Calorie Discrapancy Help me understand this, Please!

2»

Replies

  • gregsonevans
    gregsonevans Posts: 232 Member
    p.s. if your bpm are exceeding 160 then you need to keep a close eye on them, safe limit for a man is 220 take away your age, good luck with the rides :smile:
  • junipearl
    junipearl Posts: 326 Member
    9 mph on a bike is generating a pretty low power output, probably 100 to 120 watts. At that intensity level, 340 calories per hour sounds about right to me. If you're not getting above 15 mph, cycling does not burn a lot of calories.
    yah this totally depends on the person. if his HR was at 150 it is pretty safe to say that he is burning more than the experienced biker at that speed.

    I burn about 340 cals on a 40 min bike ride averaging about 13mph.
    So for a 70 min bike ride where your heart rate was up that high, 2nd number would definitely be closer.
  • Cyclink
    Cyclink Posts: 517 Member
    9 mph on a bike is generating a pretty low power output, probably 100 to 120 watts. At that intensity level, 340 calories per hour sounds about right to me. If you're not getting above 15 mph, cycling does not burn a lot of calories.

    That's true for the most part, but it also depends a great deal on the physical condition of the person. An out of shape (or heavier) person will burn a lot more calories at that speed than someone who is lighter and more physically fit. Exactly why an HRM is needed to measure exertion levels via heart rate.

    If he was really killing himself, the difference in efficiency does make a difference (up to 25% more), but it's going to more than double his calorie output.

    It's one of the harsh truths that I had to learn from training with a power meter is that there the only way to really burn a lot of calories from cycling was to go faster, and people who ride really slowly, regardless of their efficiency levels and heart rate, don't burn many calories.

    It all goes back to the fundamental problem with heart rate based calories: the heart monitor can't tell the difference between a heart rate of 150 BPM from being really anxious (which does not burn many calories) and a heart rate of 130 BPM cross-country skiing, which burns calories like crazy. A higher heart rate just means that you are working harder, not that you are burning more calories.
    yah this totally depends on the person. if his HR was at 150 it is pretty safe to say that he is burning more than the experienced biker at that speed.

    It's actually quite the opposite. An experienced cyclist will be putting out far more power at 150 BPM than an inexperienced one, thereby burning more calories.
    he was going uphill

    Not the whole time. If it was 9 miles out and back, with 743 feet of climbing, that also means he was descending (probably coasting) for 743 feet as well. You burn very few calories while coasting.
    I burn about 340 cals on a 40 min bike ride averaging about 13mph.

    If you ever get a chance, try a power meter or a cycling ergometer (some higher end bike shops offer weekend classes that let you ride on one, the most common brand is CompuTrainer...and yes, I own one). You'd be stunned to find that calorie number is very high unless it involves a lot of climbing.
  • kramalicious
    kramalicious Posts: 143
    I think what you meant to say is that it is NOT very high unless you are doing a lot of climbing. And I totally agree, generally you need a much higher cadence than that to be burning significant calories. Right now I am rehabbing on a recumbent bike at the gym, and I need a really high RPM and resistance to be able to get a minimal burn. People beside me read a book and don't even break a sweat. Is better than lying in bed and reading but not by much.

Categories