Is there a rule of thumb for calories burned per mile cycling?

Options
fubarfornow
fubarfornow Posts: 40 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I recently learned through reading the MFP forums that 100 calories per mile is a good rule of thumb for calories burned walking or running. Is there a similar rule of thumb for riding a bicycle? I've looked, but can't seem to find one.

Replies

  • crackpotbaby
    crackpotbaby Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options
    The amount burned depends on many variables such the size of the person and the speed at which they are going (exertion) and the duration of the activity so there's not really a one size fits all approach to guesstimating burns, which is what basically any tracker does.

    This calculator gives a rough guide based on your own stats and so forth, but keep in mind it doesn't account for variables such as temperature etc.

    http://www.mydr.com.au/tools/calories-burned-calculator

    I tend to use map my run for my running and cycling guesstimates.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Options
    Running a mile takes twice as much energy as waking a mile because you're jumping from foot to foot.

    Cycling is much harder to have any kind of rule of thumb for because of hills and the wind and other things. Strava will give you a decent estimate.
  • LeoT0917
    LeoT0917 Posts: 206 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Running a mile takes twice as much energy as waking a mile because you're jumping from foot to foot.

    Cycling is much harder to have any kind of rule of thumb for because of hills and the wind and other things. Strava will give you a decent estimate.

    Sorry, but I don't think it's quite that simple on running versus walking. Running a mile also takes less time. And your pace will also impact total calories burned. What about if one person runs (jumps from foot to foot) and jumps twice as high per stride than another runner/jumper? Don't you have to account for working against gravity? What if you are hopping on one leg? Do you only burn half the calories?
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,139 Member
    edited March 2017
    Options
    For cycling, I use 100 calories per 5 km ... works out to about 100 cal per 3 miles or 33 cal/mile. :)

    That seems to be a decent rough estimate which is more or less in line with Strava and a light/slow cycling option.


    For walking, I use 100 calories per 30 min, when I walk at a 5 km/hour pace. So in other words, 100 cal/2.5 km. Or 100 cal/1.5 miles.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    LeoT0917 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Running a mile takes twice as much energy as waking a mile because you're jumping from foot to foot.

    Cycling is much harder to have any kind of rule of thumb for because of hills and the wind and other things. Strava will give you a decent estimate.

    Sorry, but I don't think it's quite that simple on running versus walking.

    It's not, but the material point remains; running a mile consumes about twice the energy burned walking a mile. The most significant factor is bodyweight, and whilst pace does generate some difference the contribution is negligible.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Options
    LeoT0917 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Running a mile takes twice as much energy as waking a mile because you're jumping from foot to foot.

    Cycling is much harder to have any kind of rule of thumb for because of hills and the wind and other things. Strava will give you a decent estimate.

    Sorry, but I don't think it's quite that simple on running versus walking. Running a mile also takes less time. And your pace will also impact total calories burned. What about if one person runs (jumps from foot to foot) and jumps twice as high per stride than another runner/jumper? Don't you have to account for working against gravity? What if you are hopping on one leg? Do you only burn half the calories?

    Runner's World has given these formulas:

    Walking calories = {body weight in lbs} * 0.3
    Running calories = {body weight in lbs} * 0.6

    It's quoted left and right across these forums.

    I agree that it will vary somewhat according to your vertical oscillation and other things. (If you want to suggest a better way to measure and account for that, I'm all ears.) At the end of the day, running takes about twice as much energy as walking. Maybe it only takes 99 % more and maybe it's 101 % more but "100 calories per mile" is not a good rule of thumb for both walking and running.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Is there a similar rule of thumb for riding a bicycle?
    What kind of bike? MTB, commuter bike, hybrid, road bike, time trial bike?
    What kind of terrain? Mud, rocks, gravel, road, velodrome? Hills or flat?
    What kind of rider? Big, small, aerodynamic or brick outhouse shaped?

    In short - no there isn't a simple calories per mile applicable to all.

    Strava will give you an estimate (I don't find it particularly accurate or consistent but it's usable), MapMyRide gave me a huge (unlikely) calorie burn.
    Runkeeper seems high for walking, I don't run so no view on that.
  • DietPrada
    DietPrada Posts: 1,171 Member
    Options
    It's all just guesswork really. So many variables you can't hope possibly hope for a one size fits all figure. You can't even really hope for a one size fits one figure. It will depend on age, weight, gender, fitness, body composition, type of equipment, elevation of terrain, speed, time, distance, hormones, diet, hydration, health, metabolism and probably a whole raft of other things I haven't thought of. Every single calorie burn for every single person on any given day for any activity will be different.
  • fubarfornow
    fubarfornow Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    Thank you all. It sounds like my original understanding about running and walking estimates weren't right either. Well, trial and error it is, then.
  • Tweaking_Time
    Tweaking_Time Posts: 733 Member
    Options
    I am in good shape and cycle the KATY and MKT trails at speeds of 14+/mph for around 90 to 120 minutes per workout. I use my HRM to more accurately estimate my calorie burn at these speeds and it is about:

    810 calories per hour
    or
    58 calories per mile

    Before I lost 75 pounds, I guess I could barely go 10 mph for an hour (tops) and probably burned something more on the order of 100 calories per mile...but who knows. At that time I was a baby in the fitness forest with no idea.
  • Traveler120
    Traveler120 Posts: 712 Member
    Options
    Too many factors involved - terrain, type of bike, weight, fitness level, elevation, wind etc You're better off using your actual heart rate as a guide. If you don't have a heart rate monitor, check manually. Then with your average heart rate, go here >>http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,139 Member
    edited March 2017
    Options
    Heart rate isn't a particularly good indication.

