Calories burned when cycling

yirara

I don't have the means to measure the energy I created when cycling. Is there a way to estimate how many NET calories are burned when cycling 104km leisurely in 5 hours, flat terrain? Female, 44yrs, 62kg, 169cm.

I found this calculator: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1350958587
which gives me 2,272kcal (gross I suppose), which sounds very exaggerated.

My fitbit gives me 2809kcal for the day until now (20:45). It usually gives me around 1700 on sedentary days.

I'm trying to find out whether to eat a lot more candy or not, but don't even know where to start calorie-wise

deannalfisher

I normally burn 12-1400 for a 56mile ride - at 74kg

yirara

I think the calorie burn for cycling depends a lot on effort, compared to walking or running, right?

ajwcyclist2016

During the ride did you fuel yourself and after having your normal amount of food do you still hungry. If still feeling hungry just have a little more good food not empty calories

yirara

Well, I'm not hungry. I just have a lot of Christmas candy laying about And a zeeuwse bolus - trust me on that one: it's heaven!

spiriteagle99

I would think that 104 kms is worth a few extra pieces of candy. I read once that biking is about 5:1 compared to walking, so that would be the equivalent of a 20 km walk, which is enough to allow some indulgences.

sijomial

yirara wrote: »

I think the calorie burn for cycling depends a lot on effort, compared to walking or running, right?

Not really - effort is subjective.

Calories burned depends on the power you produce primarily - that power has to overcome your rolling resistance and your aero drag (speed has a huge impact on that). Variables include bike and rider combined weight, type of bike, terrain, tyres, clothing, cycling solo or in a group, elevation....

But it all comes down to power. Problem is that power meters are expensive and you in particular would be better spending your money elsewhere (better/faster bike).

Suggest you use Strava (available as a free app on your phone) which attempts to estimate the power you are producing, it's also a great way to track progress and relative performance.
It actually estimates gross calories but as you are using a flat bar road bike rather than a road bike it may well be that its estimates are pretty close to your net, if not an underestimate.

yirara

Thanks. I don't have the cash for a road bike, nor the space to store it. It would probably be a wee bit lighter and would allow for a more wind-protected sitting position, but that's about it I guess.

I tried to use ismoothrun today, but as my phone doesn't last me long enough just on battery it won't last me long enough with Stave either, and certainly not with bluetooth enabled Anyway, new phone cable is on my shopping list and I still have a spare one that I picked up from work.

aokoye

yirara wrote: »

Thanks. I don't have the cash for a road bike, nor the space to store it. It would probably be a wee bit lighter and would allow for a more wind-protected sitting position, but that's about it I guess.

I tried to use ismoothrun today, but as my phone doesn't last me long enough just on battery it won't last me long enough with Stave either, and certainly not with bluetooth enabled Anyway, new phone cable is on my shopping list and I still have a spare one that I picked up from work.

Interesting that strava won't run. A road bike would probably be a lot lighter but failing that, I would put slick tires (so non-knobby tires) on your wheels. That'll help with the rolling resistance quite a lot.

yirara

aokoye wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Thanks. I don't have the cash for a road bike, nor the space to store it. It would probably be a wee bit lighter and would allow for a more wind-protected sitting position, but that's about it I guess.

I tried to use ismoothrun today, but as my phone doesn't last me long enough just on battery it won't last me long enough with Stave either, and certainly not with bluetooth enabled Anyway, new phone cable is on my shopping list and I still have a spare one that I picked up from work.

Interesting that strava won't run. A road bike would probably be a lot lighter but failing that, I would put slick tires (so non-knobby tires) on your wheels. That'll help with the rolling resistance quite a lot.

Yeah, my bike is 9.6kg I think. I could make it a bit lighter still by removing fenders and the luggage rack, but then I'd get messy office pants and could not transport my groceries anymore . I don't have slicks because there's a lot of lumps and bumps on the road, tree roots, cobblestones and lots of other things. But worth thinking about. Can you cycle with slicks on such terrain? Other than that I have very thin tires already. They might be due an exchange though.

Well, Strava would probably run, but I could not linked it to an HR sensor to start with as my phone battery would be empty in no time. I think HR measurements are premium only anyway, right?

Don't forget guys, I've just moved internationally, after several months of earning no money at all (and no benefits) and 2 years on £1200. I don't have money just laying about at the moment.

aokoye

Yes, you can. I mean think about the cobbled sections of the Tour of Flanders - though you're probably not dealing with those extremes. What size wheels do you have?

You don't need Strava Summit to record heart rate (I just tried) but you do need it to look at any of the analysis, which I'm not convinced will be useful for you. Even without connecting an HR monitor, Strava would probably give you better calorie estimates than what you're getting now.

yirara

Size wheels: thickness no idea. diameter: just normal adult ones.. 28"?
Thanks mate. I'll look into this. I'll have o give my bike a proper shop maintenance in the new year anyway and will discuss if there are other things I could change. Grips at the bar ends might be a good idea as I had my hands there quite a lot.

