Calories burned = confusion
10-02-14, 05:31 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
I went back and looked at one of my hardest races in the last few seasons: Snelling RR. Lots of wind, lots of rollers. 3:12, 285w avg. power, 2700 kj. So any calculator that estimates 3500 calories for a 3 hour ride at 17mph is way, way, way off.
10-02-14, 06:34 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Putting out a steady 200W will burn about 700 cal/hour, so 500 cal/hour would be about 140W. I've averaged 160W for 7 hours doing a double-metric century, which comes out to be almost 5,000 cal. And I'm not exactly fast - there are a lot of riders who are faster and put out more power (burn more calories) than me for longer times.
10 hours at a 140W average power is easy to imagine, even for 10 hours of riding.
10 hours at a 140W average power is easy to imagine, even for 10 hours of riding.
On my C2 the calculated calorie burn at 150lb and 200 watts is right around 1000/hour. I would assume that putting out 200 watts steady for an hour on the bike would achieve about the same thing. Power is power is it not?
10-02-14, 06:44 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 2,844
Bikes: '13 Spech Roubaix SL4 Expert
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 297 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My biggest calorie burn day ever stat by stat.
June 29th, 2014
Weight: 168#
Power: 190w (measured by a power tap G3)
Average speed: 19mph
TIme riding: 5:44:33
Elevation gain: 7,405ft.
Calories burnt: 4,368 calories.
Today:
Weight: 176#
Power: 196w (measured by a Quarq Riken)
Average Speed: 17.8mph
Time: 3:30:46
Elevation: 3,953ft
Calories Burnt: 2,760
Weight makes a big difference, especially if you are going up a lot. With my usual ride ranging between 200-220 watts average I burn about 800-900 calories an hour. During a 30min race I burn around 600. A road race I burn almost 2000 for close to 2 hours. This should be true unless the PMs are not accurate.
June 29th, 2014
Weight: 168#
Power: 190w (measured by a power tap G3)
Average speed: 19mph
TIme riding: 5:44:33
Elevation gain: 7,405ft.
Calories burnt: 4,368 calories.
Today:
Weight: 176#
Power: 196w (measured by a Quarq Riken)
Average Speed: 17.8mph
Time: 3:30:46
Elevation: 3,953ft
Calories Burnt: 2,760
Weight makes a big difference, especially if you are going up a lot. With my usual ride ranging between 200-220 watts average I burn about 800-900 calories an hour. During a 30min race I burn around 600. A road race I burn almost 2000 for close to 2 hours. This should be true unless the PMs are not accurate.
__________________
Cat 6 going on PRO....
Cat 6 going on PRO....
10-02-14, 06:45 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 2,844
Bikes: '13 Spech Roubaix SL4 Expert
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 297 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Calories burned per watt also depends on body weight. Bigger people burn more calories, right?
On my C2 the calculated calorie burn at 150lb and 200 watts is right around 1000/hour. I would assume that putting out 200 watts steady for an hour on the bike would achieve about the same thing. Power is power is it not?
On my C2 the calculated calorie burn at 150lb and 200 watts is right around 1000/hour. I would assume that putting out 200 watts steady for an hour on the bike would achieve about the same thing. Power is power is it not?
__________________
Cat 6 going on PRO....
Cat 6 going on PRO....
10-02-14, 08:07 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
Calories burned per watt also depends on body weight. Bigger people burn more calories, right?
On my C2 the calculated calorie burn at 150lb and 200 watts is right around 1000/hour. I would assume that putting out 200 watts steady for an hour on the bike would achieve about the same thing. Power is power is it not?
On my C2 the calculated calorie burn at 150lb and 200 watts is right around 1000/hour. I would assume that putting out 200 watts steady for an hour on the bike would achieve about the same thing. Power is power is it not?
100W is 100 joule/sec. There are 3600 seconds in an hour. So 100W for an hour is 360,000 J and 200W for an hour is 720,000 J. So it takes about 720,000 calories to generate 720,000 J of work.
And since "calories" in vernacular use are actually kilocalories, that's 200W for an hour is 720 cal, assuming about a 25% efficiency.
Close enough.
I don't see why bigger riders would burn more calories to put out the same power a smaller rider does. Bigger riders do burn more calories, though, at any given speed because they do have to put out more power to maintain a specific speed than a smaller rider. Especially when climbing is involved.
Last edited by achoo; 10-02-14 at 08:15 PM.
10-02-14, 08:13 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
My biggest calorie burn day ever stat by stat.
June 29th, 2014
Weight: 168#
Power: 190w (measured by a power tap G3)
Average speed: 19mph
TIme riding: 5:44:33
Elevation gain: 7,405ft.
Calories burnt: 4,368 calories.
