kj used during a ride, and I keep hearing different things on how to convert that in to Calories. Some say 1 Kh ~ 1 C, others say it's waay less then that.
    I see hills.... Bring them on!!!
    Stay calm and bring a towel.

  17. #17
    Videre non videri
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    My Bikes
    1 road bike (simple, light), 1 TT bike (could be more aero, could be lighter), 1 all-weather commuter and winter bike, 1 Monark 828E ergometer indoor bike
    Posts
    3,204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Assuming a 20 % efficiency for the human body when cycling, the total power to crank power ratio is about 4:1, and since the kJ/kcal ratio is also ~4:1, a power meter crank output in kJ could be taken as kcal body output straight off.

  18. #18
    simply bikin' dobovedo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    My Bikes
    2009 Specialized Roubaix Pro; 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport; 2009 Specialized Rockhopper 29er Comp; 2006 Flyte Arsenal; 2001 Bianchi Reparto Corse Boron XL; 2007 Raleigh One Way; 1986 Raleigh Alyeska Touring
    Posts
    406
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The online calculators simply don't have enough data and are very broad. For example, some people would have their heartrates maxed to go 15 mph whereas I consider it a Sunday stroll of about 60% effort. As others mentioned, using the light or moderate options on them is at least close, but the 20+ setting assumes you are pretty much going all out on a TT and even then I think it's too high.

    There are sooo many factors that come into play on a bike. The type of bike you ride, body position, tires, even air temperature. Then there's terrain and wind. I put your numbers into my CycliStats software at my weight (160) and a 40 degree air temp on a flat course and semi-aero position on a road bike and got 461 calories per hour. Using your stated weight bumps it to 511, about 10% higher. However, using a mountain bike, upright position and a rolling course bumps it all the way up to 909. None of these come close to 1374.

    I would suggest getting an HRM if you want a more accurate picture. It can be used on both the bike and the treadmill or for any other exercise.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Puget Sound
    My Bikes
    2007 Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30
    Posts
    999
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dobovedo View Post
    I would suggest getting an HRM if you want a more accurate picture. It can be used on both the bike and the treadmill or for any other exercise.
    Thanks for doing the calculations. I have a heart rate monitor that I've used on the treadmill (I love using it there as the incline on the treadmill automatically adjusts to keep your heart rate at the target that you select) but I've never bothered to use it on the bike. Is there a "calculator" that will convert average heart rate to calories?

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    120
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garysol1 View Post
    Why not get a good Heart Rate monitor with a calorie burn function? While they are not 100% accurate they will give you a good idea of the work you have done.
    That was what came to mind while reading this thread. I have a Polar F6 that recirds age, weight and heart rate. It also reads calories burned. I usually look at this info, but really have no idea how accurate it really is. But since it calculates target heart rate during the ride, how accurate is it?

    Again it's not so much that I rely on that function, but I'd just like to know.

  21. #21
    umd
    umd is offline
    Banned umd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    My Bikes
    Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
    Posts
    28,343
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think that the 40 cal per mile estmate is reasonable. Factors intensity in somewhat because if you are going harder, you cover more distance (an burn more cals) in the same time. Of course its still just an estimate and is different for each person.

  22. #22
    Videre non videri
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    My Bikes
    1 road bike (simple, light), 1 TT bike (could be more aero, could be lighter), 1 all-weather commuter and winter bike, 1 Monark 828E ergometer indoor bike
    Posts
    3,204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use ~20-25 kcal/km, which is ~30-40 kcal/mile.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bossier City, La
    My Bikes
    70's Motobecane, 89 Centurion Ironman
    Posts
    611
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CdCf View Post
    I use ~20-25 kcal/km, which is ~30-40 kcal/mile.
    I like the 30 - 40 cal per mile formula too. Especially when Im counting calories to replace.

  24. #24
    NeoRetroGrouch
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    413
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Using the Work from a power meter and an estimation of your efficiency (I've seen estimates from 19-26%) you can estimate Calories within + 5-15%. An HRM is much worse It simply does not have enough data. Calculating by time or miles in cycling doesn't work because, due to the wind, the effort can double with a small change in speed. - TF

  25. #25
    umd
    umd is offline
    Banned umd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    My Bikes
    Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
    Posts
    28,343
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TurboTurtle View Post
    Using the Work from a power meter and an estimation of your efficiency (I've seen estimates from 19-26%) you can estimate Calories within + 5-15%. An HRM is much worse It simply does not have enough data. Calculating by time or miles in cycling doesn't work because, due to the wind, the effort can double with a small change in speed. - TF
    Yes, but the time/distance estimation is better than nothing, and the HRM is better still. Not perfect, but a reasonable rough guide. I've found that 40 cal/mile usually comes pretty close to what my HRM estimates for typical riding (moderate pace, rollers, a few climbs, but no mountain passes) on longer distances. It usually comes in about 1000 cal for 25 miles. Add more climbing or more wind or more intensity and it goes up. I did a ride last fall that was 100 miles with about 8000 feet of climbing, but a nasty headwind for the last 40 miles (and it was not a loop, so it was not a tailwind for the rest of it, it was mostly protected by a mountain range). That ride came out well over 5000, maybe even close to 6000 for the 100 miles, whereas that ride the previous time I did it was estimated closer to 4000, where I would have expected it to be.

    I'll be getting a power meter soon, so I'll be able to test the relationship between the HRM estimation and the power meter's readings.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •