Bicycling for exercise; calorie counter designations yield different calorie burns
dagiffy
Posts: 10 Member
Hello all. First post. Errrr...second. I posted this at the end of another thread but then thought maybe no one would see it, so I started my own.
I'm wondering about my bike rides. I have several steep and intimidating hills on a 3.5 mile route I do three times per week (I just started; my third ride today). When I get to the top of these hills I am nearly unable to be able to take enough air in. I couldn't speak if I wanted to other than "aaaaggghhhhh!!".
I have a calorie counter at cronometer.com. When I enter in, say, "moderate" biking for 20 minutes, it tells me I burned 216 calories. That's all well and good. Who knows? But when I put in "vigorous" bike ride for the same time, it tells me 323 calories burned.
My question is this: Another person, say Rider B, in great shape could do my same route in the same time and not be breathing heavy at all, effectively moderate for him. Rider A, me, does it as fast as he can and at the end is completely and utterly spent. It takes about 10 minutes for me to breathe normally again.
I'd say Rider A did a VIGOROUS workout, while RIDER B did a moderate workout, right? Did we burn the same about of calories because we covered the same distance on the same bike with the same body weight in the same time? Or did the fact that RIDER B wasn't challenged nearly as much mean that less calories were burned?
Or conversely, if RIDER A goes all out to exhaustion because he's in pathetic physical condition, did he burn more calories? As I get into shape, this ride will gradually change from vigorous to moderate, for me, but will the calories burned remain the same? They don't on calorie counters, because when you change the intensity from vigorous to moderate, the calories burned changes significantly.
I guess it comes down to "vigorous" versus "moderate". The ride is quite vigorous to me, but for a great rider it wouldn't be much effort at all to do it in the same time I did it. Who burned more calories if all other specs are the same?
I'm wondering about my bike rides. I have several steep and intimidating hills on a 3.5 mile route I do three times per week (I just started; my third ride today). When I get to the top of these hills I am nearly unable to be able to take enough air in. I couldn't speak if I wanted to other than "aaaaggghhhhh!!".
I have a calorie counter at cronometer.com. When I enter in, say, "moderate" biking for 20 minutes, it tells me I burned 216 calories. That's all well and good. Who knows? But when I put in "vigorous" bike ride for the same time, it tells me 323 calories burned.
My question is this: Another person, say Rider B, in great shape could do my same route in the same time and not be breathing heavy at all, effectively moderate for him. Rider A, me, does it as fast as he can and at the end is completely and utterly spent. It takes about 10 minutes for me to breathe normally again.
I'd say Rider A did a VIGOROUS workout, while RIDER B did a moderate workout, right? Did we burn the same about of calories because we covered the same distance on the same bike with the same body weight in the same time? Or did the fact that RIDER B wasn't challenged nearly as much mean that less calories were burned?
Or conversely, if RIDER A goes all out to exhaustion because he's in pathetic physical condition, did he burn more calories? As I get into shape, this ride will gradually change from vigorous to moderate, for me, but will the calories burned remain the same? They don't on calorie counters, because when you change the intensity from vigorous to moderate, the calories burned changes significantly.
I guess it comes down to "vigorous" versus "moderate". The ride is quite vigorous to me, but for a great rider it wouldn't be much effort at all to do it in the same time I did it. Who burned more calories if all other specs are the same?
0
Replies
-
If everything is the same, then same work was performed. Ride B might be expending less calories because of improved metabolic efficiency (years of work).0
-
Who burned more calories if all other specs are the same?
Think physics rather than biology or perceived effort - if everything is the same (weight, aero, bike's rolling resistance, cycling efficiency etc. etc.) then the same amount of work was done. Mass moved over distance.
You could simply use Strava free app on your phone. While not empirically accurate of course it really only has to be "reasonable" and would have a better chance of that than using very generic categories of effort.0 -
Without (at least) a HRM (Heart-Rate-Monitor) the results given by activity-apps are, as you may have noticed, more or less wild guesses.
For more accurate results get one of those fitness-gadgets (Garmin, Polar, Fitbit), just make sure that it has a specific cycling support and a HRM (internal or external).
Out of interest (from one cyclist to another) : which percentage of "steep" are we talking about?
"Intimidating" may be, depending on your personal fitness, almost anything from 0.5 to 25%.0 -
Using heart rate for energy expenditure estimates for an unfit person is also a wild guess and most likely to give exaggerated numbers.3
-
Using heart rate for energy expenditure estimates for an unfit person is also a wild guess and most likely to give exaggerated numbers.
That's why I used the term "at least".
Problem here: For most accurate results you'd need a power-meter. Sadly these device are extremely expensive and only make sense for highly ambitioned cyclists.
For all others a HRM is a good compromise between accuracy and price.0 -
Detritus_1965 wrote: »Using heart rate for energy expenditure estimates for an unfit person is also a wild guess and most likely to give exaggerated numbers.
That's why I used the term "at least".
Problem here: For most accurate results you'd need a power-meter. Sadly these device are extremely expensive and only make sense for highly ambitioned cyclists.
For all others a HRM is a good compromise between accuracy and price.
For a person with an average fitness level I agree, OP doesn't seem to fit that description.
HRMs are good training aids though.
Also agree that most people don't need the accuracy of a power meter - I prefer to spend my discretionary £££'s on carbon wheels...
2 -
Personally, I go with the formula ... 100 calories for every 5 km.
If a person rides fast, that person will burn more calories per hour than a person who rides slowly.
In the old imperial terms, I've seen people talk about anywhere from 25 to 40 calories per mile, with a preference for the lower number, of course.
Therefore, your 3.5 mile (5.6 km) ride would be a shade over 100 calories.
Do it twice and you'll get your 216 cal. 2 -
Also, Rider B may complete the ride in a shorter time, given his/her fitness level, while Rider A may take longer; hence, more minutes riding for Rider A (and more calories expended). May not be significant for a 3.5-mile ride, but could be for longer rides.0
-
How difficult a ride feels, how much you sweat, etc, have nothing to do with the amount of energy you used. These are red herrings.1
-
Detritus_1965 wrote: »Using heart rate for energy expenditure estimates for an unfit person is also a wild guess and most likely to give exaggerated numbers.
That's why I used the term "at least".
Problem here: For most accurate results you'd need a power-meter. Sadly these device are extremely expensive and only make sense for highly ambitioned cyclists.
For all others a HRM is a good compromise between accuracy and price.
There's been a price war in the power meter market for years. They've come down drastically in price. 1 -
If money isn't an impediment, I've been told that power meters give a pretty good estimate of calorie burn. Really $$$ though.
For no initial $ outlay, I would suggest gps tracking with a phone app (it will at least know your speed throughout and rough elevation profile) so it should be able to give a better estimate than merely time + "vigorous" or "moderate".0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Detritus_1965 wrote: »Using heart rate for energy expenditure estimates for an unfit person is also a wild guess and most likely to give exaggerated numbers.
That's why I used the term "at least".
Problem here: For most accurate results you'd need a power-meter. Sadly these device are extremely expensive and only make sense for highly ambitioned cyclists.
For all others a HRM is a good compromise between accuracy and price.
There's been a price war in the power meter market for years. They've come down drastically in price.
True.. I need to price check them again. I've been wanting one for a few years, but wouldn't cough up the cash.0 -
If money isn't an impediment, I've been told that power meters give a pretty good estimate of calorie burn. Really $$$ though.
For no initial $ outlay, I would suggest gps tracking with a phone app (it will at least know your speed throughout and rough elevation profile) so it should be able to give a better estimate than merely time + "vigorous" or "moderate".
Time+distance+BW+elevation will get you much closer than time and perceived exertion0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Detritus_1965 wrote: »Using heart rate for energy expenditure estimates for an unfit person is also a wild guess and most likely to give exaggerated numbers.
That's why I used the term "at least".
Problem here: For most accurate results you'd need a power-meter. Sadly these device are extremely expensive and only make sense for highly ambitioned cyclists.
For all others a HRM is a good compromise between accuracy and price.
There's been a price war in the power meter market for years. They've come down drastically in price.
True.. I need to price check them again. I've been wanting one for a few years, but wouldn't cough up the cash.
I just paid $800 for a set of Vector 2. I needed pedals anyway so in my case it's a better deal. There are a bunch of left-only crank arms in the $400 range and a dual sided spider for $500 now.0 -
...3.5 mile route... [&] "moderate" biking for 20 minutes... My question is this: Another person, say Rider B, in great shape could do my same route in the same time and not be breathing heavy at all, effectively moderate for him. Rider A, me, does it as fast as he can and at the end is completely and utterly spent... [who] burn[t] more calories?
