calories burned cycling

seantheking87
seantheking87 Posts: 52 Member
edited November 16 in Fitness and Exercise
I'm visiting family in the Netherlands at the moment and am coping fine with my calorie tracking. I went for a cycle to the local town which is 14 miles away, took about an hour and then an hour for the retuen journey plus an extra 30 minutes cycling in the town itself.

I added these to MFP and its flagging up as 2200 calories burned which seemed a bit high, but every tracker I find with google gives a similar if not higher number.

I weigh 251lbs and cycle around 13-14mph,. If the calories burned are even close to being accurate then I think ill need to get a bike back home.

Do they sound high to anyone else?

Replies

  • zamphir66
    zamphir66 Posts: 582 Member
    edited April 2015
    Someone who knows more about precisely how the trackers work could probably give a more complete picture, but --- my suspicion is that the trackers are just using math. And they're assuming a consistent effort to maintain a consistent speed. Which isn't really how I cycle, not being a competitive cyclist. I push some, then coast some, then push some, then coast some. IOW, I can get a pretty decent pace across flatish country without my heart ever beating that fast.

    ETA: long story short, I think cycling burns are pretty grossly overestimated. I cut them by 50%.
  • CeleryStalker
    CeleryStalker Posts: 665 Member
    edited April 2015
    I went and had a metabolic assessment- tubes and crap hooked up to me while I rode a stationary bike at different levels of exertion. The results were that I burn between 8-10 calories per minute, depending on my level of exertion (heart rate zones 2-4). Obviously, this is specific to me (5'11" 39 year old female), my weight (230#), my fitness level (moderate), etc, but it gives at least a good baseline for estimating your own. 2200 calories in 30 minutes is flippin ridiculous though, LOL! Sorry, misread the length of time you were cycling. Either way, 2.5 hours = 150 minutes, roughly 1500 calories, still much lower than 2200.

    That being said, cycling is an awesome way to get the fat off. I find I'm most fit when I am able to put in 100 miles a week on the bike.
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    It depends on how hard you were working. A very rough rule of thumb is you burn about 100 calories for every 3 miles you go at a "modest" effort. Figuring you rode about 30 miles, that works out to 1000 calories.
  • seantheking87
    seantheking87 Posts: 52 Member
    Hehe it was 2h30mins in total
  • seantheking87
    seantheking87 Posts: 52 Member
    Thanks for the info, will just keep on cycling then weigh when I get back and see how accurate it is.
  • CeleryStalker
    CeleryStalker Posts: 665 Member
    seantheking87 wrote: »
    Hehe it was 2h30mins in total


    ya, i went back and edited my post so go back and read the extras :) sorry about that. i was reading too quickly and missed the hour there and back!
  • seantheking87
    seantheking87 Posts: 52 Member
    100 miles a week sounds like something I should push for :)

    I had mainly just been walking back home about 90 minutes a day, if I had known cycling would be that much more efficient timewise I'd have to a bike from the beginning. Walking is just so tedious in comparison.
  • chivalryder
    chivalryder Posts: 4,391 Member
    I'm just going to put my own personal experience here:

    I'm 6'.

    When I was in the greatest shape of my life, I cycled 9-12 hours every week. Most rides were over 2 hours long. It seemed that, on average, I would burn 800 calories per hour. Mind you, I rode pretty hard during those 2+ hour long rides. I weighed 185ish lbs.

    Since then I've had an injury and I'm only getting back into it now. Now, I don't ride hard and I seem to burn a fairly consistent 500 calories per hour. I now weigh 230-240 lbs.

    2200 calories in 2.5 hours does seem like a stretch, but if you were going balls-out, it is possible.
  • Camo_xxx
    Camo_xxx Posts: 1,082 Member
    Using a HRM my calorie burn is typically about 1/2 of what MFP suggest. My 35 mile ride yesterday for example was a fairly easy effort, 15mph average with 1900' ascending and a total bike/rider/gear weight of 230. HRM indicated a 1300 cal burn and Uncorrected MFP was 2300
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    chivalryder wrote: »
    2200 calories in 2.5 hours does seem like a stretch, but if you were going balls-out, it is possible.

    That is an average of 244 watts over 2.5 hours. A huge stretch for someone untrained even considering the OP's weight
  • vfxgordon
    vfxgordon Posts: 7 Member
    edited April 2015
    FWIW, I can tell you that the numbers I get from my cycle computer (Edge 705) which also measures HR usually correspond pretty well with the weight loss numbers I'd expect and they're not radically different to the MFP numbers (though MFP does tend to estimate on the high side, particularly with lighter people).

    I'm a heavy guy (285, down from 325 at the end of Jan) and have done a lot of cycling (getting back into it slowly) and would say that 2200 calories for a 30 mile ride at 250 lbs seems doable, depending on the equipment you were using and your level of exertion.

    I ride a fairly heavy steel touring bike at the moment and for a 30 mile ride at an average speed of ~16 mph on a reasonably flat course, my cycle computer actually estimates roughly 2800 Calories.

    Zonewise, that's (apparently) an average of 4.4 with a peak of 5.9 (average around 155bpm, peak 183).

    It seems high, but as I say, the calorie estimations seem to correspond with the weight loss I'm seeing.
  • seantheking87
    seantheking87 Posts: 52 Member
    Thanks all for the info. I guess it'll just be a case of checking when I get home and figuring it out. At least now I wont be disappointed or too surprised by what the scale reads, but can just apply the information to future cycles.
  • Camo_xxx
    Camo_xxx Posts: 1,082 Member
    Yup, Verifying you results against what you log is a great way to tighten up your program as you go.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    600 an hour and call it good. So 1500
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    Hornsby wrote: »
    600 an hour and call it good. So 1500

    Despite all my technical mumbo jumbo above, in the absence of measurement tools, this is what I would do and call it a day.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,597 Member
    I figure I burn 400 calories per hour ... at a slowish pace (20 km/h) on somewhat hilly terrain. That number seems to work for me.

    Remember too that it is a good idea to estimate low on your calories burned if you want to lose weight.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited April 2015
    bikecalculator.com

    About 800 calories.
  • seantheking87
    seantheking87 Posts: 52 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    bikecalculator.com

    About 800 calories.

    That website claims 2286 calories once the stats are inserted
This discussion has been closed.

Categories