Calories burned while Cycling

rlevitz
rlevitz Posts: 4
in Fitness and Exercise
Hey guys,
I wear and UP band, and use RunKeeper. I wear a heart rate monitor while cycling as well. The 3 devices give very different results of number of calories burned. Obviously the UP band isn't meant for cycling, so I throw that result out. I was just curious if you think I should trust the heart rate monitor over RunKeeper. Example: I went on an hour long ride yesterday, 10 miles. RunKeeper said I burned about 480 calories, and called it light cycling. The HRM said I burned nearly 1200. My avg heart was at 90% of max most of the time. Both devices know my age/height/weight.

Any thoughts?

Replies

  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Hey guys,
    I wear and UP band, and use RunKeeper. I wear a heart rate monitor while cycling as well. The 3 devices give very different results of number of calories burned. Obviously the UP band isn't meant for cycling, so I throw that result out. I was just curious if you think I should trust the heart rate monitor over RunKeeper. Example: I went on an hour long ride yesterday, 10 miles. RunKeeper said I burned about 480 calories, and called it light cycling. The HRM said I burned nearly 1200. My avg heart was at 90% of max most of the time. Both devices know my age/height/weight.

    Any thoughts?

    Only the HRM is actually measuring a personal metric.

    Data you create, basically.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    light cycling has your heart beating at 90% of max? for an hour? does not compute
  • DianneP6772
    DianneP6772 Posts: 272 Member
    I would say go with the HR monitor. I cycle a lot - usually 20-30 miles per day and i use MFP's calorie guide with one change.
    If i average 15mph for my ride I go with the lower avg in MFP - 12-14. If i average 16 then i do use the 14-16 - because i figure i went pretty hard and am at the top of the 14-16. If i avg 15.9 - back down to 12-14. Its just one thing i do and i think it keeps the calories burned more realistic.
  • cwsikes
    cwsikes Posts: 86
    For cycling, I've always gone with the formula: calories burned = weight in lbs * distance in miles * 0.256032. It's a very conservative quick estimate. You would have to be quite heavy according to that formula to have burned 1200 calories by biking 10 miles. I would also question the idea of that ride really being done at 90% of your max heart rate.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    For cycling, I've always gone with the formula: calories burned = weight in lbs * distance in miles * 0.256032. It's a very conservative quick estimate. You would have to be quite heavy according to that formula to have burned 1200 calories by biking 10 miles. I would also question the idea of that ride really being done at 90% of your max heart rate.

    I'd never tried that formula before but it was actually quite close to what my Garmin 610 estimates.

    To the OP: how are you estimating your MaxHR? If you really were at 90% of maxHR it's highly unlikely that you could have sustained the effort for very long (you're hitting your lactate threshold at 90%)

    10mph is considered a fairly relaxed pace for cycling (not so much if you're new to or just coming back to biking) and it's highly improbable that it was anywhere close to 1200 cal.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Any thoughts?

    A lot depends on what type of bike you were on, although 10 miles in an hour looks more like a relaxed mountain bike session rather than a road bike.

    Runkeeper is probably a little low, your HRM is probably closer but I'd question 90% intensity for that length of time so it may be that your HRM wasn't reading well.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    My avg heart was at 90% of max most of the time.

    That is very high for that speed. I'm also not sure how much I believe that you sustained a 90% HR for most of an hour.

    Anyway, I'd go with the RunKeeper number.
  • donrdon
    donrdon Posts: 216 Member
    I actually just finished a 12 mile ride in 45 minutes. My gamin 610 had me at 535 calories with an average heart rate of 135 or 66% of max.
  • rlevitz
    rlevitz Posts: 4
    I'm not on road, I'm doing trails ("trails" being used loosely as I'm in Texas). And I'm way out of shape when it comes to endurance. My avg heart rate was 176 for 57 min. I'll snag a friends HRM and go the same route and see if its different.

    Also, 90% of max was slightly off. 120 secs of jumping jacks just got me to 213 bpm, so its more like 83% of max.

    I have been away from cycling since 2004.

    Doing another ride tomorrow evening. I'll see if the other HRM reports differently.

    Appreciate all the help guys.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    I'm not on road, I'm doing trails ("trails" being used loosely as I'm in Texas).

    Rolling resistance on mountain bikes is a lot higher, so you've been putting a fair bit of effort in. I was thinking about this earlier, ran for an hour and expended about 700 calories, according to my HRM, but about 600 on runkeeper, and 800 on endomondo.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    That seems high, but if you were averaging a 176 HR for an hour, that's very high so the HRM could be right? Heck, I don't know.

