894 calories for an 18 mile ride - could that be correct?

Mad Monkey

Went for a ride on Sunday with my new Garmin Edge 305 - nice piece of kit, though I hope the battery life is extended by the fact that the backlight doesn't work - and did one of my usual training circuits: just under 18 miles, undulating roads though nothing too hilly, didn't hang about (for me, that is - I'm an old duffer who gets excited if I can average over 15mph), and the 305 says that I used 894 calories.

I don't know how calories used are worked out, but that seems a lot for only 18 miles.

Any thoughts?

Mad Monkey

:oops: Sorry - should have asked this on the Training forum.

giant_man

I don't know and i don't own a Garmin, but I would think the figures are a little optimisitic.

huggy

Supposedly the Garmin calculates it by distance and elevation, though I don't know exactly.

a_n_t

garmins are notoriously bad at calorie counting.

ForumNewbie

Mad Monkey wrote:

Went for a ride on Sunday with my new Garmin Edge 305 - nice piece of kit, though I hope the battery life is extended by the fact that the backlight doesn't work - and did one of my usual training circuits: just under 18 miles, undulating roads though nothing too hilly, didn't hang about (for me, that is - I'm an old duffer who gets excited if I can average over 15mph), and the 305 says that I used 894 calories.

I don't know how calories used are worked out, but that seems a lot for only 18 miles.

Any thoughts?

I have a Garmin 205. I don't normally look at the calories, but on checking the data I see that on a 22 mile ride on Saturday (including 1,897 feet of ascent) I used 964 caleries. I would therefore say that your 894 calories is probably correct, or as correct as measuring calories burned in this way can be.

John Stevenson

What a_n_t said.

Garmin admits that their Calorie algorithm isn't very good. Apparently Polar's is accurate, but it's protected by patents.

However, Garmin does say that their Calorie counter should be consistent(ly inaccurate) for a given rider, so if you do ride A and expend 1000 Garminalories, then a 2000-Garminalorie ride has seen you expend twice as much energy.

Use it as a way of comparing rides, then, not as a guide to how much you should eat after a ride.

John, who is due a very large plate of pasta for morning tea if his Edge is to be believed.

Marko1962

On my Polar HRM for a 17.3 ride that I did early on in the year I used up 1029 calories, using my Cateye V3 figures I have for this month include 17.28 miles and 525 Calories also 32.2 miles which returned 991 calories. :?

peanut

I used to use an electronic Technogym system at my local gym and 40 minutes spirited spinning gave me around 325 - 375 calories burned

In terms of percieved output I would say it was harder than a training ride overall because the spinning cycle is pre-programmed in intensity and has zero freewheeling recovery bits like on a bike
.it is likley to be more reliable and consistant in measurement than a garmin I should have thought as it is directly linked to the drive system and measures intensity of effort over time.

you must be working pretty hard to burn 800-900 in 90 minutes :shock: but it could be right

cougie

Runners World has a calculation for calories burned - and for the average bloke its around 100 calories a mile - running a mile is a lot harder than cycling a mile so I'd think it was probably about 30 calories a mile on a bike average. Armstrong would know all of this - didnt he weigh his pasta ?

The good doctor

I have in the past used this site

http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/4/4_1/94.shtml

I think someone on the forum mentioned it but put your weight in along with the miles and see how many calories appear.

wildmoustache

power output and calories burned goes through the roof for faster rides ...

i.e. 22mph average speed over a given course will burn far more calories than 19mph average speed due to needing to put out far more watts to overcome air resistance (mainly).

I've seen data suggesting that while racing/TTing 1000calories per hour (I guess c.25miles) is normal for an adult male of 75kg.

ronstrutt

wildmoustache wrote:

power output and calories burned goes through the roof for faster rides ...

and also for loaded rides, as in carrying panniers, which not only increase the weight to be moved but also add to air resistance!

plug1n

My 62 miles on Monday gave 4900 (!) calories on my Garmin 305

I think it is generally double what I actually use, but a good excuse to tuck in.

SteveR_100Milers

John Stevenson wrote:

What a_n_t said.

Garmin admits that their Calorie algorithm isn't very good. Apparently Polar's is accurate, but it's protected by patents.

However, Garmin does say that their Calorie counter should be consistent(ly inaccurate) for a given rider, so if you do ride A and expend 1000 Garminalories, then a 2000-Garminalorie ride has seen you expend twice as much energy.

Use it as a way of comparing rides, then, not as a guide to how much you should eat after a ride.

John, who is due a very large plate of pasta for morning tea if his Edge is to be believed.

FWIW my polar 725 is about 2/3 to 1/2 of the value calculated by my 205.

yackers1

I used to be able to burn just over 1,000 calories per hour (according to my Garmin 705). I too was averaging 15mph but I did weigh a hefty 13.5 stone.

My average heart rate was at 165 BPM (I now know is over training) and I was on the verge of killing myself.

I was sceptical of the calorie burn but a trainer down my local gym said that it was perfectly feasible given my body type, effort exerted and my level of fitness. He did stress that the HR belt gives a much more accurate reading (?) I am unsure how right he is but.......................

I have noticed that as I have got lighter and fitter the amount of calories expended in achieving 15 miles in an hour is now down to c. 700 (again measured on my 705 - and yes I have adjusted the settings to show my revised weight).

Who cares about the amount of calories burned anyway? All that matters is that you're achieving your own goals be that getting fitter, lighter, more toned etc. IMHO I find it is too easy to get caught up in the speed, distance, calories, cadence etc and lose the enjoyment factor of cycling - but then I have no intentions of racing or time trailing.

Mad Monkey

I asked the question because 894 calories in 18 miles seemed too high - as an adult male I should, I think, consume about 3500 calories, without significant exercise.

My Garmin 305 suggests that if I cycled 72 miles at that rate (which to be honest I couldn't - yet) I would have to double my calorie intake.

Nah!!! Can't be right, but ½ to 2/3 is probably about the right area.

Incidentally, having posted the question yesterday to this forum I realised that there is a Road/Training forum on Bikeradar, so I posted the question there and got lots of interesting replies. In the 3½ years I have been cycling I have obviously got fitter, but I never looked at cycling as exercise - that was just a consequence of enjoying getting out and about on my bike.

However, this fitness lark really is quite interesting - I have always been motivated by achieving results, just never applied that to cycling, but I will now - structured training here I come.

If you haven't explored the Training forum then do have a look.

guinea

Mad Monkey wrote:

I asked the question because 894 calories in 18 miles seemed too high - as an adult male I should, I think, consume about 3500 calories, without significant exercise.

2500 is what you mean. If you eat 3.5k cals without exercise you'll add ~7 stones on to you body in a year*.

I'm 13 stones and I estimate my burn to be about 30 cals per mile slowly and 50 cals when going all out. The actual numbers according to online calculators are higher than this, but I prefer to err on the side of caution.

*ignoring the fact you'll need more than 2.5k to live as you get bigger

Mad Monkey

Thanks guinea - bit of a difference! Since I have maintained about 67kgs for a few years I must be eating the right amount-ish.