If total weight of Rider A (rider and equipment) and B are the same, the work done is about the same. Cd is not a factor given the speed and only difference is the friction of the drive train and wheels (negligible). This is why a power meter is a superior measuring device. It doesn't care if your are hurting, it just measure the work done. Translation to from work to energy expended by the body is based on your metabolic efficiency.
If weight of Rider A is greater than Rider B, Rider A burnt more calories. By how much? Use http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/PowerComponents.aspx to get an ideal of the difference in work done. To convert to Calories, see http://mccraw.co.uk/powertap-kilojoules-and-calories/.
HRM is more or less useless depending on Rider A's intensity. It's marginal at best when conditions are right.
OP, intensity your are referring is more or less based on the speed (and on flat terrain). See MEP and the supporting studies, https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Detritus_1965 wrote: »Using heart rate for energy expenditure estimates for an unfit person is also a wild guess and most likely to give exaggerated numbers.
That's why I used the term "at least".
Problem here: For most accurate results you'd need a power-meter. Sadly these device are extremely expensive and only make sense for highly ambitioned cyclists.
For all others a HRM is a good compromise between accuracy and price.
There's been a price war in the power meter market for years. They've come down drastically in price.
True.. I need to price check them again. I've been wanting one for a few years, but wouldn't cough up the cash.
I just paid $800 for a set of Vector 2. I needed pedals anyway so in my case it's a better deal. There are a bunch of left-only crank arms in the $400 range and a dual sided spider for $500 now.
I'm looking at a chain ring power meter - I think its powertap - my LBS recommended (I don't want to change up my speedplay pedals) and my custom cranks make them all too hard to fit1 -
OK, I get it. It's just the work done. That much work in that amount of time exhausts me at this point, but someone in good condition can do the same work in the same time and not suffer as much as I do.
The biggest hill, according to Road Bike Pro, is 243 ft in .1 mile...while the lesser hill is about 150 feet in .15 mile. I can do the second one without stopping at this point, only just barely, and since it comes right at the beginning I spend the rest of the ride recovering from that until I get to the big hill, and I can only get about half way up that one till I have to stop and walk it up.
Thanks for your great insight everybody. Never heard of a power meter until now.0 -
Personally, I go with the formula ... 100 calories for every 5 km.
If a person rides fast, that person will burn more calories per hour than a person who rides slowly.
In the old imperial terms, I've seen people talk about anywhere from 25 to 40 calories per mile, with a preference for the lower number, of course.
Therefore, your 3.5 mile (5.6 km) ride would be a shade over 100 calories.Do it twice and you'll get your 216 cal.
Do it twice???? Agggghhhhh!!
0 -
OP - congrats on getting on your bike and cranking out some miles. ALSO - Congrats on taking in some hills! I personally think you are dong great and well on your way to feeling great too.
There are a lot of ways to estimate calories burned - but one thing you mentioned is how at the top of the hills you were having a hard time breathing - maybe only able to scream arghhhh!! This is excellent effort!
If you have no HRM, no app, no other measuring device at all, getting to the point where it is difficult to speak from the exertion is exactly where you want to be for maximum benefit.
I am looking forward to seeing your future posts when you do 2 or 3 laps and then buy a new bike.
Cheers!
0 -
I have a Jamis Coda Sport right now. It's 4 years old. Just put a new chain on it, new brakes and got it tuned up a little. Should I be upgrading as my fitness level increases or is this bike good enough for awhile? Unsure, really.
The only app I have is Road Bike Pro. Logs the time, miles, splits, elevation, avg mph, graphs, etc.0 -
I've shopped for power meters this year and while there are some available for less than $1000, those with good reviews are way way over $1000. If it's a price war, they're using golden bullets.NorthCascades wrote: »Detritus_1965 wrote: »Using heart rate for energy expenditure estimates for an unfit person is also a wild guess and most likely to give exaggerated numbers.
That's why I used the term "at least".
Problem here: For most accurate results you'd need a power-meter. Sadly these device are extremely expensive and only make sense for highly ambitioned cyclists.
For all others a HRM is a good compromise between accuracy and price.
