AcornMan

The web site I use to track calories and exercise (livestrong.com) has a variety of entries for bicycling to select from. The three I've been using are categorized as follows:

Moderate 12-13.9 mph 682 cal/hr
Vigorous 14-15.9 mph 853 cal/hr
Very vigorous 16-19 mph 1023 cal/hr

The thing is that it seems like there an awful lot of factors that would affect those numbers. For instance, I ride a mountain bike, so even if I pedal as hard as someone on a high-priced road bike, I'll always have a lower speed; if I'm going uphill I'm working VERY hard but my speed is low (and vice versa for going downhill); pavement is faster than a crushed limestone trail even when exerting the same amount of energy; and a headwind or tailwind will dramatically affect speed and the amount of energy required to keep moving. On top of all that, my understanding is that my age, height, and weight also figure into the equation (I'm 38 years old, 6' 4" tall, and about 185 pounds).

Are the figures above good enough to use assuming the variables will average out over time? I tend to just use the "vigorous" category unless I have a very good reason to move up or down the scale, which I rarely do. I don't want to cheat myself by overestimating or underestimating the calories I'm burning, so it's important to me to find a good figure I can rely on. Thanks.

Lamp-Shade

The best way to go is to get a power meter dude. It is the only thing that you can use to calculate the actual work you are doing.

Pat

Well figuring calories burned is not easy. All of those things are merely estimates.

sammy5001

Those numbers are way too high. Based on my power meter readings from both easy and intensive rides, flats and hill climbs, I typically average 33 kilojoules/mile, which translates to roughly 33-38 calories/mile depending on how efficient my body is. Since my goal is to lose weight so I use the more conservative number: 33 calories/mile.

sammy5001

BTW the intensity doesn't really affect the calories you burn. Well your heart has to work harder thus burning more calories but that's negligible compared to the total work done. Riding at high intensity will only let you burn more calories in a shorter amount of time. So in the end it comes down to distance.

Also whether you climbed hills or not doesn't affect the calories you burn either (it does but again it's negligible). Assuming you'll always return to where you started (home), then the work you did to go up will be offset by the energy gained going down hills. So in the end it comes down to distance again.

ahmose

so sammy5001, are you saying not to trust (or at least take with a grain of salt) the calories burned as given by many heart rate monitors ?

sammy5001

HRM is not a very good indication of calories burned. You could ride a roller coaster and get a really high HR but that doesn't mean you did any work or burned any calories.

Also as you get fitter you go faster (covering more distance in the same amount of time) with a the same HR as before. Your HRM will say you burned the same amount of calories but since you covered more distance then obviously you did more work and burned more calories.

abstractform20

cycling burns as many calories as fishing or running a full marathon.

DataJunkie

I use the daily plate also and find their numbers to be fairly high. I take the lower intensity level and round my time down. Seems to work better for me.

DX Rider

There's no way that is right. Even my cheapie bike computer doesn't over estimate that badily.

ericm979

I'm burning about 600 cal/hr at 19 mph. 1000 cal/hr at 16 mph is very wrong.

DataJunkie

Maybe a fixed gear mountain bike with knobby studded tires?

flip18436572

Doesn't it also depend upon the weight of the person? I was thinking it took more calories per mile for more weight being moved. So a 160 pound rider would burn less calories per hour than a 200 pound rider over the same course. Isn't it basically the same amount of calories burned for the same rider on the same course even if one time it is at a 15 mph average and the next time is a 22 mph average?

gregf83 

The amount of calories you burn is in fact directly related to the intensity or speed you ride. For example covering 16 Miles at 16mph will burn about 350 Cals. Ride that same 16 Miles at 25mph and you will burn 687 Cals (1100 Cals/hr).

When you ride faster you do more work covering a given distance due to the exponential increase in wind resistance wrt speet.

Similarly with hills you will burn significantly more calories climbing than covering the same distance on the flats. Coasting down the hills doesn't allow you to recover any energy expended while climbing.

You can confirm this for yourself by using any number of on-line bike calculators (eg. https://web.archive.org/web/200802130...ish/espeed.htm)

Machka 

I always estimate that cycling burns about 500 calories per hour, and walking burns about 300 calories per hour. They may be low estimates, but if I'm trying to lose weight, it is better to estimate what I burn on the low side.

umd

Very incorrect

Also incorrect

dsotm

Exactly, climbing and descending hills you have to constantly accelerate and decelerate as well as constantly change your momentum, something that will burn more energy than just going along on flat ground.

DataJunkie

With that logic one could ride a set distance at half the speed and burn the same calories. It simply does not work that way.

Lamp-Shade

Well, theoretically......
If said person was a hyperthyroid 400 pound body builder with 6 percent body fat and 9 lines of coke in their system.

robdac

If you rode half speed time would double so calories would remain about the same until you consider friction and drag.

robdac

I don't think that's it either. Hills are just like wind. Anytime you have a hill or a wind it will always increase your overall ride time for an out and back ride. This is because you always spend longer going slower than you make up going faster for a shorter time period.

FlatSix911

Here is another way to calculate calories burned per mile

dsotm

Acceleration is not a restoring activity for one and second, on descents you have much more drag, slowing you down more. Drag at high speeds is not linear, so it doesn't average out over time and distance. Rides I have been on, even if they last the same time, that are hillier are much more tiring and fatiguing than flatter rides of the same distance and ride time. There are probably people here that have the powertap data to back that up (I don't own a powertap).

njlonghorn

Hmmmm. So if I sprint up a half-mile-long hill that goes 528 feet vertical (i.e. a 20% grade) at 15 mph, then coast back down, I've burned just as many calories as my buddy who goes the other direction for an easy, flat mile at 15 mph? That's nonsense.

hwka

I love medium rare steaks and cold beer.
Red wine and cheese.
Home-made crusty bread and hommus.
I pay for them by cranking out as many kms as required.
No formulas, no calorie counters.
Just a cheap, unforgiving mirror.