Today:
Weight: 176#
Power: 196w (measured by a Quarq Riken)
Average Speed: 17.8mph
Time: 3:30:46
Elevation: 3,953ft
Calories Burnt: 2,760
Weight makes a big difference, especially if you are going up a lot. With my usual ride ranging between 200-220 watts average I burn about 800-900 calories an hour. During a 30min race I burn around 600. A road race I burn almost 2000 for close to 2 hours. This should be true unless the PMs are not accurate.
June 29th, 2014
Weight: 168#
Power: 190w (measured by a power tap G3)
Average speed: 19mph
TIme riding: 5:44:33
Elevation gain: 7,405ft.
Calories burnt: 4,368 calories.
Today:
Weight: 176#
Power: 196w (measured by a Quarq Riken)
Average Speed: 17.8mph
Time: 3:30:46
Elevation: 3,953ft
Calories Burnt: 2,760
Weight makes a big difference, especially if you are going up a lot. With my usual ride ranging between 200-220 watts average I burn about 800-900 calories an hour. During a 30min race I burn around 600. A road race I burn almost 2000 for close to 2 hours. This should be true unless the PMs are not accurate.
Find a good steep climb. How many meters did you climb? What's the weight of you and your bike in kilograms?
Multiple those two numbers together. Multiply by 9.8. Divide by the number of seconds it took for you to climb. That should give you real close to the average power you put out over the course of the climb, assuming you didn't climb fast enough for drag to be a significant component of the forces you had to overcome on the climb.
How does that number compare to what your powermeter said you put out?
10-03-14, 05:26 AM
#32
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
10-03-14, 07:09 AM
#34
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I figured my Timex Road Trainer was accurate because of my average heart rate calculation, my calories burned according to my HR monitor is already consistently lower than any of the apps that I have used, runkeeper or my lose it app.
I knew I wasn't measuring power output but I just assumed that average HR was the accurate factor. For instance I notice with increased fitness level and with increased weight loss, my power to weight ratio is much better, thus my average HR is much lower on a specific ride versus what it was say six months ago for the same ride. I just assumed I was accurate.
10-03-14, 07:24 AM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Springfield, MA
Posts: 1,060
Bikes: 2012 Motobecane Fantom CXX, 2012 Motobecane Fantom CX, 1997 Bianchi Nyala, 200? Burley Rock 'n Roll
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Who new? I guess I'm a bigger dumb*^# than I thought.
I figured my Timex Road Trainer was accurate because of my average heart rate calculation, my calories burned according to my HR monitor is already consistently lower than any of the apps that I have used, runkeeper or my lose it app.
I knew I wasn't measuring power output but I just assumed that average HR was the accurate factor. For instance I notice with increased fitness level and with increased weight loss, my power to weight ratio is much better, thus my average HR is much lower on a specific ride versus what it was say six months ago for the same ride. I just assumed I was accurate.
I figured my Timex Road Trainer was accurate because of my average heart rate calculation, my calories burned according to my HR monitor is already consistently lower than any of the apps that I have used, runkeeper or my lose it app.
I knew I wasn't measuring power output but I just assumed that average HR was the accurate factor. For instance I notice with increased fitness level and with increased weight loss, my power to weight ratio is much better, thus my average HR is much lower on a specific ride versus what it was say six months ago for the same ride. I just assumed I was accurate.
I don't think you were being dumb about that. I doubt that your HRM came with a warning that said "the calories measured by this device may be overestimated by 25 - 100%, so don't bother paying attention to them." The manufacturer wants you to believe it's accurate so that they can sell the product. It's something you need to either figure out yourself through bitter experience or learn through sources like product reviews or places like Bike Forums.
Last edited by Spld cyclist; 10-03-14 at 07:30 AM.
10-03-14, 07:31 AM
#36
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I have found that my HR meter is quite consistent with calories calculated according to power, as long as I apply the converstion factor of 0.65 to 0.70 as described above. It's possible that yours is too, but determining whether it is, and what the conversion factor may be for your body and your HRM, is difficult without a way to measure power.
I did use your conversion having read your post and say I apply it to my morning commute into work which is at 5 AM and believe me I am putt putting along. I am going slowly and it usually takes me anywhere from 48-53 minutes. According to my HR monitor I will burn anywhere from 370-430 depending on effort. I use your equation and multiply by .65 and OMG! I am only burning 265 calories in the morning coming in! That isn't much but I guess the body is more efficient than I thought and believe me, I thought it was pretty efficient to begin with.
10-03-14, 07:32 AM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 456
Bikes: Trek 4900, Cannondale Cx-4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If your building new muscle, you may not loose weight since it is more dense than fat.
