Calories burned while biking
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 1,701
Bikes: Fuji Supreme
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm sure similar info is already in other threads but I was feeling lazy so I'm reposting this interesting table I came across. This table is interesting because it gives different calorie consumption levels for a 150 lbs person and a 250lbs person. It is quite a difference and one of the few times I have seen it laid out conveniently. Hope this is useful to people who are looking to lose weight by or while biking.
Activity 30 minute duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calories burned
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150-pound person . . . . . . 250-pound person
Bicycling, light effort (10 to 11.9 mph) . . . . . . . . . 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Bicycling, moderate effort (12 to 13.9 mph) . . . . . 270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
Bicycling, vigorous effort (14 to 15.9 mph) . . . . . . 340 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
Activity 30 minute duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calories burned
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150-pound person . . . . . . 250-pound person
Bicycling, light effort (10 to 11.9 mph) . . . . . . . . . 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Bicycling, moderate effort (12 to 13.9 mph) . . . . . 270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
Bicycling, vigorous effort (14 to 15.9 mph) . . . . . . 340 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
Last edited by Marylandnewbie; 07-18-05 at 11:44 AM.
#3
On my TARDIScycle!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Eastside Seattlite Termite Mound
Posts: 3,925
Bikes: Trek 520, Trek Navigator 300, Peugeot Versailles PE10DE
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
A friend of mine sent me this cool link the other day....not just for cycling (at different effort levels), but calories burned for all kinds of activities.
https://www.caloriesperhour.com/index.html
The counter:
https://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.html
https://www.caloriesperhour.com/index.html
The counter:
https://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.html
#4
Old Woman on a Catrike
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 434
Bikes: Catrike 5.5.9., Trek Madone 5.2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What I find interesting is that the charts don't take into account an elevated heart rate, even if one is riding 13-14 mph I would think that it would increase the calories expended. My HRM always shows a couple of hundred calories more over the course of an hour or so than the charts based upon my weight and riding speed.
Anyone else find this to be true? Any comments from you professional trainers?
Anyone else find this to be true? Any comments from you professional trainers?
Last edited by lookinUp; 07-19-05 at 04:49 AM.
#6
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you are like me and are pedaling a fully loaded bike with panniers, bike lites with heavy rechargable batteries, and the biker himself weighs 240 lbs, anything above 14mph is vigorous.
#7
Senior Member
Originally Posted by lookinUp
What I find interesting is that the charts don't take into an elevated heart rate, even if one is riding 13-14 mph I would think that it would increase the calories expended. My HRM always shows a couple of hundred calories more over the course of an hour or so than the charts based upon my weight and riding speed.
Anyone else find this to be true? Any comments from you professional trainers?
Anyone else find this to be true? Any comments from you professional trainers?
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
From what I understand, calories burned is most directly related to the distance travelled. Your burn more calories the faster you go because you are going more miles in the same unit time. Of course if it feels really vigorous then your heart rate is probably really high and you might be burning more calories per unit distance (not sure about this). I think a more important factor though is that the faster you go there is more wind resistance so you burn more calories per unit distance, therefore the number of calories burned per mile should go up. Here is a chart relating calories burned to distance that I found on the web. It has different rates than the previous past in this thread... I have no idea how it is computed...
10mph - 26 calories per mile
15mph - 31 calories per mile
20mph - 38 calories per mile
25mph - 47 calories per mile
30mph - 59 calories per mile
10mph - 26 calories per mile
15mph - 31 calories per mile
20mph - 38 calories per mile
25mph - 47 calories per mile
30mph - 59 calories per mile
#9
www.mtbkanata.com
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Wow, now that is cool! Here is my ride in and home:
Totals: 1,161 calories in 1 hr 20 min
Male 29, 5'9", 160 lb: BMI=23.6 BMR=1,744 RMR=1,681
Bicycling - 25.7-30.6 km/h (very vigorous)
1,161 calories in 1 hr 20 min
Calorie Balance: 0 consumed - 1,161 burned = 1,161 lost
That would explain why I eat like crazy during the day..
Totals: 1,161 calories in 1 hr 20 min
Male 29, 5'9", 160 lb: BMI=23.6 BMR=1,744 RMR=1,681
Bicycling - 25.7-30.6 km/h (very vigorous)
1,161 calories in 1 hr 20 min
Calorie Balance: 0 consumed - 1,161 burned = 1,161 lost
That would explain why I eat like crazy during the day..
