Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Training & Nutrition
Reload this Page >

60 miles ~3400 calories burned correct???

Notices
Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

60 miles ~3400 calories burned correct???

Old 02-10-06, 06:57 AM
  #76  
Peloton Shelter Dog
 
patentcad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chester, NY
Posts: 90,508

Bikes: 2017 Scott Foil, 2016 Scott Addict SL, 2018 Santa Cruz Blur CC MTB

Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1142 Post(s)
Liked 28 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by Doggus
My wife is into this website called myfooddiary.com Anyhow, I rarely pay any attention to the stuff she rattles off that the site tells her after inputting her daily food/exercise, however - on Saturday it said I burned around 3400 calories. We did a tandem ride of 60 miles at an avg of 17.5. Does this sound right? I can't believe the calorie usage is that high. How can your body survive losing that many calories in 4 hours? I've looked at a couple other online calorie counters and they seem to concur.

BTW...if you have any suggestions as to a better piece of software or an alternative that will save me the monthly subscription to that website...I'd appreciate it.
I don't believe there's any accurate way to answer this question. Can science REALLY accurately measure calories burned during exercise? And if they could, it still varies from person to person. I figure 50 calories per mile - that's 1000 calories per hour @ 20mph average speed and 750 calories per hour @ 15mph average speed (and if I'm that slow I'm climbing quite a bit). But it's guesswork. I think that 50 cal per mile number is easy to remember - and close enough for rock n' roll.
patentcad is offline  
Old 02-10-06, 10:22 AM
  #77  
climber has-been
 
terrymorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 6,846

Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3216 Post(s)
Liked 3,299 Times in 1,666 Posts
Originally Posted by patentcad
Can science REALLY accurately measure calories burned during exercise?
Well, science can measure calories burned, but it requires exhaling into a tube.

Outside of the lab, the use of a heart monitor can improve the energy consumption estimate. Polar uses a couple different methods to estimate energy consumption. If you know your VO2max, the Polar estimate is very accurate.
__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat

Zwift: Terry Morse [OldAF]
ROUVY: terrymorse





terrymorse is offline  
Old 03-28-23, 05:46 AM
  #78  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2023
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Was thinking about this yesterday- went for an ‘undulating’ 60 mile ride.

I rode fasted. Well - technically I had a good meal the night before ( but not excessive ) Ride til you bonk is usually about 1500/1600 calorie isn’t it? I use that as a benchmark I think because in my running days ‘usually’ I’d hit the wall at mile 16, 17 if no fuel.

However! As I got stronger and presumably more efficient/ fitter I could stretch that out to even 30 mile runs ( god those were the days ) so like cycling, you become more efficient.

I’m saying this because I usually feel the bonk on a hard ride between 50 - 60 miles so I’ve always equated that with around the 1500/1600 calories burned mark. Guessing that on bike however even when power dramatically drops off and you’re weaving zig zags across the road dreaming of bar snacks, you’ve begun burning fat more.

like everyone says there are so many variables - speed, hills, age etc etc but 3400 for 60 feels over the top. Bare in mind a marathon burns around 2600, possibly more if really motoring so I’d equate a 100 mile ride to around the equivalent calorie burn. Having said that is it something like 4 times more burnt cycling up a steep gradient? I think most folk say get a power meter or heart rate monitor for more accurate reading… but overall I’d say certainly no more than about 2000 for a 60 mile ride.

Last edited by Tobymessy; 03-28-23 at 08:01 AM.
Tobymessy is offline  
Old 03-28-23, 07:27 AM
  #79  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: northern Deep South
Posts: 8,800

Bikes: Fuji Touring, Novara Randonee

Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2553 Post(s)
Liked 1,867 Times in 1,172 Posts
Dead thread alert!


Bring this thread back to life!
pdlamb is offline  
Likes For pdlamb:
Old 03-28-23, 07:59 AM
  #80  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2023
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Tobymessy is offline  
Old 03-28-23, 08:33 PM
  #81  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,460

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3851 Post(s)
Liked 1,897 Times in 1,354 Posts
This was a nice trip down memory lane, seeing all those posts from folks who aren't here anymore. Especially nice to see the pre-power meter stuff. And some posts from our current crop of actives.

I wonder if someone will write a corrective to this thread, explaining it all for you, as it were. Or not? Leave the thread intact, an artifact to be preserved in its original condition?

Because why yes, science REALLY can accurately measure calories burned during exercise, but that's a subject for another thread or perhaps a bedtime story for some child, sending them quickly to dreamland.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
Old 03-29-23, 02:12 PM
  #82  
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,572

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6011 Post(s)
Liked 4,638 Times in 3,200 Posts
Tobymessy Welcome to BF.

Typically quite a few of us don't like to participate in old threads since too many other's don't realize that some of the replies that they may be responding to are from members that aren't active or even alive any more to defend their criticism. Sometimes I've seen old bitter arguments unrelated to the question of the OP get restarted again.

If there is something in this you wish to discuss, then maybe just post your own thread and posit something about it.
Iride01 is offline  
Likes For Iride01:
Old 04-04-23, 08:12 AM
  #83  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times in 204 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
This was a nice trip down memory lane, seeing all those posts from folks who aren't here anymore. Especially nice to see the pre-power meter stuff. And some posts from our current crop of actives.

I wonder if someone will write a corrective to this thread, explaining it all for you, as it were. Or not? Leave the thread intact, an artifact to be preserved in its original condition?

Because why yes, science REALLY can accurately measure calories burned during exercise, but that's a subject for another thread or perhaps a bedtime story for some child, sending them quickly to dreamland.
I totally didn't realize how old this thread was. I was losing my mind over how many people were suggesting to use a HRM for calorie estimation instead of a PM. 2006... it all makes sense now.
OBoile is offline  
Old 04-04-23, 08:24 AM
  #84  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2023
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by OBoile
I totally didn't realize how old this thread was. I was losing my mind over how many people were suggesting to use a HRM for calorie estimation instead of a PM. 2006... it all makes sense now.


I’ve discovered the emojis box
Tobymessy is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.