10-03-14, 07:36 AM
#38
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I have found that my HR meter is quite consistent with calories calculated according to power, as long as I apply the converstion factor of 0.65 to 0.70 as described above. It's possible that yours is too, but determining whether it is, and what the conversion factor may be for your body and your HRM, is difficult without a way to measure power.
I don't think you were being dumb about that. I doubt that your HRM came with a warning that said "the calories measured by this device may be overestimated by 25 - 100%, so don't bother paying attention to them." The manufacturer wants you to believe it's accurate so that they can sell the product. It's something you need to either figure out yourself through bitter experience or learn through sources like product reviews or places like Bike Forums.
I don't think you were being dumb about that. I doubt that your HRM came with a warning that said "the calories measured by this device may be overestimated by 25 - 100%, so don't bother paying attention to them." The manufacturer wants you to believe it's accurate so that they can sell the product. It's something you need to either figure out yourself through bitter experience or learn through sources like product reviews or places like Bike Forums.
10-03-14, 08:34 AM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Springfield, MA
Posts: 1,060
Bikes: 2012 Motobecane Fantom CXX, 2012 Motobecane Fantom CX, 1997 Bianchi Nyala, 200? Burley Rock 'n Roll
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The scary thing is...
I did use your conversion having read your post and say I apply it to my morning commute into work which is at 5 AM and believe me I am putt putting along. I am going slowly and it usually takes me anywhere from 48-53 minutes. According to my HR monitor I will burn anywhere from 370-430 depending on effort. I use your equation and multiply by .65 and OMG! I am only burning 265 calories in the morning coming in! That isn't much but I guess the body is more efficient than I thought and believe me, I thought it was pretty efficient to begin with.
I did use your conversion having read your post and say I apply it to my morning commute into work which is at 5 AM and believe me I am putt putting along. I am going slowly and it usually takes me anywhere from 48-53 minutes. According to my HR monitor I will burn anywhere from 370-430 depending on effort. I use your equation and multiply by .65 and OMG! I am only burning 265 calories in the morning coming in! That isn't much but I guess the body is more efficient than I thought and believe me, I thought it was pretty efficient to begin with.
10-03-14, 10:39 AM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,712
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Missing from the discussion is an answer to the question: Why measure calories burned?
Certainly knowing the calorie and nutritional values for what you consume makes sense. But, with all the variables involved it seems to me trying to track calories used is a never ending, tail chasing exercise that ultimately ends in frustration. What really matters and is easily directly measured is actual performance and weight. Are they where you want them? If not, are they trending the way you want?
Certainly knowing the calorie and nutritional values for what you consume makes sense. But, with all the variables involved it seems to me trying to track calories used is a never ending, tail chasing exercise that ultimately ends in frustration. What really matters and is easily directly measured is actual performance and weight. Are they where you want them? If not, are they trending the way you want?
10-03-14, 03:21 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,078
Bikes: Roubaix SL4 Expert , Cervelo S2
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Power meters can very accurately measure work (in kilojoules.) Once you know work done you can accurately estimate calories burned (it's basic match as achoo pointed out above.) The most accurate way would be to get a power meter and get your gross efficiency measured in a lab. However, I don't think most of us really need that level of accuracy.
Last edited by Dunbar; 10-03-14 at 03:25 PM.
10-06-14, 05:25 AM
#43
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Missing from the discussion is an answer to the question: Why measure calories burned?
Certainly knowing the calorie and nutritional values for what you consume makes sense. But, with all the variables involved it seems to me trying to track calories used is a never ending, tail chasing exercise that ultimately ends in frustration. What really matters and is easily directly measured is actual performance and weight. Are they where you want them? If not, are they trending the way you want?
Certainly knowing the calorie and nutritional values for what you consume makes sense. But, with all the variables involved it seems to me trying to track calories used is a never ending, tail chasing exercise that ultimately ends in frustration. What really matters and is easily directly measured is actual performance and weight. Are they where you want them? If not, are they trending the way you want?
10-06-14, 07:05 AM
#44
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Missing from the discussion is an answer to the question: Why measure calories burned?
Certainly knowing the calorie and nutritional values for what you consume makes sense. But, with all the variables involved it seems to me trying to track calories used is a never ending, tail chasing exercise that ultimately ends in frustration. What really matters and is easily directly measured is actual performance and weight. Are they where you want them? If not, are they trending the way you want?
Certainly knowing the calorie and nutritional values for what you consume makes sense. But, with all the variables involved it seems to me trying to track calories used is a never ending, tail chasing exercise that ultimately ends in frustration. What really matters and is easily directly measured is actual performance and weight. Are they where you want them? If not, are they trending the way you want?
10-06-14, 10:05 AM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,712
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
However, there is a benefit from all this conversation. People are put to work in the manufacture to sales chain. Profits are made and spent. All good for the economy.
