Mistery of Calory Burn in Cycling Vs. Running

Options
fzamora1777
fzamora1777 Posts: 8 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I decided to get fit about two months ago. The first month I did nothing but cycling. I used MapMyRide to record my rides. I started out with rides around 7 miles then I slowly started doing 12 mile rides and then occassionally I started doing up to 20 mile rides. MapMyRide was reporting some really high calorie burn amounts. Right around 450 for every 30 minutes or riding. My overall speeds were usually around 13 miles per hour in many cases some miles were upwards of 20MPH.
An example of my speeds MPH for each of the 12 miles are 12 MPH, 13MPH, 16MPH, 15MPH, 15MPH, 13MPH, 15MPH, 16MPH, 15MPH, 11MPH, 12MPH, 14MPH, 11MPH. In this particular case I rode 12 miles. Since there are elevation changes that explains why some miles are faster than others. In this case my overall speed was 13.5MPH. My calories burned, as reported by MapMyRide, are 940 calories. The total run was 54 minutes.

I then switched over to running about two weeks ago and I don't usually burn nowhere near as many calories as I do cycling but yet I am more exhausted. If I run for the same amount of time (54 minutes) on the treadmill I can probably run around 4.75 miles. The treadmill will report around 740 calories burned. Based on my weight loss history and based on different articles I've read regarding calorie burn during running and cycling the numbers are correct. However the mystery is that I get much more exhausted and tired when running than when cycling. I also stay much cooler when cycling. And when I say more I mean much more. So to me this is a mystery. Perhaps someone can explain why I feel like I burned much more running, even though the facts say that I burned more calories by cycling.

This link sort of explains it on the last paragraph but it doesn't make sense to me as to why I am more fit to ride than run http://www.livestrong.com/article/526514-do-you-burn-more-calories-running-than-on-a-bicycle/

Replies

  • onefortyone
    onefortyone Posts: 531 Member
    Options
    The only thing I can think of is that running is pumping the arms and legs, and moving the whole body. Whereas cycling is purely leg, and is much more physically comfortable, therefore requires less effort to go forward.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    In most cases, yes you burn more cals/min running compared to the the typical bike ride. Without a power meter on your bike (different than a speedometer), it is difficult to get an accurate estimate of calories burned with outdoor cycling.
  • StraubreyR
    StraubreyR Posts: 631 Member
    Options
    You are cooler when cycling due to the breeze from moving at 14+ mph! Great in hotter weather. My guess as to why you are more tired running is that running is weight bearing exercise, whereas cycling is not. I can cycle for over 4 hours, but ask me to run for 10 minutes and I'm done!
  • fzamora1777
    fzamora1777 Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    Straubreyr, that's what I was thinking. Cycling is all on the legs but you are not constantly pumping your full weight in the air and then absorbing the shock of your full weight.
  • fzamora1777
    fzamora1777 Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    Azdak, I agree with you. To me it seems that speed is meaningless unless we were talking about speed in a 100% level surface such as a track. I can burn more calories and introduce a lot more stress going uphill at a slower speed than going down hill at a much faster speed. But overall it just seems that I can actually burn more calories with less pain with cyling vs. running.
  • StraubreyR
    StraubreyR Posts: 631 Member
    Options
    Bottom line, do what you enjoy! I really enjoy cycling. Glad it does burn quite a few calories while I'm at it.
  • endaction
    endaction Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    90% of the time on a bike, it's easier than running.

    It's hard to get an accurate estimate on calorie burn on a bike w/out some equipment. When I was riding heavily for fitness and fun, I used a garmin bike GPS + heart rate monitor, and cadence sensor. It wasn't as good as a power meter, but the calorie calculations were always far less than what MFP or w/e would guess based on my avg speed and total time. This, on top of the fact that I was biking up some decent elevation (Marin County, CA).

    Running is, bang for your buck, about as good as it gets for calorie burn.

    If I recall correctly, I generally cut my cycling time in half or so to get a more accurate read on how many calories my garmin said I burned. Hey, it's still quite a few calories - keep it up!

Categories