How Many Calories

Calories per mile on a bike is not something that I think can be nailed down. Down hill for a mile, almost none. Going up hill a lot more. Coasting few compared to a dead out sprint. Calories burned are more as a result of how hard you are peadling.

kokopuffs, I didn't catch your nationality but if your here in the States you might be intrested in the Amer. Diabettes Assoc. Tour de Cure. They hold one in nearly every state, either a single day century or a multy day 150. Many of the guys I've rode it with the past few years have been diabettics. Many of them use cycling as a means of controling there blood sugar, so I know it can be done.

I'm here in employment-devastated Colorado hoping to find employment either in the midwest or south. Denver sucks. That aside, yeah, my inquiry is nebulous. But somewhere, there is an average figure. Guess I'll need to contact the ADA.

I can pull some data out of a book, how heavy are you?

49 1/2 years old. 5 feet 11 1/2 inches tall, male, caucasian. Weight is 212 lbs with medium build. BTW, how many stones does my weight translate into?

thanks again

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by kokopuffs
49 1/2 years old. 5 feet 11 1/2 inches tall, male, caucasian. Weight is 212 lbs with medium build. BTW, how many stones does my weight translate into?

thanks again

on a road bike on pretty flat roads on a road bike, with neutral environmental conditions and at sea level, at ~ 16 mph (25.6 km/hr) a very approximate rate of expenditure is 450 to 500 kcal per hour. however, the only way to get an exact(ish) answer is to go down to an exercise physiology lab and be analysed, or to use a power meter in your training.

212 lb /14 (lb to stone) = 15.1428

15.1428 - 15 = 0.1428 x 14 = 1.99999

Rounding up, 15st 2lb

Ric

Approximately it sounds like 30 calories per mile, about 1/3'rd as metabolic as jogging.

There are a few Calorie calculators on the web. Here's one:

http://www.healthyweightforum.org/eng/calorie-calculator.asp

If you all find a better one, let me know. I don't think any of them can give you a close to accurate figure.

There are too many factors to consider.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by David_Zen
There are a few Calorie calculators on the web. Here's one:

http://www.healthyweightforum.org/eng/calorie-calculator.asp

If you all find a better one, let me know. I don't think any of them can give you a close to accurate figure.

There are too many factors to consider.

This sort of energy expenditure calculator is way off. Energy expended depends on the intensity at which you are riding (power output), your efficiency, cadence, and various topographical and environmental conditions.

The *only* way to get a ball-park figure of energy expenditure (outside of going to a lab) is use a power meter, as power x time is energy expended, which correlates reasonably well with actual expenditure.

Ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
This sort of energy expenditure calculator is way off. Energy expended depends on the intensity at which you are riding (power output), your efficiency, cadence, and various topographical and environmental conditions.

The *only* way to get a ball-park figure of energy expenditure (outside of going to a lab) is use a power meter, as power x time is energy expended, which correlates reasonably well with actual expenditure.

Ric

I use a recumbent stationary bike with an electronic calculator on it for mileage, calories, distance, time, etc

According to my bike, riding intensively nonstop for 12 mins at a speed of 22-24 mph, you burn 200 calories. When I'm done doing 75 mins a day, it says I burned 1200 calories.

Hey Hel, that translates to aroung 40 cal per mile, approx 1/3 as metabolic as I mentioned. And I really appreciate all of the input here. Jogging, one burns approx 100 calories per mile.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by kokopuffs
Hey Hel, that translates to aroung 40 cal per mile, approx 1/3 as metabolic as I mentioned. And I really appreciate all of the input here. Jogging, one burns approx 100 calories per mile.

However, you'll cycle faster than you can run, and thus in an equal amount of time (e.g., 1-hr) you'll expend (approximately) the same amount of energy. If you want to expend more energy then ride harder or longer (just as you would for running).

To compare rates of energy expenditure you need to do it per unit time

Ric

In cycling somewhat briskly I seriously doubt that one burns 100 cal per mile; that's approx 2400 calories in less than 2 hours. Review your information.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by kokopuffs
In cycling somewhat briskly I seriously doubt that one burns 100 cal per mile; that's approx 2400 calories in less than 2 hours. Review your information.

i'm not sure if this is aimed at me, but if it is, i didn't say that.

Ric

It was, Ric. Look, in running not only do the legs provide propulsion they also support the body and the arms move back and forth. Not so in cycling. The legs propel but provide much less support.. I'm talking in very general terms.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by kokopuffs
It was, Ric. Look, in running not only do the legs provide propulsion they also support the body and the arms move back and forth. Not so in cycling. The legs propel but provide much less support.. I'm talking in very general terms.

Please re-read what i said, you've misunderstood it. I'm perfectly aware of energy expenditure in these sports, they're directly related to the PhD that i'm doing.

Ric

Even if you do burn more calories running, you can't run for 2-3 rs a day, 6 days a week, like some of us do on a bike, or you'l be overtrained in no time.
make sence?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by kokopuffs
Jogging, the "average person" burns approximately 100 calories per mile. How many calories per mile does the average person burn while:

1. road biking?
2. mtn. biking?

Both done at a "brisk" pace and I don't mean professionally, just the average person. And I know that this is a very nebulous question, full of ambiguities.

Just recently I was compelled to relinquish jogging after 10 years due to knee problems. And a biker buddy said that I'll need to bike for 3 times as long (in terms of time) to reap the same benefits. D*amn. I'm insulin dependent and I can see my sugar control going down the tubes. Biking for me ain't nearly as "metabolic" as jogging.

TIA!

Bottom line, Ric is correct it has to do with effort expended. Riding on a flat, smooth course with a moderate effort will generally burn less then running the same course with the same moderate effort because you have to support your full body weight when running which burns more calories. But you can increase the intensity to match what you are burning on your runs. And you will probably find that it's less wear and tear on the body (less impact). You can also use a HR monitor to measure the amount of calories you burn (if your HR does this) on a typical run and then adjust your cycling workout to accomodate the same amount of calories. I'm not confident that the hr do a good job calculating calories accurately but it should be an excellent comparison tool.

Also, here's a fairly comprehensive site

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm

I've been using a SRM powermeter for several years and it allows you do the math with the least amount of assumptions. I weigh about 163 lbs and an easy ride will be about 35 kcal/mi. It's about 1/3 that of running but you ride about 3 times faster.

I've seen some crazy numbers regarding calories burned running. They translate into power outputs beyond what humans can do. A body can only do so much work as measured in watts which is power which is work/time. Suppose on the bike I can sustain 300W, I can't hop off the bike and run at 1200W. It's just not possible. I would be outputting around 300W while running as well and burning around the same number of calories.

That one would have to ride 3X longer time-wise to burn as many calories is incorrect. Unless you are riding at an effort 1/3 that at which you run at. A very, very, very rough estimate would be that you would have to ride 3X longer distance-wise.

I find that one does not burn more calories/time while running but due to the greater efficiency of riding, you just cover more distance in the same amount of time.

Using HR to calculate work is a very rough approximation. With a powermeter, you're already making one assumption and that is your efficiency. A powermeter only measures how much work you do, not how many calories your body used to do that work. A HRM that calculates calorie expenditure probably makes 2-3 more assumptions which renders the numbers basically useless.

This is not a factual answer to your question, but, I have a Polar A5 HRM, and, on a flat century, one by myself, and one with a group in NYC this summer, the calories totaled 4,800, and 6,500 respectively. On my 21 mile work commute, which is semi-hilly, I burn consistantly 900 calories a day. If you are interested in calorie matters, a HRM that gives you the calorie use, it's worth it !
jp111