    My husband and I just did a long bicycle ride yesterday. His average HR was much lower than mine, and yet (according to Strava) he burned more calories than I did.

    Also I find that my HR tends to spike just before a big effort (anticipation) and then it settles down during the big effort.


    According to that calculator (above), I burned 6708 calories instead of Strava's estimate of 3399. About double Strava's estimate. Yeah, I only wish! If that were true, I'd be struggling to stay within my normal BMI. :grin:

    I just did my husband's calculation and it doubled his too.


    My estimate of 100 cal/5 km comes to 4260
    Strava's comes to 3399
    MFP gave me 3927
    The calculator above gave me 6708

    I think I'll stick with something in the ball park of my estimate, Strava's and MFPs. :)
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    Just a change in riding position will show just why it's so hard to nail down calorie burn on a bike without power meters. Once at any decent speed, aerodynamics plays a huge part.

    I generally just use Strava and accept that it's got error involved. When I used Runkeeper it was the only app that showed a calorie burn lower than Strava did for rides, which was strange as for most other activities I thought it was rather high.


    I don't use HR for anything, unless the HR device allows some type of calibration to VO2max or similar. With enough data from my bike or elliptical I might be able to approximate calorie burn from HR, but that is out the window as soon as my cardio base training changes in either direction.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Traveler120 wrote: »
    Too many factors involved - terrain, type of bike, weight, fitness level, elevation, wind etc You're better off using your actual heart rate as a guide. If you don't have a heart rate monitor, check manually. Then with your average heart rate, go here >>http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml

    That gave me a ridiculously high burn - even when using the net calories number.

    HR is just as likely to be a poor guide to calories. Fitness and exercise HR is just too variable from person to person.
    Friend of mine (fit but not a great cyclist) 20bpm higher than me to produce 2/3rds the power.
    Another friend (high level club cyclist) 20bpm lower than me at same power output.
  • Traveler120
    Traveler120 Posts: 712 Member
    edited March 2017
    Options
    Machka9 wrote: »
    Heart rate isn't a particularly good indication.

    My husband and I just did a long bicycle ride yesterday. His average HR was much lower than mine, and yet (according to Strava) he burned more calories than I did.

    Also I find that my HR tends to spike just before a big effort (anticipation) and then it settles down during the big effort.


    According to that calculator (above), I burned 6708 calories instead of Strava's estimate of 3399. About double Strava's estimate. Yeah, I only wish! If that were true, I'd be struggling to stay within my normal BMI. :grin:

    I just did my husband's calculation and it doubled his too.


    My estimate of 100 cal/5 km comes to 4260
    Strava's comes to 3399
    MFP gave me 3927
    The calculator above gave me 6708

    I think I'll stick with something in the ball park of my estimate, Strava's and MFPs. :)

    Hmm sounds a bit dodgy. What were your entries on the calculator? And also your ride details like distance, speed, time etc. if you don't mind?

    Also, you shouldn't be surprised that your husband's calorie burn would be higher than yours even though his HR was lower. His weight and fitness level would be a factor. Also men have higher muscle mass than women so would burn more calories. A woman with your exact same stats but lower HR would have shown a lower calorie burn than yours.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,139 Member
    Options
    Traveler120 wrote: »
    Machka9 wrote: »
    Heart rate isn't a particularly good indication.

    My husband and I just did a long bicycle ride yesterday. His average HR was much lower than mine, and yet (according to Strava) he burned more calories than I did.

    Also I find that my HR tends to spike just before a big effort (anticipation) and then it settles down during the big effort.


    According to that calculator (above), I burned 6708 calories instead of Strava's estimate of 3399. About double Strava's estimate. Yeah, I only wish! If that were true, I'd be struggling to stay within my normal BMI. :grin:

    I just did my husband's calculation and it doubled his too.


    My estimate of 100 cal/5 km comes to 4260
    Strava's comes to 3399
    MFP gave me 3927
    The calculator above gave me 6708

    I think I'll stick with something in the ball park of my estimate, Strava's and MFPs. :)

    Hmm sounds a bit dodgy. What were your entries on the calculator? And also your ride details like distance, speed, time etc. if you don't mind?

    Also, you shouldn't be surprised that your husband's calorie burn would be higher than yours even though his HR was lower. His weight and fitness level would be a factor. Also men have higher muscle mass than women so would burn more calories. A woman with your exact same stats but lower HR would have shown a lower calorie burn than yours.

    As the site requested ...

    Gender: Female
    Age: My age (getting up there)
    Weight: My weight in kilograms (middle of normal BMI range)
    Activity Duration: 700 minutes (yes, that's what it was ... it was a 213 km ride which took 12 hours and 40 minutes total time, and 700 minutes riding time)
    Average Heart Rate: 144 bpm

    And no way on earth did I burn 6708 calories.

Categories