Machka9

I estimate at 100 calories for every 5 km. So if you did 104 km that's about 2000 calories.

Machka9

yirara wrote: »

aokoye wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Thanks. I don't have the cash for a road bike, nor the space to store it. It would probably be a wee bit lighter and would allow for a more wind-protected sitting position, but that's about it I guess.

I tried to use ismoothrun today, but as my phone doesn't last me long enough just on battery it won't last me long enough with Stave either, and certainly not with bluetooth enabled Anyway, new phone cable is on my shopping list and I still have a spare one that I picked up from work.

Interesting that strava won't run. A road bike would probably be a lot lighter but failing that, I would put slick tires (so non-knobby tires) on your wheels. That'll help with the rolling resistance quite a lot.

Yeah, my bike is 9.6kg I think. I could make it a bit lighter still by removing fenders and the luggage rack, but then I'd get messy office pants and could not transport my groceries anymore . I don't have slicks because there's a lot of lumps and bumps on the road, tree roots, cobblestones and lots of other things. But worth thinking about. Can you cycle with slicks on such terrain? Other than that I have very thin tires already. They might be due an exchange though.

Well, Strava would probably run, but I could not linked it to an HR sensor to start with as my phone battery would be empty in no time. I think HR measurements are premium only anyway, right?

Don't forget guys, I've just moved internationally, after several months of earning no money at all (and no benefits) and 2 years on £1200. I don't have money just laying about at the moment.

HR measurements aren't premium ... and you can get a backup battery. On a 300K I'll usually carry 2 backup batteries just in case. Also close other programs, and dim the screen.

sijomial

You can plug in an inexpensive external battery pack. I've used them on all day events to keep phone and lights topped up.

Strava estimates would probably be better than HR estimates anyway although knowing your HR can be a useful training aid for endurance cycling.

NorthCascades

If you can record your ride through some other means (borrow an old Garmin) you can upload the data and they'll still do their math on it.

yirara

spiriteagle99 wrote: »

I would think that 104 kms is worth a few extra pieces of candy. I read once that biking is about 5:1 compared to walking, so that would be the equivalent of a 20 km walk, which is enough to allow some indulgences.

So that would be about 450-500kcal for me. Hmm.. Maybe. I'd think (just a guess) maybe a bit more as walking is what we do naturally. Walking is easy and I don't have a problem walking 20km on flat terrain, while cycling takes just a bit more effort. I guess the truth is somewhere out there

TavistockToad

If you trust your fitbit the rest of the time, why don't you trust it for this?

yirara

TavistockToad wrote: »

If you trust your fitbit the rest of the time, why don't you trust it for this?

Because I never trust it I'm a very high maxHR person and fitbit can't deal with that. For 10km runs it gives me nearly twice as much calories as 0.67*lbs*miles. It's quite spot on for very sedentary days (1700kcal while it's more like 1800) but everything involving movement is grossly overstated.

scorpio516

yirara wrote: »

Yeah, my bike is 9.6kg I think. I could make it a bit lighter still by removing fenders and the luggage rack, but then I'd get messy office pants and could not transport my groceries anymore . I don't have slicks because there's a lot of lumps and bumps on the road, tree roots, cobblestones and lots of other things. But worth thinking about. Can you cycle with slicks on such terrain? Other than that I have very thin tires already. They might be due an exchange though.

9.6 isn't that heavy. My AL road bike is around that.
I ride 700c X 25 all day. It doesn't take bumps well but I don't have any issues with traction.

Last big ride I did burned 1000KCal over 30 miles (50km)

yirara

scorpio516 wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Yeah, my bike is 9.6kg I think. I could make it a bit lighter still by removing fenders and the luggage rack, but then I'd get messy office pants and could not transport my groceries anymore . I don't have slicks because there's a lot of lumps and bumps on the road, tree roots, cobblestones and lots of other things. But worth thinking about. Can you cycle with slicks on such terrain? Other than that I have very thin tires already. They might be due an exchange though.

9.6 isn't that heavy. My AL road bike is around that.
I ride 700c X 25 all day. It doesn't take bumps well but I don't have any issues with traction.

Last big ride I did burned 1000KCal over 30 miles (50km)

My bike isn't bad I chose it because it is light-weight but I can use it for offroading, cycling through snow if necessary, be very agile in traffic (basically driving in town like an idiot ) and do groceries. It's also rather long relative to the frame size (female 48 I think. Could not get a male bike in that size )compared to most other bikes of this type, thus my sitting position is rather sporty. The only things that differ from a race bike if I were to remove the rack and fenders is the shape of the bar, and that it's got a 8x3 Deore gear system (no hidden lower-end components) instead of the racing bike equivalent. I've only used it for less than two years I think, and then I stored it when I lived in the Middle East and the UK as it was too dangerous to use first, then I didn't want to carry it down two flights of stairs and through 4 self-closing firedoors every day just to get out, and carry it up to my office three flights of stairs and even more firedoors as bike thieves even went for really expensive locks.