We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

"Mountain Biking" calorie count

adam1885282
adam1885282 Posts: 135 Member
edited January 1 in Fitness and Exercise
So Runkeeper tells me a 13.38 mile, 2 hour mountain bike ride is good for 849 calories. Myfitnesspal says 1400 for "mountain/bmx biking". MFP also has leisure cycling, under 10mph, which would give me 650 calories.

This is a much bigger range than I'm used to between these sites. Running, walking, hiking, road biking, the difference is usually 10% or so and I always use the low number.

Mountain biking is strenuous, though it's usually 1/2 climbing and 1/2 descending. Anyone have any input?

Thanks,

Adam

Replies

  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Best bet would be to invest in a heart rate monitor and know for sure if you eat exercise calories back,
  • Elainejk21
    Elainejk21 Posts: 121 Member
    I've mountain biked and consider it to be similar in endurance/effort to spinning. I think 849 calories for 2 hours sounds about right depending on your height/weight, especially if you're completely exhausted by the time you're finished!
  • neverstray
    neverstray Posts: 3,845 Member
    It's all over the map because it doesn't know the kind of effort you put in. How would it? The hils could be 5% inclines and 30%+ inclines the entire time. There are so many variables. I would say next time, wear an HRM and see what it says. I would enter the 849.

    It amazes me how bike riding is so much less of a calorie burn than other things.
  • adam1885282
    adam1885282 Posts: 135 Member
    Thanks all. The middle number seems fair considering how I feel after the ride. I'm surprised by it because my 34 minute run this morning got me 400 something. Cycling is too damn efficient!

    Adam
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    What I CAN tell you is that MFP WAY overestimates for cycling for me. I don't mountain bike though - I ride on paved hilly trails in a local park. I use my HRM for that but MFP is WAY higher...like nearly double sometimes. For running and walking, MFP is low compared to my HRM.

    So, I would be very wary of MFPs numbers for cycling.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    I'm surprised by it because my 34 minute run this morning got me 400 something. Cycling is too damn efficient!

    Adam

    Agreed! I bike twice as long as I run to get a comparable burn.
  • neverstray
    neverstray Posts: 3,845 Member
    What I CAN tell you is that MFP WAY overestimates for cycling for me. I don't mountain bike though - I ride on paved hilly trails in a local park. I use my HRM for that but MFP is WAY higher...like nearly double sometimes. For running and walking, MFP is low compared to my HRM.

    So, I would be very wary of MFPs numbers for cycling.

    This is one area where I agree. Most of the calorie burns MFP estimates are in the ballpark. But, bike riding just seems to be way off.
  • moto67e
    moto67e Posts: 20 Member
    I wear a HRM when I mountain bike. On the 11 mile loop that I do, I burn between 900 and 1100 depending on how hard I push. I usually do it in less than a hour and the faster I go the less burn I get, because it's over faster. But it's not exactly a easy loop, there are lots of uphills and downhills which makes it like a interval training ride.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    What I CAN tell you is that MFP WAY overestimates for cycling for me. I don't mountain bike though - I ride on paved hilly trails in a local park. I use my HRM for that but MFP is WAY higher...like nearly double sometimes. For running and walking, MFP is low compared to my HRM.

    So, I would be very wary of MFPs numbers for cycling.

    This is one area where I agree. Most of the calorie burns MFP estimates are in the ballpark. But, bike riding just seems to be way off.

    I've heard the elliptical is way off too, but I don't do that so I can't compare.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    They are all wrong. Get an HRM.

    Runkeeper is using the distance formula which works for road riding. Less so for mountainbiking where grade/condition can easily double the effort.

    MFP is just an estimate.

    Weight, age, HR are significant variables in these activities.
    BTW, you might want to remove 10-15% from the HRM on long rides as I am not sure that MFP does already have that as part of the TDEE base.

    edit:typo.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    They are all wrong. Get an HRM.

    Runkeeper is using the distance formula which works for road riding. Less so for mountainbiking where grade/condition can easily double the effort.

    MFP is just an estimate.

    Weight, age, HR are significant variables in these activities.
    BTW, you might want to remove 10-15% from the HRM on long rides as I am not sure that MFP does already have that as part of the TDEE base.

    edit:typo.

    I do remove my BMR from the calories my HRM lists. That becomes more important the longer you're exercising for sure. Under 30 minutes and I don't worry about it, but most of my workouts are 45 min to 1.5 hours so I do subtract it for that. For me (I had my RMR tested), I subtract 70 calories per hour.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories