calories burned

stronginthesun

i know there are a lot of threads on this but im gonna start another one anyway . im the right weight for my height and reasonably fit . how many calories am i burning an hour on an intense underlating ride ? dont have no garmin ect .

optimisticbiker

You need to work out the total height gained on your ride (sites like ridewithgps.com help)

Energy in kCal used in climbing the 'hill' is (very crudely) given by:

(your weight + the bikes weight) in kilos times height in metres divded by 20

So if you weigh 75kg and your bike weighs 10kg and you climb a total of 100m on your ride, your approx calories is 425kCal

As I said this is very crude, as it only takes into account weight and height gained and makes sweeping assumptions regarding body efficiency etc. and could be 50% out or more...

More accurate measurement needs heart rate v time observations etc.

Buckled_Rims

As a rule of thumb and all approximates per hour:

Easy cycling:300 cals
Hard training: 500 cals
Intensive training: 700 cals
Racing and sprinting: 800 cals.

As has been mentioned all depends on rider/bike weights, fitness, road surface, temperature, wind direction and strength, and whether flat or hilly.

In my opinion just knowing the rule of thumb calories is more then adequate for the average rider.

night_porter

You could go to mapmyride.com and input your weight, map the route, time taken and it will show you how many calories you have burned.

It will also show you your average speed and give a profile of how much you have climbed.

Of course it doesn't take into account wind speed or weight of bike but as with all things it is a fair guide and if you repeat routes it can show your overall improvement.

mattward1979

Calorie calculators are like clothes shops for women.... they want to give you the best news possible so you keep using them!! (how can a woman be a size 6 in one shop and a size 10 in another?!)

pinch of salt with ALL these tools is required.. My Endomondo says I burn over 800 cals doing my 10 mile Uni trip, where my actual weight loss says closer to 500.

I just go with 50 cals a mile.

squigs

stronginthesun wrote:

i know there are a lot of threads on this but im gonna start another one anyway . im the right weight for my height and reasonably fit . how many calories am i burning an hour on an intense underlating ride ? dont have no garmin ect .

After a ride I imput the info onto here

http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php

neeb

Although it's not something I'm particularly bothered about I always wonder how accurate the estimates on my polar cs100 computer are. I presume they are estimated from my HR figures, but the computer also has my weight, height and age programmed into it, so I wonder if these influence the calculation and if so, how. So for example yesterday I did 53.4 miles at about 80% of HRmax and it's telling me I burned 2219 Kcal. Problem is that the daft computer thinks my HRmax is about 15bpm less than it is because of my age, and keeps resetting it to this value if I change it. So the estimated Kcal might be based on the assumption that I did the ride at nearly 90% of HRmax..

Presumably if you have a power meter and a decent cycle computer you can get very accurate estimates of calories burned?

night_porter

I doubt that any method of calculation would be very accurate unless it took into account things like how heavy the bike is, the wind direction and speed, the atmospheric pressure, the height above sea level, wheel friction, tyre pressure, route gradients, etc, etc.

But it really isn't very relevant when you consider that the calories printed onto food is just a guesstimation anyway. I am sure I read somewhere that the government considered making food labels more accurate but decided the costs of doing so far outweighed the benefits so they left it alone.

As has been mentioned the bike computers, hrm's, etc. will give differing values but who is to say which one is right or wrong. They are just a bit of fun really!

neeb

night_porter wrote:

I doubt that any method of calculation would be very accurate unless it took into account things like how heavy the bike is, the wind direction and speed, the atmospheric pressure, the height above sea level, wheel friction, tyre pressure, route gradients, etc, etc.

If you have figures for power I don't see that weight of the bike, wind, gradient etc are relevant. Power is basically rate of energy produced, so you can calculate exactly how many calories you have used to turn the cranks. Of course that won't include base metabolic rate, energy used to keep yourself cool, and bodily movement that is "wasted" and doesn't contribute to turning the cranks. Still, I imagine that this is a relatively small percentage?

Similarly with HR data there should be a reasonable correlation with power at higher intensities. Probably you could get OKish ballpark estimates from a normal cycle computer with HR monitor if you were able to calibrate it?

Buckled_Rims

neeb wrote:

Although it's not something I'm particularly bothered about I always wonder how accurate the estimates on my polar cs100 computer are. I presume they are estimated from my HR figures, but the computer also has my weight, height and age programmed into it, so I wonder if these influence the calculation and if so, how. So for example yesterday I did 53.4 miles at about 80% of HRmax and it's telling me I burned 2219 Kcal. Problem is that the daft computer thinks my HRmax is about 15bpm less than it is because of my age, and keeps resetting it to this value if I change it. So the estimated Kcal might be based on the assumption that I did the ride at nearly 90% of HRmax..

Presumably if you have a power meter and a decent cycle computer you can get very accurate estimates of calories burned?

The big problem with HR monitors used for calories calcs is that if you freewheel on long downhill sections yet your heart is still pumping, but little energy is being used in your legs. On your 53 mile route, how many miles is freewheeled or glided?

Yep, a power meter is probably the best but expensive for losing weight

night_porter

As the op says he is the correct weight for his height and reasonably fit I am guessing losing weight is not his target?

Although I am intrigued to know why he wants to know calories used?

The definiton of a food calorie is to raise the temperature of 1 kilo of water by 1 degree so maybe he wants to run a central heating system or heat a bath and needs to know how hard/long to pedal?

neeb

Buckled_Rims wrote:

The big problem with HR monitors used for calories calcs is that if you freewheel on long downhill sections yet your heart is still pumping, but little energy is being used in your legs. On your 53 mile route, how many miles is freewheeled or glided?

Yep, a power meter is probably the best but expensive for losing weight

Point taken. I suppose some of the time you have an elevated HR and you are freewheeling you are effectively still burning the calories you used on the last climb, getting rid of lactic acid and repaying oxygen debt (so the elevated HR is still supporting power output indirectly), but yes, the relationship between HR and power can't be very reliable if your effort is not constant.

navrig

Just eat mars bars until you feel back to normal and then add up all the calories on the wrappers.

Simplessst.


Otherwise don't worry about.