calories per mile.... source of my numbers (kinda long)
Options
andrewlazenby
Posts: 151
I have had this question asked of me a couple times in the main forum or on my personal feed about the calories I count when I cycle. I tend to have lower numbers than most post and folks point it out. As a general rule of thumb I count 30 calories per mile and leave it at that.
I am 190lbs, 6'2" and put in between 600-800 miles per month. for calculation purposes my bike weighs 17 lbs with bottles / pumps/ etc...
First let me state that I feel that any calculation of calories that does not use a power meter is at best an approxamation. Only by measuring the Watts one is putting out can one calcuate the calories needed to do it. That said...
I lifted this from a forum a year or so ago and I will paste it here. This is the rough calculation I use...
********************************
on p.63 of Arnie Baker's "Bicycling Medicine" (c1998). It calculates calories per hour. To get total calories burned we multiply it by the number of hours of cycling:
Calories Burned = [(0.046 x V x W) + (0.066 x V^3)]x M/60 where V = avg. velocity in miles/hr, W is the combined weight of the rider and bike and accessories in pounds, and M is the minutes of riding.
Arnie points out this is very approximate since aerodynamics, elevation, and other factors can mean the difference of several miles per hour with the same energy.
Similarly, it's very approximate for the same reasons but a quick and dirty estimate of cycling calories burned, based on my observation of tables on several sites, is that you burn 1/4 your weight in Calories per mile of cycling or formally: Calories Burned = D x W/4, where W is, again, the combined weight of the rider and bike and accessories in pounds and D is the distance traveled in miles.
*******************************
So. when you plug in my values for yesterdays ride..... 59 miles at 19mph (group with well organized pacelines)
Calories Burned = [(0.046 x 19 x 207) + (0.066 x 19^3)]x 189/60 = 2000.25 calories for the entire ride
This works out to roughly 659 per hour or 33 per mile. And yes, I agree that this likely is a bit low.
What it does not capture is how much I am eating while I am on my bike or how efficient I am. 20 miles used to be a workout. now its 50 that makes me feel the same way. That increased efficiency is not only strength but a better utilization of gears and other "tricks" that make it easier. Simply recording numbers.....I say 30 calories. rough, but easy math.
So, does this seem logical to you or do you think I am completely off the mark? I personally would rather underestimate calories burned that go nutty in the other direction ("I walked to the mailbox to get the mail and burned 1500 calories! "
I will admit that I do not go out of my way to eat them back. I plan on doing back to back centuries next Sat. and Sun. There is no way I could eat them all back on Sat night and feel like riding on Sunday.
I am 190lbs, 6'2" and put in between 600-800 miles per month. for calculation purposes my bike weighs 17 lbs with bottles / pumps/ etc...
First let me state that I feel that any calculation of calories that does not use a power meter is at best an approxamation. Only by measuring the Watts one is putting out can one calcuate the calories needed to do it. That said...
I lifted this from a forum a year or so ago and I will paste it here. This is the rough calculation I use...
********************************
on p.63 of Arnie Baker's "Bicycling Medicine" (c1998). It calculates calories per hour. To get total calories burned we multiply it by the number of hours of cycling:
Calories Burned = [(0.046 x V x W) + (0.066 x V^3)]x M/60 where V = avg. velocity in miles/hr, W is the combined weight of the rider and bike and accessories in pounds, and M is the minutes of riding.
Arnie points out this is very approximate since aerodynamics, elevation, and other factors can mean the difference of several miles per hour with the same energy.
Similarly, it's very approximate for the same reasons but a quick and dirty estimate of cycling calories burned, based on my observation of tables on several sites, is that you burn 1/4 your weight in Calories per mile of cycling or formally: Calories Burned = D x W/4, where W is, again, the combined weight of the rider and bike and accessories in pounds and D is the distance traveled in miles.
*******************************
So. when you plug in my values for yesterdays ride..... 59 miles at 19mph (group with well organized pacelines)
Calories Burned = [(0.046 x 19 x 207) + (0.066 x 19^3)]x 189/60 = 2000.25 calories for the entire ride
This works out to roughly 659 per hour or 33 per mile. And yes, I agree that this likely is a bit low.
What it does not capture is how much I am eating while I am on my bike or how efficient I am. 20 miles used to be a workout. now its 50 that makes me feel the same way. That increased efficiency is not only strength but a better utilization of gears and other "tricks" that make it easier. Simply recording numbers.....I say 30 calories. rough, but easy math.
So, does this seem logical to you or do you think I am completely off the mark? I personally would rather underestimate calories burned that go nutty in the other direction ("I walked to the mailbox to get the mail and burned 1500 calories! "
I will admit that I do not go out of my way to eat them back. I plan on doing back to back centuries next Sat. and Sun. There is no way I could eat them all back on Sat night and feel like riding on Sunday.
0
Replies
-
Well put; I will examine this later when sober.0
-
Well - I definitely agree with the "philosophy" behind the figures - and, interestingly, I've got some data to throw into the hat here...
Yesterday, I went for a ride to test out the new Cycleops PowerCal "pseudo power meter" HRM belt. To see just how accurate (or not) it was, I thought I'd go for a fairly long steady ride, and compare the figures from the Powercal to the figures that were produced by a (borrowed) Powertap rear wheel.
The ride I took was this one...