__________________
Mountain Bike Videos/Photos Uploads: Click Here to Visit
Mountain Bike Videos/Photos Uploads: Click Here to Visit
#10
Belt drive!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Burlington, Vermont
Posts: 2,614
Bikes: 2011 Trek Soho DLX
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ganesha
I always like how these charts list 14-15.9 mph as 'vigorous'.
One day when I was bored, I developed a chart but instead of calories, the energy units were listed as pints of Guinness.
#11
Virtulized geek
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NYC, NY
Posts: 523
Bikes: Modified Davinci (single speed) and custom Gunnar Rock Tour
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
One day when I was bored, I developed a chart but instead of calories, the energy units were listed as pints of Guinness.
__________________
My Blog
My Blog
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 1,701
Bikes: Fuji Supreme
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That reminds me of a summer many years ago when friends and I would go play a good hour of racketball, hit the sauna and then go toss back a few beers and chicken wings on the logic that we had already burned off the calories. Ahhh... to be 20 again.
Actually I like the idea of a chart expressing calories in terms of beers or candy -- much more fun than calories and practical too.
Actually I like the idea of a chart expressing calories in terms of beers or candy -- much more fun than calories and practical too.
#13
Belt drive!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Burlington, Vermont
Posts: 2,614
Bikes: 2011 Trek Soho DLX
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Well it's about 200 calories for a 20oz pint (that's a proper British pint). No fat. Some protein and some carbs.
So do the math.
So do the math.
#14
Senior Member
Originally Posted by borderline
From what I understand, calories burned is most directly related to the distance travelled. Your burn more calories the faster you go because you are going more miles in the same unit time. Of course if it feels really vigorous then your heart rate is probably really high and you might be burning more calories per unit distance (not sure about this). I think a more important factor though is that the faster you go there is more wind resistance so you burn more calories per unit distance, therefore the number of calories burned per mile should go up. Here is a chart relating calories burned to distance that I found on the web. It has different rates than the previous past in this thread... I have no idea how it is computed...
10mph - 26 calories per mile
15mph - 31 calories per mile
20mph - 38 calories per mile
25mph - 47 calories per mile
30mph - 59 calories per mile
10mph - 26 calories per mile
15mph - 31 calories per mile
20mph - 38 calories per mile
25mph - 47 calories per mile
30mph - 59 calories per mile
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,615
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by Marylandnewbie
Activity 30 minute duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calories burned
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150-pound person . . . . . . 250-pound person
Bicycling, light effort (10 to 11.9 mph) . . . . . . . . . 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Bicycling, moderate effort (12 to 13.9 mph) . . . . . 270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
Bicycling, vigorous effort (14 to 15.9 mph) . . . . . . 340 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150-pound person . . . . . . 250-pound person
Bicycling, light effort (10 to 11.9 mph) . . . . . . . . . 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Bicycling, moderate effort (12 to 13.9 mph) . . . . . 270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
Bicycling, vigorous effort (14 to 15.9 mph) . . . . . . 340 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
#16
Commuting Horrorshow
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Livorno, Toscana, Italia
Posts: 503
Bikes: Giant OCR3, Decathlon ****box.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vtjim
Well it's about 200 calories for a 20oz pint (that's a proper British pint). No fat. Some protein and some carbs.
So do the math.
So do the math.
#17
grgs
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 73
Bikes: Schwinn Hybrid, Old Huffy "The Wind" 15 speed, Trek 460 (loaner)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KingTermite
A friend of mine sent me this cool link the other day....not just for cycling (at different effort levels), but calories burned for all kinds of activities.
https://www.caloriesperhour.com/index.html
The counter:
https://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.html
https://www.caloriesperhour.com/index.html
The counter:
https://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.html
I've used this a lot, though I generally try to use it only for fun. Seems to me any chart (or fitness machine readout) that claims to know calories burned is extremely suspect.
#18
Sophomoric Member
While you all have your scientist hats on, here is something that has always puzzled me:
Why does the cyclist's weight have such an effect on the energy (calories) expended? I understand it does when walking or running, since you really are doing more work to move your weight against gravity. But when cycling, does the bike actually carry or hold your weight, and your only work is pushing the load?
For example, it doesn't seem much more difficult to hand-push a bicycle with a 200 pound person sitting on it, compared to pushing a 100 pound person. The bicycle is holding the weight, and you are only pushing more mass? Or something like that?
Why does the cyclist's weight have such an effect on the energy (calories) expended? I understand it does when walking or running, since you really are doing more work to move your weight against gravity. But when cycling, does the bike actually carry or hold your weight, and your only work is pushing the load?
