Biking vs. Running

omma_to_3
omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
edited December 2024 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
    Bump
  • artbkward
    artbkward Posts: 238 Member
    What is your resting heart rate?
  • contingencyplan
    contingencyplan Posts: 3,639 Member
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Sounds good.. You would have probably burned over 700 if you ran an hour..
  • bzgl40
    bzgl40 Posts: 69 Member
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Never coast! Always be pedaling!
  • secretlobster
    secretlobster Posts: 3,566 Member
    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
    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
    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.
  • sleepytexan
    sleepytexan Posts: 3,138 Member
    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.

    of course it doesn't; but she never said this was the same duration for her running. Are you saying that HRMs are inaccurate for biking? What else are they inaccurate for? If they are inaccurate, why all the hype to use them?

    I personally do not use an HRM to calculate my calories burned while cycling, I use a Watts --> METs formula, but surely her HRM is not pointless?
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    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.

    But just going by pace throws out fitness level completely which is very inaccurate as well. A less fit person will burn more calories doing the same exercise as someone more fit.
  • zoom2
    zoom2 Posts: 934 Member
    But just going by pace throws out fitness level completely which is very inaccurate as well. A less fit person will burn more calories doing the same exercise as someone more fit.

    The weight of the bike and quality of the wheels and hubs plays a role, too. I always wonder about the MFP chart, as an example..."Bicycling, 16-20 mph, very fast (cycling, biking, bike riding)." On my lightweight road bike I wouldn't call 16mph "very fast," and I'm a very average/mediocre cyclist. On my heavier cyclocross bike with knobby tires (which is probably comparable to most hybrids in terms of weight and rolling resistance) that would be a fast speed, though.

    A beginner cyclists's 6mph on a relatively heavy and upright bike might well yield the equivalent burn that a more experienced cyclist would see going 10-12 or even faster on a lighter-weight road bike. There are so many variables. The effort I put in to go 13mph on my first, heavier road bike feels about the same as what I put in to go a lot faster, nowadays.
  • iplayoutside19
    iplayoutside19 Posts: 2,304 Member
    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.

    I typically burn half the calories biking as I do running when I use an FT7. Especially at slower speeds on the bike. Just using ratio you would have burned 730 kcal if you had ran for an hour. Half of that is 365, so from my own experiance you're off by 125 calories. But there are a lot of other things that go into that. So, it's not that far out of the question that your HRM is correct.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    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.

    But just going by pace throws out fitness level completely which is very inaccurate as well. A less fit person will burn more calories doing the same exercise as someone more fit.

    That is commonly believed, but it is not true. If they are doing the same workload, a fit person and unfit person will burn calories at roughly the same rate (total calories will depend on weight). Over a long period of time, mechanical/physiological efficiency can become more meaningful, but the effect is modest at best.

    But it's hard to use speed or distance as any more than a very rough estimate of workload for road cycling. There are too many variables. Watts is much more reliable and consistent, but most people don't have power meters on their bikes.
  • graelwyn
    graelwyn Posts: 1,340 Member
    I primarilly biked for the last year, from 60 - 120 minutes a day usually, on a 14.6kg hybrid with pretty thick tyres, which is a real battle to move against winds and up hills. I cycled a lot of hilly terrain, very rarely on the flat, and have yet to try wearing my polar ft4 while doing it, so I used mfp which gave me around 459cal/hour at 14mph. I generally did 10-12mph, but someone recommended that since I had to take into account a lot of hills, I would be best calculating for a faster speed. I didn't gain weight and was always famished when I got back, and I have noticed I don't seem to get as much hunger with my running, which I began yesterday. Doing running at around 11km/hour, I burn about 460 an hour, according to my hrm. I burn most on the elliptical actually.
  • jnerdin
    jnerdin Posts: 39 Member
    I've been trying to figure this out for a while now. My instinct and my weight-loss experience since starting with MFP a few months ago suggest that MFP over-estimates calories burning while cycling. I commute 20 miles per day by bike over a big hill and spend an average of 80 minutes a day riding. If the MFP estimates are correct, I should be losing a few pounds a week. However, I've just been maintaining. Unfortunately, I applied heart rate monitor calculation methods as well, using a variety of different calculation websites, and they all came up with estimates rather consistent with MFP's estimates. Therefore, although I agree with you that the estimates seem high, I haven't been able to come up with solid evidence that they should be lower. I just drop my speed down a notch and underestimate my time in order to be on the safe side.
  • RaeN81
    RaeN81 Posts: 534 Member
    Trust the HRM! If you have correctly input your vitals (including resting heart rate) and update it often, then you burned what you burned. Biking (especially fast biking) is an amazing burn for me (not quite as high as running but I can go alot longer than running). Typically, I bike about 15 miles an hour and burn something around 600 cals. My heart rate is typically anywhere from 135-170 (it varies with terrain like hills and I do intervals) I'm 145 poundish (not weighing for a while) and my resting heart rate is somewhere around 55-60. What is great about biking is that there is the added motivation to drop weight so that you can go faster! Running is great too though because I really work up a sweat, like you, at a good pace of 6-7 mph my heart rate gets up into the 170's and can stay there for a while. I definately feel more exhausted from 30 minutes of continuous running than 60 minutes of continuous biking but that means it is more challenging and I like that too. They both have their advantages. The point is to keep moving. If you find one or the other more enjoyable (and you aren't training for duathlons or triathlons) then you should do the one you enjoy more.
  • DaveFis
    DaveFis Posts: 1 Member
    If you have a standalone GPS unit or a smartphone, you can track your ride using an app on the phone (and the phones GPS), or the standalone GPS unit, and upload the result to Strava. As long as you have entered your bike weight and your own weight, it will then apply a power calculation based on the weights, speed, altitude etc, and provide a calorie estimation.

    Whilst its not as accurate as a power meter, it is (according to them), fairly accurate. If nothing more, it is another comparison which may (or may not!) help you establish if the HRM values are reasonable.

    I use their calorie calculations with my calorie intake and whether they are right or not, I have been losing weight, so its good enough for me.

    Note: if you do use it, sometimes it can take a while to do the calculations as it seems to be a little overloaded these days.

    https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/20959327-calorie-calculation
    https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/20959332-power-calculations

    Hope they maybe of some interest.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    My bike is a mountain bike - a Gary Fisher from about 13 or so years ago. I wouldn't call it heavy per se, but certainly not a road bike lol.

    As for saying fit/unfit burn the same calories, yes perhaps if you weigh the same amount, but seriously, a heavy person burns WAY more. It's basic physics!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories