Cycling app calories burned: which is correct

fleetzz

Map my ride: 11.99 miles, speed 10.9, calories 440
Road Bike: 12.0 miles, speed 10.3, calories 316
Endomodo: 11.92 miles, speed 10.3, calories 523
Runtastic: 12.03 miles, speed 9.63 (forgot to turn off when I got home), calories 312.


So--what calories to record? 132 lbs today, bike about 20 lbs.

dbrightwell1270

I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of the apps. I use a Polar FT4 heart rate monitor. According to it, I log between 530-610 Calories (depending on the temperature and terrain, etc.) for a 12 mile ride at a 13-14 mph pace. I weigh around 325 and have my weight set at 310 on the HRM. Assuming that the HRM is accurate and a linear relationship between Calories expended and body weight that put you at 225-260. Your mileage may vary.

fleetzz

There is a huge difference between 300 cal and 500 calorie burn when I am on 1200/day to begin with. While I would love to eat back 500 calories not sure it would be beneficial to my weight loss. This last 12 lbs has been a bear.

jacksonpt

None are correct, they are all just estimates.

Pick 1 source and use it exclusively for a month, then evaluate your results and adjust your method of estimation as necessary.

lthames0810

This has been an ongoing debate among my cycling friends. My heart rate monitor gives me a 2000 calorie burn for a three hour ride. The consensus is that this is way too high. This link on the topic was forwarded to me in support of the opinion that 33 to 38 calories a mile may be more accurate.

http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-583471.html

The debate is interesting, but I don't have enough science to decide if it makes any sense.

fleetzz

But calories per mile don't take into account personal or bike weight. I would imagine a 200 lb muscular man would burn many more calories per mile than I do.

jacksonpt

But calories per mile don't take into account personal or bike weight. I would imagine a 200 lb muscular man would burn many more calories per mile than I do.

You're right, which is why they are just estimates.

clairemoore75

I weigh 134lb and cycling at 14-16 MPH I burn around 600 cals per hour, I stick to my Garmins read out as it know the hills that I have ridden up and down and the grade of them, My fitnesspal always over reads my cals used so I put down a slower ride to adjust it. What speeds are you traveling at?

fleetzz

They vary, I am generally pretty slow. Up hills about 6 mph, most of my time is between 10.1 and 12.4 mph according to map my ride.

I weigh 134lb and cycling at 14-16 MPH I burn around 600 cals per hour, I stick to my Garmins read out as it know the hills that I have ridden up and down and the grade of them, My fitnesspal always over reads my cals used so I put down a slower ride to adjust it. What speeds are you traveling at?

clairemoore75

Have you tried the strava app it seems pretty accurate, I used to use it before I bought my Garmin

corgicake

Average the apps and use the end result for this ride. Too much technology can be a bad thing.

In the future...
1. Google Maps the route of your ride.
2. Note the time that you started riding.
3. Ride.
4. Note the time that you stopped riding.
5. Enter into cardio log.

fleetzz

Have not heard of this one until now.

Have you tried the strava app it seems pretty accurate, I used to use it before I bought my Garmin

MinnieInMaine

I would go with one of the two lowest to be on the safe side if you plan on eating back all of the exercise calories. Sometimes when my Polar is acting up, I'll Google for calorie burns to check other estimates - did this using a rough estimate of your weight and the exercise you did and came up with 300-350 which also makes me think picking one of the two lowest is the best bet.

fleetzz

Thanks everyone--I think I will go with the calorie burn of the app that reports the lowest number. It seems like so many people think that calories burned are overestimates, even the polar hr monitors (which I have, but forgot to wear this morning).