There's been a price war in the power meter market for years. They've come down drastically in price.
I gave up on getting a realistic online guess at my bike rides. I log it as mountain biking/bmx and eat.
0 -
I second the congrats on your getting going on the bike. Calories burned are often a unicorn. I don't worry about calories burned. There are too many variables - wind, temperature., what you ate, if you had a good sleep, a fight with your partner or you have 35 pounds in your back pack or the wrong air in your tires. I worry about getting my 45 minutes minimum of cycling a day. Always a different route, conditions etc.0
-
Personally, I go with the formula ... 100 calories for every 5 km.
If a person rides fast, that person will burn more calories per hour than a person who rides slowly.
In the old imperial terms, I've seen people talk about anywhere from 25 to 40 calories per mile, with a preference for the lower number, of course.
Therefore, your 3.5 mile (5.6 km) ride would be a shade over 100 calories.Do it twice and you'll get your 216 cal.
Do it twice???? Agggghhhhh!!
Well ... yes.
3.5 miles is a great starting point for your first couple weeks, but you'll build up from there.
When I decided to get into cycling again, my first ride was 2 miles, and I had to stop at the 1 mile point for a break. But within 2 or 3 weeks, I was riding 5 miles, and by the end of the summer, I did a 50 mile ride. That was in 1990, and I've been cycling ever since.
0 -
Personally, I go with the formula ... 100 calories for every 5 km.
If a person rides fast, that person will burn more calories per hour than a person who rides slowly.
In the old imperial terms, I've seen people talk about anywhere from 25 to 40 calories per mile, with a preference for the lower number, of course.
Therefore, your 3.5 mile (5.6 km) ride would be a shade over 100 calories.Do it twice and you'll get your 216 cal.
Do it twice???? Agggghhhhh!!
Well ... yes.
3.5 miles is a great starting point for your first couple weeks, but you'll build up from there.
When I decided to get into cycling again, my first ride was 2 miles, and I had to stop at the 1 mile point for a break. But within 2 or 3 weeks, I was riding 5 miles, and by the end of the summer, I did a 50 mile ride. That was in 1990, and I've been cycling ever since.
I know, I was joking about it. I'm near the point of blacking out when I'm done at this point so the thought of doing it again is reprehensible at the moment. I pace up and down the street for ten minutes trying to get my breathing calmed down as it is. I know I'll improve gradually. The day I can do this route twice, I'll know I've gotten somewhere.
Sometimes I wonder if I should have just done flats for the first month, to build up a fitness baseline before tackling hills.0 -
Personally, I go with the formula ... 100 calories for every 5 km.
If a person rides fast, that person will burn more calories per hour than a person who rides slowly.
In the old imperial terms, I've seen people talk about anywhere from 25 to 40 calories per mile, with a preference for the lower number, of course.
Therefore, your 3.5 mile (5.6 km) ride would be a shade over 100 calories.Do it twice and you'll get your 216 cal.
Do it twice???? Agggghhhhh!!
Well ... yes.
3.5 miles is a great starting point for your first couple weeks, but you'll build up from there.
When I decided to get into cycling again, my first ride was 2 miles, and I had to stop at the 1 mile point for a break. But within 2 or 3 weeks, I was riding 5 miles, and by the end of the summer, I did a 50 mile ride. That was in 1990, and I've been cycling ever since.
I know, I was joking about it. I'm near the point of blacking out when I'm done at this point so the thought of doing it again is reprehensible at the moment. I pace up and down the street for ten minutes trying to get my breathing calmed down as it is. I know I'll improve gradually. The day I can do this route twice, I'll know I've gotten somewhere.
Sometimes I wonder if I should have just done flats for the first month, to build up a fitness baseline before tackling hills.
It wouldn't hurt to build up distance on flat ground even now. Pick one day each week to tackle the hill, and build up distance on the rest of the days.
0 -
Personally, I go with the formula ... 100 calories for every 5 km.
If a person rides fast, that person will burn more calories per hour than a person who rides slowly.
In the old imperial terms, I've seen people talk about anywhere from 25 to 40 calories per mile, with a preference for the lower number, of course.
Therefore, your 3.5 mile (5.6 km) ride would be a shade over 100 calories.Do it twice and you'll get your 216 cal.
Do it twice???? Agggghhhhh!!
Well ... yes.