For example, it doesn't seem much more difficult to hand-push a bicycle with a 200 pound person sitting on it, compared to pushing a 100 pound person. The bicycle is holding the weight, and you are only pushing more mass? Or something like that?
#19
Virtulized geek
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NYC, NY
Posts: 523
Bikes: Modified Davinci (single speed) and custom Gunnar Rock Tour
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I ain't no scientist but put it this way: when I used to go up hill when I first started it took a lot longer than it does now. Gravity does have an affect, AFAIK, when you are going up and down (unless you're in Flatsville).
__________________
My Blog
My Blog
#20
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 1,701
Bikes: Fuji Supreme
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Roody, MsMittens is on the right general track. Both a light and heavier rider are expending less energy per unit of speed than they would walking. That is the mechanical advantage of a bike and the wheel.
But the heavier rider will expend more energy than the lighter rider to get a larger mass moving and keep it moving. Thus they work harder to get up the hill, but then enjoy slightly greater potential energy for the downhill ride (all other things being equal as they say). There is no free ride in physics so moving more mass means expending more energy.
I'm not sure of the biology of it all but I also believe that the heavier rider (unless we're talking about a large athlete who is in great shape) burns more calories because of inefficiencies in the engine. So the 250 lb rider burns more calories to do the same ride as a 150 lb rider because the 250 lb rider burns them less efficiently. Again all of these assertions assume that all other factors between the two riders are the same.
But the heavier rider will expend more energy than the lighter rider to get a larger mass moving and keep it moving. Thus they work harder to get up the hill, but then enjoy slightly greater potential energy for the downhill ride (all other things being equal as they say). There is no free ride in physics so moving more mass means expending more energy.
I'm not sure of the biology of it all but I also believe that the heavier rider (unless we're talking about a large athlete who is in great shape) burns more calories because of inefficiencies in the engine. So the 250 lb rider burns more calories to do the same ride as a 150 lb rider because the 250 lb rider burns them less efficiently. Again all of these assertions assume that all other factors between the two riders are the same.
#21
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I imagine the weight has more to do with they're assumption of your fitness and body composition.
I don't believe you will ever be able to calculate your metabolism online.
All these numbers are general and shouldn't be taken for more than that.
I don't believe you will ever be able to calculate your metabolism online.
All these numbers are general and shouldn't be taken for more than that.
#22
Arizona Dessert
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,030
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times
in
1,288 Posts
Originally Posted by simco
All these numbers are general and shouldn't be taken for more than that.
Al
#23
Slow poke
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Fairfax VA
Posts: 15
Bikes: Specialized Sirrus, Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by noisebeam
Which is why it is a good tool, if it wanted to be more accurate, it would be too complex and require to much data input in regard to the engine (the rider, metabolisms, effciencies, wind print size), the tool (the bike, tires, etc.) and the environment (terrain, gradient profiles, weather, wind, temp, etc.) that the average (and often above average) user would not have readily available.
Al
Al
https://www.geocities.com/SiliconVall...alcApplet.html
#24
Dominatrikes
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So then on the flats when I'm tooling along at 17mph I'm doing vigorous exercise, but when I'm grinding up the hills at 6mph I'm doing light exercise?
#25
Huachuca Rider
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 4,275
Bikes: Fuji CCR1, Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I am using a computer program wich uses averages for exercise not unlike some that are in these posts. However, it also adjusts itself. It changes the BMR and the daily target calories based on actual weight loss recorded over time.
One enters starting weight, goal weight and target date. Adjustments are made daily based on the computer's analysis of your actual weight change. No point in lying to this program. It will assume your metabolic rate is higher or lower and modify itself based on reported weight.
I've only been using it for about a week now, so it hasn't fully dialed in on me yet. However, if I use tables and underreport calories burned, underreport calories or skip data entries, this program will catch up and modify the projected weight. I like it. It does appear to be accurate too.
One enters starting weight, goal weight and target date. Adjustments are made daily based on the computer's analysis of your actual weight change. No point in lying to this program. It will assume your metabolic rate is higher or lower and modify itself based on reported weight.
I've only been using it for about a week now, so it hasn't fully dialed in on me yet. However, if I use tables and underreport calories burned, underreport calories or skip data entries, this program will catch up and modify the projected weight. I like it. It does appear to be accurate too.
__________________
Just Peddlin' Around
Just Peddlin' Around