Gutted that cycling is such low calories!!!!!

Options
Lanfear
Lanfear Posts: 524
in Fitness and Exercise
Meh. Am really disappointed to find that my cycle ride home only burns about 150 calories. :noway:

I thought it would be more as it's (a) all uphill and (b) leaves me gasping for breath - think wounded buffalo!! and (c) makes me feel like my heart is going to fall out of my chest completely it thumps so much!!!

Gutted that it's so low, even if it's only a couple miles - I would have thought the effort alone would have been worth a few more...!!!! :sad:

Replies

  • jmecale72
    jmecale72 Posts: 214
    Options
    Are you using a HRM?
  • Oompa_Loompa
    Oompa_Loompa Posts: 1,099 Member
    Options
    ugh that sucks. I hate when you find out that what you thought was so hard and awesome actually isnt
  • fuzzymel
    fuzzymel Posts: 400 Member
    Options
    What were you using to judge calories burnt?
  • lisabernard
    lisabernard Posts: 59 Member
    Options
    Sounds like you need a heart rate monitor....
  • HotSouthernMess
    HotSouthernMess Posts: 474 Member
    Options
    i felt the same way...you would think it would be a lot more but my HRM monitor usually only shows between 100-150 cals burned. so dissapointing!
  • Lanfear
    Lanfear Posts: 524
    Options
    Are you using a HRM?

    Sadly yes! Though I'm not 100% convinced that it's up to the job, as every now and then it blips and tells me I'm doing 239 BPM!!! I am taking it back tomorrow and hopefully my Polar FT4 will arrive early next week, I've read some good reviews on those :smile:

    Sorry, I don't know how to post multiple quotes here:

    LOL yes it WAAY sucks that it's that low, I thought it was higher.

    The HRM shows that my heart rate went up to 168 this morning (whereas while doing the Shred, where I don't feel anywhere near as bad) it shoots up to 239 on occasion. Think the HRM is sh*gged!!!
  • rthompson81
    rthompson81 Posts: 305 Member
    Options
    Ditto to what jmecale said... I cycle to work and back every day, with hills, 2 miles there and two miles back, and I burn about 300 calories total. If I ride for an hour it's usually 550 - 600. And that's with a HRM.
  • therobinator
    therobinator Posts: 832 Member
    Options
    Were you wearing a hearty rate monitor or going by MFP's estimated calorie burn? I bet if you had a HRM you would see a bigger burn.
  • NimMuse
    NimMuse Posts: 2
    Options
    Which "cycling" are you using? I use two options based on how strenuous my ride is. For example, going to work, it's all downhill, so I use the "Bicycling, 10-12 mph, light (cycling, biking, bike riding)" option. But on the way home (which is all uphill, obviously :p) I use the "Bicycling, 14-16 mph, vigorous (cycling, biking, bike riding)" option. I feel that "light" and "vigorous" describe the exercise I'm doing, even though there's no way I could possibly go 14-16 MPH up some of those hills.

    Hope this helps! Good luck. :)
  • Lanfear
    Lanfear Posts: 524
    Options
    Ditto to what jmecale said... I cycle to work and back every day, with hills, 2 miles there and two miles back, and I burn about 300 calories total. If I ride for an hour it's usually 550 - 600. And that's with a HRM.

    Mine shows a burn of 139 on the way in and about 150 on the way home, and it's about the same distance as yours - just a smidge under 2 miles.
  • rmhand
    rmhand Posts: 1,067 Member
    Options
    I bet rollerblading would do more for you. not sure because I haven't tried it but thanks for the info. I was planning on walking/biking to work this summer for my new job. looks like I'll still need to hit the gym most day.

    Thanks!
  • Lanfear
    Lanfear Posts: 524
    Options
    Which "cycling" are you using? I use two options based on how strenuous my ride is. For example, going to work, it's all downhill, so I use the "Bicycling, 10-12 mph, light (cycling, biking, bike riding)" option. But on the way home (which is all uphill, obviously :p) I use the "Bicycling, 14-16 mph, vigorous (cycling, biking, bike riding)" option. I feel that "light" and "vigorous" describe the exercise I'm doing, even though there's no way I could possibly go 14-16 MPH up some of those hills.

    Hope this helps! Good luck. :)

    MFP estimates it much higher than my HRM - around 50 calories higher each way - LOL another reason to be gutted!!!
  • hostile17
    hostile17 Posts: 54 Member
    Options
    If you think the calories are too high, then it's possible to delude yourself into how much work has gone on.

    If you think they're too low, as in your case, you feel demotivated.

    I think you shouldn't get too hung up on them... it's impossible to get a truly accurate figure as there are so many variables.

    Focus on your food, then do regular exercise.. and it'll fall into place.
  • dimoul
    dimoul Posts: 137 Member
    Options
    I find that it's easier to burn calories cycling than other activities like running because it's easier on your knees, ankles, no shin splints, etc.. For example, I can ride or go to spin class and burn over 900 calories on the bike in less than an hour according to my HRM (I'm still a big guy, so I just burn a lot faster than smaller people). I can also run for about the same time and burn about the same amount, but running just hurts more.
  • Lanfear
    Lanfear Posts: 524
    Options
    I bet rollerblading would do more for you. not sure because I haven't tried it but thanks for the info. I was planning on walking/biking to work this summer for my new job. looks like I'll still need to hit the gym most day.

    Thanks!

    I live in the middle of lots of winding, pot-holey country lanes, so blading not an option unless I want a broken ankle. Also heavy traffic as they use the road past my village as a short-cut and scream around at 60mph most the time - it's dodgy on a bike let along something like a rollerblade....

    Have done it in the past though and I did enjoy it!
  • rthompson81
    rthompson81 Posts: 305 Member
    Options
    Hmm, strange, well, I guess it's all in the perspective then. I never looked at it as low. I was just excited that I didn't have to go to the gym on my going to work days. :)

    Keep up the cycling though. I have noticed a huge difference in not only my leg muscles but also in my core muscles. It's totally worth it!

    Good luck!
  • endurowoman
    endurowoman Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    Hate to tell you this but the fitter you get and the ride gets easier, you use less calories! But in the long run you are resetting your metabolism so it does pay off, just not the way you planned. :)
  • iplayoutside19
    iplayoutside19 Posts: 2,304 Member
    Options
    Ditto to what jmecale said... I cycle to work and back every day, with hills, 2 miles there and two miles back, and I burn about 300 calories total. If I ride for an hour it's usually 550 - 600. And that's with a HRM.

    Mine shows a burn of 139 on the way in and about 150 on the way home, and it's about the same distance as yours - just a smidge under 2 miles.

    How long are we talking? 2 miles? 10-15 minutes? If it's only 10-15 minutes I'd say that's about right.
  • Lanfear
    Lanfear Posts: 524
    Options
    Thanks for all replies guys. :smile:

    Re distance/time, 9 minutes into work, 15 minutes back (hahaha I slow down dramatically coming back up the hill, I suspect it is quite funny to watch!).

    I'm not too worried about overall calorie burn but am surprised that it is not higher, as MFP was giving me about 180 for the journey in and about 200+ for the journey home.

    Only living 2 miles from home it's a bit embarrassing to be driving in. I only tend to now if it's bucketing with rain, because I wear glasss and on a bike I feel it's dangerous if I can't actually see where i'm going, so I will keep going :smile: One day it will be EASY!!!!!! :laugh:

    I will look on the positive that I am getting fitter!!

Categories