    I usually do 15 miles per day at an average speed of 18mph which keeps me at about a 150 heart rate average and I usually burn around 700-800 calories in 50 minutes. That's just for reference really as it doesn't apply much to trails.
  • rlevitz
    rlevitz Posts: 4
    Just got back from riding the same route. Took 52 minutes, 171 avg HR using my buddies HRM. 982 calories burned according to HRM, 460 according to MFP. I'm adjusting my diet based on the MFP calorie burn, but I am going to keep researching. I found a website that has you input a lot of variables: V02max, cadence, outside temp, approx grade of terrain, etc. Some is optional. I need to get my V02max for sure though and check it out. The link is on my work computer and I can't seem to find it again with google. It was a link in a forum somewhere.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    MFP is going to be useless for trail riding. Just go with your HRM, or use a GPS tracking app like Strava. It most likely won't be spot on, but it will be consistent, and over time you can add the necessary fudge factor.

    Until then, I would second the earlier suggestion of using the "calories/mile" formula.
  • dondimitri
    dondimitri Posts: 245 Member
    It is highly unlikely you burned 1200 calories in 10 miles of cycling. The 480 number is more believable but even that seems high.
  • dondimitri
    dondimitri Posts: 245 Member
    For cycling, I've always gone with the formula: calories burned = weight in lbs * distance in miles * 0.256032. It's a very conservative quick estimate. You would have to be quite heavy according to that formula to have burned 1200 calories by biking 10 miles. I would also question the idea of that ride really being done at 90% of your max heart rate.

    Just to give you a bad time and this is really all in fun but: What is the point of using a number like 0.256032 if all the formula is intended to supply is a "quick estimate"?

    The extra 0.000032 is not going to give you any reasonable additional data; just use 0.25, sheesh...lol
  • beckademic
    beckademic Posts: 69 Member
    take what the HRM says. When you think of hills and if you had wind working against you that would make a difference too. You also have now used 2 diff HRM's with similar results. Make sure the HRM is also set to your weight as well. Good luck on the rest of your research
  • lewandt
    lewandt Posts: 566 Member
    For cycling, I've always gone with the formula: calories burned = weight in lbs * distance in miles * 0.256032. It's a very conservative quick estimate. You would have to be quite heavy according to that formula to have burned 1200 calories by biking 10 miles. I would also question the idea of that ride really being done at 90% of your max heart rate.

    I love that, thanks!
  • wrentrotter
    wrentrotter Posts: 36
    1200 could be possible if you were climbing for most of that hour.
    Depends on a lot of factors, a big one being the bike. I just got a new bike and I went from 10mph average to 13 mph average overnight. There is no more effort involved than when I was on my old bike, the new bike is just better, but suddenly everything is saying I am burning a load more calories. Another being hills, you will burn a lot more calories going uphill than cycling on the flat. I use phone apps with GPS which give some idea, but I'm always slightly mystified by the calorie burn. I will usually just go on what MFP says and try to eat back only half of the calories, I figure if it's out it won't be by that much.
    I'm always a bit disappointed with the burn for cycling, it feels like I'm working really hard for little reward sometimes. I did a 50 mile ride a couple of weeks ago, involving a number of horrendous hills and Strava said I burned 1500 calories, MFP said 2500. Who knows? I've tried a lot of apps and they all give me different numbers on the same rides.
    This is how Strava calculates:
    https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/20959327-Calorie-Calculation
    I assume MFP goes on the personal data you have entered and mph.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,336 Member
    Albeit the vast majority of my riding is on roads, but 1200 for 10 miles in an hour seems really high. I do a 48 Km ride over just short of 2 hours and burn around 1500 calories or so based on my HRM linked to Endomondo on my droid. Even adding for the added rolling resistance of a mountain bike on trails, 1200 seems high. What sort of HRM are you using?
  • phjorg1
    phjorg1 Posts: 642 Member
    take what the HRM says. When you think of hills and if you had wind working against you that would make a difference too. You also have now used 2 diff HRM's with similar results. Make sure the HRM is also set to your weight as well. Good luck on the rest of your research
    Or maybe her mhr is high and/or vo2max is low. Giving heavily inflated burn numbers that would be consistent among different hrms.

    Most hrms do not allow testing of these critically important variables. So unless you luck into their default readings, then your hrm will never be accurate.

Categories