Menel

I'm trying to shed a few lb, I'd love to get back down to where I was last summer. 27yr ol and about 158lb now.

Anyway... for running, it's easy and my primary sport is running. It's pretty well documented, much fewer variables, terrain is generally flatter, negligible wind resistance, and calories are pretty constant for speed, research as I've read has shown calories plateau once you move into a running stride around 10min/mi pace and faster. For me ~700cal/hour. I only run on closed trails, either hiking trails or paved loops/tracks in local parks, so I don't mind running into a calorie deficit with any decreased performance/loss of mental focus (no so with cycling, a bit scared still, so tend to over eat I think)

But trying to get over that fear, and with reasonable accuracy track calories on cycling days. Example bike ride:

https://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6431/wed34mi.png

Just not buying any of those numbers...

Cycling is much less intense than running...
1. taking into account all the downhill coasting periods
2. the few times I've worn my heart-rate monitor, running I jump to 165+ and it holds steady, the occasional peak upto 175 but doesn't deviate much from a 168avg. Cycling... up and down all the time, down to 130 and doesn't peak near as high even pushing hard on the climbs 160max.

edit: My 10K time is 49min, ~760 cal/hr, but I use 700cal/hr as my general rule, so I figure cycling is more like 500/hr? So more like 841cal for that workout?

GSmith

This isn't something I've read into too much, but I think there are more things to consider, and your cycling has to be down to a science to get that number. The first thing that comes to mind is that your cadence is probably a huge factor, for example, and that can be a tough thing to keep totally consistent, especially when starting out. I've never taken my heart rate while riding hard, though, so I don't know how mine compares to yours or how that of a 'spinner' would compare.

botto 

downhill coasting?

CCrew

Ballpark rule of thumb is 30-35 per mile. Very ballpark because a lot of factors affect it.

kleinboogie

We just talked about this in another thread but generally 600-900 calories an hour on a moderate to intense ride is a good estimate so your 700 looks good. If you really want to know then get a power meter and a head unit that will listen to it and use the Kilojoules number as roughly equivalent to Kcals. GL

JohnKScott

Well, this is really just shooting in the dark since everyone is so different. But I would think with your weight (which is similar to mine) and based on your average speed and elevation gain (which may or may not be inflated by your Garmin depending on your settings), I would think the 1,200 calorie number might be close. That's probably about where I'd be on a similar effort based on the tools I use. And I used these tools to go from 220 lbs to 156 lbs so, for me there was enough accuracy there for consistent results. YMMV. I have found the Garmin WAY over estimates and livestrong (daily plate) also over estimates but not as badly.

Of course there's really no real way to know with any degree of accuracy unless you have a power meter that measures the amount of work you have done. Same for me. I hope to have one in the near future. But really, without a power meter, you are just going to have to estimate the best you can and see how things turn out and keep adjusting until you find what works for you.

Oh and trying to pin a calorie per hour number on cycling might be a lot harder than running. It seems different levels of intensity are much easier to get to (easy and hard) on a bike where with running it's always sort of hard - hard.

Not much help I guess.

Blackdays

It's not as much you think.

Menel

Once I hit about 32mph, there is no resistance in the pedals, I can't spin that, abandon hope. Based on gearing, compact crank, I should be able to get a bit faster, but meh, that's enough. I hit 50 coming down some of the mountains near me, definitely not pedaling there...

merlinextraligh

the 700 estimate is a bit generous. That's right at 220watts average, and a speed of 21mph (solo, no drafting)

For most folks you've got to be riding pretty hard to get 700 calories an hour. Just a moderate endurance pace for most people is going to fall below 600 calories an hour.

Menel

500 was my number for cycling.
700 was for running.
Less than my estimated 500/hr for that workout?

See my last line, from what you say 500/hr might be a reasonable estimate?

merlinextraligh

FTFY. Cycling is not necessarily less intense than running. However, most people don't push themselves on the bike, so it compares more to walking than running.

If you push on the bike you can make it as hard as you want. Obviously a 40k TT effort for an hour is going to be much more intense than running 5 miles in a hour.