10-07-14, 06:24 AM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I admit to being confused and feeling misled by the typical on-line calorie counting calculators for bicycling. The built-in calorie calculator for my Garmin Edge 200 GPS doesn't seem to be any better and is on the "low" end of the array of estimates. Based on my riding (mostly bike club rides of 2-4 hours) at 16-17 mph averages with moderate climbing of 1,000 ft to 3,000 feet, the calculators suggest that I'm "burning" around 1,100 calories per hour for my height/weight/age. A three hour ride will be 3,100 to 3,500 calories burned depending on altitude climbed and average speed by the estimate of the Garmin Edge 200. I understand that these calculators don't encompass wind, drafting, and a few other factors that would impact the overall result. And, FWIW, I don't own a power meter that might give me a more reliable estimate of calories burned.
Here's the dilemma I encounter. By tracking what I eat (lots of on-line help for that) and what I burn from cycling (using the calculators), I should be losing a LOT of weight, on the order of 4-6 lbs a week. That's just not happening
! I know enough about nutrition to be aware that not all calories are equal (glycemic indexing, etc.), and that timing has an effect on blood sugar/insulin/glucogon levels, but I have made adjustments in what I consume...and when to mitigate the effects of what I eat in line with my activities.
So either the calorie calculators are estimating much too high for calories consumed or there are more factors involved than I am considering. I'm hoping that wiser/smarter/more experienced folks than I can enlighten me.
Here's the dilemma I encounter. By tracking what I eat (lots of on-line help for that) and what I burn from cycling (using the calculators), I should be losing a LOT of weight, on the order of 4-6 lbs a week. That's just not happening
! I know enough about nutrition to be aware that not all calories are equal (glycemic indexing, etc.), and that timing has an effect on blood sugar/insulin/glucogon levels, but I have made adjustments in what I consume...and when to mitigate the effects of what I eat in line with my activities.So either the calorie calculators are estimating much too high for calories consumed or there are more factors involved than I am considering. I'm hoping that wiser/smarter/more experienced folks than I can enlighten me.
I am very late to this, but I find the Garmin to be fairly accurate when used with the heart rate monitor and cadence counter. I weigh around 170 and ride similar rides to what you describe. Anywhere from 14-18 MPH, depending on climbing. I never exceed 600 calories in an hour when I use the HRM. If I am missing either(or both) the estimated calorie burn is far greater.
The Garmin numbers with everything come close to Strava estimates and well below Ride with GPS estimates.
10-07-14, 07:14 AM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,690
Bikes: Giant Propel, Cannondale SuperX, Univega Alpina Ultima
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 672 Post(s)
Liked 418 Times
in
250 Posts
Here's an estimate that will work better than all those calculators ...
Assume you're burning somewhere between 400 and 600 calories per
...
And if you're trying to lose weight, assume you're burning 400-500 calories per hour. Always assume you consume more than you think you are consuming, and burn less than you think you are burning.
Assume you're burning somewhere between 400 and 600 calories per
...
And if you're trying to lose weight, assume you're burning 400-500 calories per hour. Always assume you consume more than you think you are consuming, and burn less than you think you are burning.
I have no idea why aps estimate burn rates so much higher, but my experience tracking cal in/cal out over 3 years, 160 lbs lost, and 14 months maintaining my weight within 5 lbs tell me my power meter is accurate. Cut ap estimates by 1/3 to 1/2 if you want to get in the right neighborhood.
BB
__________________
Formerly fastest rider in the grupetto, currently slowest guy in the peloton
Formerly fastest rider in the grupetto, currently slowest guy in the peloton
10-07-14, 07:47 AM
#49
Senior Member
Building muscle is harder then you think.
Most people confuse tonus with muscle.
Almost impossible to add significant muscle under a calorie deficit.
Rather difficult even while your biochemistry is uh, enhanced, AND your are on a program to build muscle.
And your certainly not going to add more muscle than fat loss, as it takes a heck of a lot of energy to make muscle..
10-07-14, 10:51 AM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 456
Bikes: Trek 4900, Cannondale Cx-4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
A very comforting myth. Ever so pleasing we see it bandied about...
Building muscle is harder then you think.
Most people confuse tonus with muscle.
Almost impossible to add significant muscle under a calorie deficit.
Rather difficult even while your biochemistry is uh, enhanced, AND your are on a program to build muscle.
And your certainly not going to add more muscle than fat loss, as it takes a heck of a lot of energy to make muscle..
Building muscle is harder then you think.
Most people confuse tonus with muscle.
Almost impossible to add significant muscle under a calorie deficit.
Rather difficult even while your biochemistry is uh, enhanced, AND your are on a program to build muscle.
And your certainly not going to add more muscle than fat loss, as it takes a heck of a lot of energy to make muscle..