Biking vs. Running

Options
omma_to_3
omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I have been running for a few months now and have a high calorie burn measured via Polar FT7. Typically, In around 48 minutes I'll burn 584 calories. My average heart rate during a typical session is around 170. It's HARD work for me so the calorie burn makes sense.

Yesterday, I went biking for the first time in about 10 years. I biked with my kids (read: slowly) for one hour. We went just over 6 miles. My average heart rate was 135 and it said I burned 490 calories. Does that sound right? It just seems high because it wasn't nearly as difficult as running. I felt like I could have easily gone another 6 or more.
«1

Replies

  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • artbkward
    artbkward Posts: 238 Member
    Options
    What is your resting heart rate?
  • contingencyplan
    contingencyplan Posts: 3,639 Member
    Options
    Depends on intensity. Could be right. Bear in mind that while bicycling you are periodically taking "rest" periods by coasting, whereas when running the only rest you get is when you stop.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    My resting heart rate is between 64 and 70. Down from 84 in the last year!

    Also, my supposed max HR is 183, but it's gotten up to 200 when running in the heat (not something I enjoyed LOL). On my usual runs, the max is anywhere from 183 to 194, depending on the heat and my speed.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    There were some short, steep hills in there, but a lot of it was gentle rolling asphalt trails. On the steeper parts, my kids ended up walking up the hills, but I blame that on their yucky bikes LOL.
  • Wuggums
    Wuggums Posts: 339 Member
    Options
    That could be accurate. I'm surprised at how high my HR will get while biking. I have a resting HR of 60 and when I bike it can easily stay around 145-150, even though it feels like I'm not working very hard. In a typical 1 hour bike ride, where I ride about 15 miles, I burn about 600 calories.
  • paeli
    paeli Posts: 295 Member
    Options
    I bike to work nearly every day, it's about 18km (11 miles) total, takes me about an hour, and on average I burn 700 calories a day doing this. I wore my HRM every day for the ride for about a month to get the average (dependent on any wind resistance making it harder, etc.) I do not feel as tuckered out at the end of it compared to running, but that's what the HRM says so I go by it. If you think about it, how many calories would you burn in an hour of moderate walking? When I used to wear HRM on walks, I'd get about 300 burn in half an hour. I wouldn't ever get out of breath and I certainly wouldn't be "spent" by the end of it, but that's 600 an hour. So I do think it's probably accurate. Btw, I've switched my HRM to show my HR % Average/Max rather than just the NUMBER, as I found that less valuable and like I was always doing math to figure out how high of an intensity it was. Now when I see my HRM reading 90-95% during my entire Muay Thai class, I feel justified in my "omg I want to die" feeling, haha!
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    If this is not something you have been doing regularly, then neither your HR response or HRM calorie burn is reliable as you are not getting a consistent response with the new activity. So you can't really draw any conclusions from the numbers.

    Two, road cycling numbers can be misleading because you can be moving without really working. Heart rate may be elevated from a previous pedaling exertion, but it's not the same as a heart rate you get when actually exerting yourself.

    Three: if your HRM is set to an HR max of 183, but your actual max HR is over 200, then your HRM is overestimating all of your calorie burns during every workout because it assumes you are working at a higher intensity than you actually are. If you can reset the HR max on your HRM to, say, 200, it will be more accurate. The numbers may be lower, but they will be more accurate.
  • chrystee
    chrystee Posts: 295 Member
    Options
    Sounds good.. You would have probably burned over 700 if you ran an hour..
  • bzgl40
    bzgl40 Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    My gut says that is high. Almost all tools/HR monitors over calculate biking cals burns. For me that would be about 200 cals burned
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    Options
    Generally, 2-3 miles of biking at a brisk pace will burn the same calories as 1 mile of running. Since you were riding slow I would guess you burned 200 or fewer calories.
  • sleepytexan
    sleepytexan Posts: 3,138 Member
    Options
    did your HRM say that? Is it the same HRM you use for running?

    If you trust it for one, it makes sense to trust it for another.

    I am a cyclist, 130 lbs, and I burn about 500-600 calories per hour if I'm riding 14-16 mph. 490 seems like a lot for only 6 mph.

    Of course, the heavier you are, the more you will burn, and hills will push your heart rate up, while decreasing your cadence.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    Yes, it's the same HRM I use for running.

    I'll have to look at how to reset my max HR on my HRM - that's not something it asks me to set up. I do have it set to a lower weight though - by about 10 lbs. Just so I don't have to change it as often LOL. When I hit that weight, I move it down another 10 lbs.
  • bzgl40
    bzgl40 Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    did your HRM say that? Is it the same HRM you use for running?

    If you trust it for one, it makes sense to trust it for another.

    This is a mistake a lot of folks make. Rarely is this the case. It really depends on the HRM and how it calculates their values. Many don't even use HR in their math, or even care about the sport, they just look at duration and your age. Biking does not burn the same number of calories at the same HR for the same duration as running does.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    Generally, 2-3 miles of biking at a brisk pace will burn the same calories as 1 mile of running. Since you were riding slow I would guess you burned 200 or fewer calories.

    If I went by this equation (using 2.5 miles biking = 1 mile running), I would have 401.83 so I guess it's likely not too far off. Farther than I would like though. Maybe in the future (since I eat back all my exercise calories) I'll cut the time down to 3/4 of what I really did. For this ride, that would make it 367.5. I'd rather be a little low than a little high.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    My gut says that is high. Almost all tools/HR monitors over calculate biking cals burns. For me that would be about 200 cals burned

    I suspect you're far more fit than I am LOL. I am still at least 45 lbs. overweight.

    But hey, I did think it seemed high, which is why I posted :-)
  • wellbert
    wellbert Posts: 3,924 Member
    Options
    Never coast! Always be pedaling!
  • secretlobster
    secretlobster Posts: 3,566 Member
    Options
    I have a Polar HRM too. I don't necessarily think the calorie burn estimates you're seeing are inaccurate.

    Bear in mind that the folks at Polar are believers in the "zone" system, where you burn more calories from fat stores (rather than carbohydrates in your digestive system) when you exercise between 65%-80% of your maximum heart rate. Since you are running at a higher heart rate, more calories burned are coming from dietary fuel rather than fat stores. Again, this is according to the experts at Polar.
  • jessewessy1990
    jessewessy1990 Posts: 67 Member
    Options
    I bike a lot and I burn baout 600-800 cals an hour depending on terrain and wind speed, I find that I don't get as tired as running but I definitely feel like I have worked out.
    I also believe its accurate because when I go riding with my family I burn a lot less compared to when I bike with just my partner and we work a lot more.
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    Options
    Generally, 2-3 miles of biking at a brisk pace will burn the same calories as 1 mile of running. Since you were riding slow I would guess you burned 200 or fewer calories.

    If I went by this equation (using 2.5 miles biking = 1 mile running), I would have 401.83 so I guess it's likely not too far off. Farther than I would like though. Maybe in the future (since I eat back all my exercise calories) I'll cut the time down to 3/4 of what I really did. For this ride, that would make it 367.5. I'd rather be a little low than a little high.
    The brisk pace though is around 15 mph or faster. At 6 mph you are burning far less.

Categories