Either activity can be made intense if ou choose to do so.

merlinextraligh

Actually, when I went back and looked at your average speed, and the bit of climbing, the 700/hr likely isn't grossly high. My guess is if you had a power meter, it would be somewhere between 500- 700/hr.

Menel

I'm not going to argue with you, I realize this. I qualified my statement on intensity with my details of running on closed paths vs. biking on public roads (stop signs, cars, traffic lights, hazards to slow for/dodge, etc.) (varying degrees of incline) and also qualified it with my personal measured heart rate differences.

Kurt Erlenbach

I suggest not worrying about calories expended during a ride. You continue to burn calories after the ride during recovery, and the real benefit of exercise is increasing lean body mass, which increases basal metabolism, which burns extra calories throughout the day leading to real weight loss. As a result, the actual number of calories burned during the hour or two on the bike is somewhat irrelevant. Most measuring systems are just guesses based on averages, so they might or might not be applicable to you. A power meter can give you an accurate number but, as I said, it really doesn't matter much. It's a big mistake to tell yourself that you can eat two muffins and a bag of Cheetos as a reward for spending an hour or so on the bike.

Menel

Thank you =)

Menel

I don't eat junk food. I'm not trying to find "rewards".
I'm trying to find the right balance properly fueling my body, so I can continue training on consecutive days and not send my body into starvation mode. And avoid over fueling, and still maintain a calorie deficit.

There is a huge difference between what I suspect as 840cal workout, and a garmin estimate of 2200cal. I only want to narrow it down a bit.

billh92109

I would actually like to see some comparatives - out of curiousity. Is there a way to measure wattage during a run so we can compare? I wonder if the calorie burn for running any cycling is similar at similar perceived exertions or if there is a marked difference...

Menel

I don't have access to a power-tap type device on my bike.

I'd think a treadmill may accurate give power for running. The variables that introduces are the "enclosed" feeling on a treadmill often causes people to alter their stride, and two, wind resistance, though I suspect it's fairly negligible at non-elite running speeds.

The "perceived exertion" may be hard to quantify, maybe basing it on heart-rate rather than "feeling".

Edit:
I would hypothesize, that cycling would consume more calories at the same heart rate. Cycling I suspect engages more muscle groups in the legs, and also the core, certainly feels like it in the quads/calves etc, and possibly upper body if your wrenching on the handlebars, etc. When I'm pushing it in the drops, knees come up and can touch my rib cage... that's some pretty intense muscle contractions/extensions you don't get when running.

aboss3

+1! 30-35/mile is just about right as per my measurements this weekend.

merlinextraligh

The problem with that rule of thmb is that its only applicable to certain speeds (and to a lesser degree rider weight)

Because wind resistence is a squared function of speed, you burn more calories per mile at higher speeds, and fewer at lower speeds.

So for an average sized rider at 16 mph, you will only burn approximately 25 calories per hour (one hour 16 miles, 416 calories)

But at 25 mph, you'll burn almost twice that at 50 calories per hour (138 calories in 25 miles.)

https://www.noping.net/english/

So the rule of thumb roughly works for cruisng along, but is not very accurate for harder efforts.

NickDavid

5-Star Thread.

Wear a HR Monitor. Everyone is different. Take up golf instead.

waterrockets 

Well, technically, a power meter can give you a precise number, but accuracy is dependent on athlete efficiency. So, relative changes in burn rate will be precisely reflected, but the calculated number may be pretty far off.

DArthurBrown

This will give you as good approximation as you need. Fit, non-competitive athletes typically burn 100 Calories per mile running. For cycling, that number is about a 1/3 what it is for running. As you become more fit, ironically, you lose weight, generate less heat, and burn slightly fewer calories per mile. My approximation, without any scientific support, is that fit, semi-competitive, Cat-3,4,5 athletes probably burn right around 25 Cals per mile.

Most devices that market themselves as improving your fitness overcalculate calories burned by about a factor of 2. The spinning bikes at the gym tell me I burn 1300-1400 calories per hour.... highly unlikely.

Seattle Forrest

That's your reward for making it up those mountains.

Val23708

really depends on effort. i give myself 700kcal/hr but i stay over 80% MHR for most of my ride.