3.5 miles is a great starting point for your first couple weeks, but you'll build up from there.
When I decided to get into cycling again, my first ride was 2 miles, and I had to stop at the 1 mile point for a break. But within 2 or 3 weeks, I was riding 5 miles, and by the end of the summer, I did a 50 mile ride. That was in 1990, and I've been cycling ever since.
I know, I was joking about it. I'm near the point of blacking out when I'm done at this point so the thought of doing it again is reprehensible at the moment. I pace up and down the street for ten minutes trying to get my breathing calmed down as it is. I know I'll improve gradually. The day I can do this route twice, I'll know I've gotten somewhere.
Sometimes I wonder if I should have just done flats for the first month, to build up a fitness baseline before tackling hills.
It wouldn't hurt to build up distance on flat ground even now. Pick one day each week to tackle the hill, and build up distance on the rest of the days.
I've only ridden 3 times, so perhaps flats are called for here lol. Then come back next week and see how I do on the hills.1 -
I have a Jamis Coda Sport right now. It's 4 years old. Just put a new chain on it, new brakes and got it tuned up a little. Should I be upgrading as my fitness level increases or is this bike good enough for awhile? Unsure, really.
The only app I have is Road Bike Pro. Logs the time, miles, splits, elevation, avg mph, graphs, etc.
The possible reason to upgrade would be if you needed more speed for some reason (group rides, trying to get a commute time shorter, etc.) or maybe if it has older components you personally find annoying (like the shifter levers on the very very old 10-speed bikes that were on the center of the stem) or wanted something lighter for the hills.0 -
I have a Jamis Coda Sport right now. It's 4 years old. Just put a new chain on it, new brakes and got it tuned up a little. Should I be upgrading as my fitness level increases or is this bike good enough for awhile? Unsure, really.
The only app I have is Road Bike Pro. Logs the time, miles, splits, elevation, avg mph, graphs, etc.
Advice from The Cannibal: don't upgrade your bike, ride your bike up grades (hills).
I agree with the sentiment but that's only good advice when your bike is already set up the way you need it.
I'm guessing you could probably spend $20-30 to replace your cassette with one meant for hills. The cassette is where most of your gears are, different gears will make it easier. Note that using an easier gear won't have you burn fewer calories, it's the same amount of work just done in a different manner.
Anyway, that would be a job for your bike shop, unless you have a friend who can help. After for and gearing, your better off focusing on "the engine" and hill repeats are an excellent way to do that.0 -
I have a Jamis Coda Sport right now. It's 4 years old. Just put a new chain on it, new brakes and got it tuned up a little. Should I be upgrading as my fitness level increases or is this bike good enough for awhile? Unsure, really.
I wasn't familiar with the model so I looked it up, and it appears to be a fine bike for general fitness riding. I wouldn't upgrade it unless your goals change. Maybe you want to give mountain biking a try, or you want a drop-bar road bike for fast group rides, or something. Even then, I'd still keep this bike as a city/utility/commuter bike.0 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »
I've shopped for power meters this year and while there are some available for less than $1000, those with good reviews are way way over $1000. If it's a price war, they're using golden bullets.NorthCascades wrote: »Detritus_1965 wrote: »Using heart rate for energy expenditure estimates for an unfit person is also a wild guess and most likely to give exaggerated numbers.
That's why I used the term "at least".
Problem here: For most accurate results you'd need a power-meter. Sadly these device are extremely expensive and only make sense for highly ambitioned cyclists.
For all others a HRM is a good compromise between accuracy and price.
There's been a price war in the power meter market for years. They've come down drastically in price.
I gave up on getting a realistic online guess at my bike rides. I log it as mountain biking/bmx and eat.
Which ones are you looking at? SRM?
You're right to ignore many of them. A lot of the least expensive models take shortcuts that can impact data quality.
I guess for weight loss, we don't need superb data, and consistency is probably almost as valuable as accuracy. At least if you're willing to figure out how you respond to things.
Power meters are really training tools, the calorie thing is just a side effect. They tell you how much energy you're putting into the bike (force at the pedal * RPMs) and you use that feedback to do a workout with targets, or to pace yourself during a ride. I guess a relevant example is you can use one too help avoid the temptation to attach a hill too hard at the base and then fade, instead you level the hill by staying below your breaking point on the way up.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions