Biking = Major Calories burned?

katebowen37

In the summer, I bike 12-14 mph on an asphalt bike path for 2-6 hours a few times a week. According to MFP, I'll be burning 2,000-4,000 calories. How can this be right? Doesn't the amount of muscle, weight and training a person has affect this?

And do I really need to compensate for the exercise by eating more calories, or can I stick with my 1,500 a day?

I'm 5 ft. 6, 150 lb female.

kms1320

Eat back the calories if you are hungry. You can always use a heart rate monitor to be accurate for calories.

Scott15Fit

Yes fitness level, age, sex, weight, bike weight, elevation, aerodynamics etc all have a big impact on exactly how many calories are burnt. MFP ESTIMATES the calories burned and thus should only be used as a rough guide. A sports app that tracks you via GPS may be a bit more accurate a measure or even better would be a HRM.
You can eat any where between 50-100% of the calories back depending on your fitness level.

3dogsrunning

Yes fitness level, age, sex, weight, bike weight, elevation, aerodynamics etc all have a big impact on exactly how many calories are burnt. MFP ESTIMATES the calories burned and thus should only be used as a rough guide. A sports app that tracks you via GPS may be a bit more accurate a measure or even better would be a HRM.
You can eat any where between 50-100% of the calories back depending on your fitness level.

I am very similar height and weight. I use a GPS tracking site which gives me more than MFP. I really don't feel like I've burned that much so I only eat about half back. I feel that's safe.
Fitness level doesn't determine how many calories you burn other than the fact the fitter you are the harder/longer you can go.

Scott15Fit

Fitness level doesn't determine how many calories you burn other than the fact the fitter you are the harder/longer you can go.

By fitness level I meant that one person travelling at 12mph might have a HR of 150 whilst another may have a HR of 180. If your using more energy to go the same speed then you should be burning more calories.

3dogsrunning

Fitness level doesn't determine how many calories you burn other than the fact the fitter you are the harder/longer you can go.

By fitness level I meant that one person travelling at 12mph might have a HR of 150 whilst another may have a HR of 180. If your using more energy to go the same speed then you should be burning more calories.

Heart rate isn't directly related to calories burned. There is a relationship between heart rate and VO2 max which can be used to estimate calories.
In your example, if both people weighed the same, they would burn the same amount of calories The fitter person may not perceive the exercise as hard.

Calories burned is weight x intensity.

Scott15Fit

lol ok fine intensity - I was trying to give him something easily measurable when I said HR. Intensity is quite difficult and I agree fitness level was probably the wrong word.

albertabeefy

Fitness level doesn't determine how many calories you burn other than the fact the fitter you are the harder/longer you can go.

By fitness level I meant that one person travelling at 12mph might have a HR of 150 whilst another may have a HR of 180. If your using more energy to go the same speed then you should be burning more calories.

Scott's correct here in terms of cycling (or running, or a few other endurance events), but it's not just 'fitness level' but sport-specific fitness-level that's in play here.

I'm an avid cyclist, and I'm 235lbs today. I assure you I burn considerably fewer calories riding solo at 19 mph than a similarly fit volleyball player (who isn't an avid cyclist) my size and body composition would at the same speed.

The fact is that we're both fit - but I'm much more bio-mechanically efficient at bike riding than he would be. As such, he'll burn considerably more calories.

3dogsrunning

Fitness level doesn't determine how many calories you burn other than the fact the fitter you are the harder/longer you can go.

By fitness level I meant that one person travelling at 12mph might have a HR of 150 whilst another may have a HR of 180. If your using more energy to go the same speed then you should be burning more calories.

Scott's correct here in terms of cycling, but it's not just 'fitness level' but sport-specific fitness-level that's in play here.

I'm an avid cyclist, and I'm 235lbs today. I assure you I burn considerably fewer calories riding solo at 19 mph than a similarly fit volleyball player (who isn't an avid cyclist) my size and body composition would at the same speed.

The fact is that we're both fit - but I'm much more bio-mechanically efficient at bike riding than he would be. As such, he'll burn considerably more calories.

This is also the same for someone my size and body composition who is normally sedentary. Not only am I more bio-mechanically efficient, but my cardiovascular system works less to provide the same power output. As such, that person would burn substantially more calories trying to match my power output (riding the same speed).

Efficiency, maybe. But I doubt it would be a huge difference.

The rest I disagree and it's been argued here before. And it's 2 am and I'm ready for bed so I'll agree to disagree.

albertabeefy

The rest I disagree and it's been argued here before. And it's 2 am and I'm ready for bed so I'll agree to disagree.

I actually agree with you here and removed that part from my post. Really only the bio-mechanical efficiency (sometimes referred to as running economy, etc.) factors into it in the valid studies I finished reviewing.

Scott15Fit

I actually agree with you here and removed that part from my post. Really only the bio-mechanical efficiency (sometimes referred to as running economy, etc.) factors into it in the valid studies I finished reviewing.

Thanks efficiency was the word I was stumbling around.