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/223309438
the data recorded being the data from the PowerCal belt on my Garmin 800. Sadly, I haven't got the data from the PowerTap wheel (it was recorded on a (also borrowed) Garmin 705, which was in my shirt pocket. Both my Garmin 800 and the 705 were "paired" to the GSC-10 cadence/speed sensor, the 705 also being coupled to a second HRM belt. At the end of the ride, the distances were identical, and when I compared the Normalised Power, Intensity Factor and Training Stress Scores they were within a couple of percent. At this point, my mate arrived and needed his wheel and Garmin back, so I handed it to him, forgetting to actually save a copy of the .tcx file from the 705 first. (yes, I appreciate that this makes me a bloody fool, with no actual backup to the figures i'm going to spout here, but, as the 705 and 800 use completely different algorithms for calculating kcals anyway, the problem is moot.)
Anyhoo - I DO have the data from the 800 and PowerCal, and I've assured myself that it's only maybe 2% out (lower than) from an actual reading "at the back wheel", so I'm fairly happy with the figures.
From Garmin Connect, using the Garmin 800's calculations on calorie expenditure, we have a figure for the ride of 2196 kcals.
Plugging in the salient figures for my ride (V=15.3mph, W=250 (me) + 17 (bike) and M = 253, If i've set the formulae up correctly in excel, I get 1759 kcals or around 80% of measured. That's certainly a far more accurate representation than MFP's useless guesswork - a totally ludicrous figure of 4780kcals :laugh:0 -
After training 3 years with a power meter, I'd say that sounds about right.
Without getting into the exact conversion from KJ to kilocalories, depending on intensity, grade, and wind, I'm usually averaging about 550 to 750 calories per hour at speeds between 17 and 19 mph average.
Most calorie estimates are so high that I think they assume mountain biking on hilly terrain.0 -
Would it be more accurate to use a good heart rate monitor with calorie counter instead of a distance vs. resistance calculation?0
-
between the two, I'd flip a coin. Neither one is exact.
The heart monitor is probably easier but costs more (unless you already own one).0 -
I have a garmin forerunner 305 that's been sitting in the box for almost two years. I was going to use it for running but after totalling my motorcycle, I think my legs would rather bike than run. how hard is it to use the garmin? The Icon for the heart rate is super small ....any way to enlarge it? Can I calculate calories too?0
-
I have a garmin forerunner 305 that's been sitting in the box for almost two years. I was going to use it for running but after totalling my motorcycle, I think my legs would rather bike than run. how hard is it to use the garmin? The Icon for the heart rate is super small ....any way to enlarge it? Can I calculate calories too?
Haven't got that particular bit of kit, but according to the manual ( http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/984_OwnersManual.pdf ) on page 43, you can customise certain screens - maybe you can put the actual HR value on display as a number, rather than the tiny flashing heart "warning" ??0 -
Bump. Just weighed the bike at 42 pounds... no wonder I'm working hard.0
-
Bump. Just weighed the bike at 42 pounds... no wonder I'm working hard.
yeah , that would be some serious extra work!0 -
I found this article somewhere a long time back...the calorie calculation basically worked for what my Polar HRM told me (my Garmin one seem strangely low in terms of calorie count and I haven't wanted to fuss with it). My typical average speed is around 16-17 mph when I ride alone, so I use .21/.22 as the multiplier. So at 141# X .21 = around 30 calories a mile. If I'm doing a paceline ride (which I don't all that often) I just subtract about 20% and call it 25 calories a mile. These numbers seem to work for me in balancing things out generally...I think there is so much inaccuracy built in to every monitor and gauge we have that if you can get in the ballpark that is good enough.... YMMV.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. Calories Per Mile
*
Dr. Edward Coyle at the University of Texas in Austin has worked with top athletes studying their oxygen consumption. Here is the calorie consumption he has figured out for for biking: 10 mph -- 0.17 calories/pound; 15 mph -- 0.2 calories/pound; 20 mph -- 0.25 calories/pound; 25 mph -- 0.3 calories/pound; and 30 mph -- 0.38 calories/pound.
Calculating Calories Per Mile
*
To figure how many calories you will burn per mile, take your body weight and multiply it by the calorie consumption listed above for the speed at which you bike. For instance, a 140-pound man biking at 20 mph will burn 35 calories per mile (140 pounds x 0.25 calories/pound), and a 160-pound man biking at the same speed will burn 40 calories per mile (160 pounds x 0.25 calories/pound). The heavier you are, the more calories per mile you will burn.
Total Calories
*
To calculate how many calories you burn during a bike ride, multiply the calorie factor by your weight and miles biked. For example a 150 lb. biker, biking 20 miles at 15 miles per hour will burn 600 calories (150 pounds x 20 miles x 0.2 calories/pound).
Factors That Could Influence the Numbers
*
Coyle's calculations don't take into wind and hills. Biking into a headwind will be harder than biking in a tailwind. Biking uphill will be harder than biking downhill. Also, drafting behind another rider could cut your energy needs by one-third.0 -
It also ignores body fat levels and coasting and is based on "top level athletes", which may or may not correspond to people who are not top athletes
I've seen this referenced in a lot of places but never an actual published study, which makes me question its accuracy and validity for the masses.... though it's a whole lot better than just trusting a heart rate monitor.0
