# How many calories am I really burning?



## mrmacmusic (3 Jul 2012)

Just curious... my commute is 14.25 miles (each way), and I'm averaging about 53/54 mins these days which works out just shy of 16mph. According to the Runkeeper App that I use to track my miles, this burns approx. 600 calories.

I did a long (for me) 43 mile run a few weekends ago, and again the average speed was 16mph with a suggest calorie burn of over 1700.

The app database knows my weight (168lbs), but surely the amount of calories burned will depend on how hard I'm actually working (e.g. spinning or grinding), or am I not understanding things correctly?

I don't want to know precisely, just whether or not the number of calories that Runkeeper suggest I'm burning is a reliable guide at all.


----------



## VamP (3 Jul 2012)

If you assume on average 500 calories per hour you will not be a million miles off. Most apps and computers overestimate calorific burn, and are best not relied on. Your weight only has a tangential impact on the burn.


----------



## marzjennings (3 Jul 2012)

I usually average about 1000 calories an hour, but I'm about 230lbs and attempt an average speed of 20mph.

The estimate of 1700calories at 16mph for 43 miles sound about right.


----------



## VamP (3 Jul 2012)

marzjennings said:


> I usually average about 1000 calories an hour, but I'm about 230lbs and attempt an average speed of 20mph.
> 
> The estimate of 1700calories at 16mph for 43 miles sound about right.


 
Sorry dude, but you really don't. Unless you only ever ride uphill (and off road)


----------



## amaferanga (3 Jul 2012)

marzjennings said:


> I usually average about 1000 calories an hour, but I'm about 230lbs and attempt an average speed of 20mph.


 
Really? How do you know that? What's your power output? 

Flat where you ride I guess, but then you do say you only attempt at average speed of 20mph  ....


----------



## mancaus (3 Jul 2012)

If you want another data point, try http://bikecalculator.com/index.html. I use it for all sorts of fantasy, "what ifs".


----------



## marzjennings (3 Jul 2012)

VamP said:


> Sorry dude, but you really don't. Unless you only ever ride uphill (and off road)


 
Sorry dude, but yes I do and that's being conservative on the average.

Off road the average goes up to around 1100.

Calories burned based on time, heart rate, weight and effort.


----------



## marzjennings (3 Jul 2012)

amaferanga said:


> Really? How do you know that? What's your power output?
> 
> Flat where you ride I guess, but then you do say you only attempt at average speed of 20mph  ....


 
Last time I did a power test I averaged 265 for the hour, though I feel stronger these days and I'm thinking of fitting a power meter.

Mostly flat, but with a lot of junctions. My moving average is usually around 21 on the road, but with all the stops usually my overall average for a ride is about 19, hence the attempt at 20 average.


----------



## VamP (3 Jul 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Sorry dude, but yes I do and that's being conservative on the average.
> 
> Off road the average goes up to around 1100.
> 
> Calories burned based on time, heart rate, weight and *effort*.


 

The guys riding to Boulogne right now are averaging a little under a 1000 calories per hour. Unless you are using a power meter, you're just relying on one of the overestimating sites/computers. Which is massaging your ego. And by the sounds of it your backside....

If you are using a power meter, and are really burning an average of 1000 calories you have my hearfelt apology... and why the hell aren't you in the peloton right now?

Edited: Apparently you re not using a power meter. In which case the mind boggles as to how you think you are measuring effort??? Heart rate and weight are tangential to say the least. Time is important yes, but we already said a number of calories for a given time and distance. One hour at average of 20 mph I burn less than 600 calories. So will pretty much everyone else, unless it is very hilly.


----------



## MattHB (3 Jul 2012)

as said, without a power meter its impossible to be sure. 

I find strava the most believable.. but to show you the difference: The century that I rode this weekend, which took 7hrs and 20mins with an ave of 14mph (4200ft), strava suggested I burned 3800 and cyclemeter said I burned over 7000!! That was with a HR monitor and the algorithm 'accounting' for gradient.

500 per hour is what I use when trying to work out my calorie deficits.. anything else is just way out and I plateau or gain weight. So it must be bang on.. for me at least.

be as conservative as you can, anything else is just fantasy


----------



## defy-one (3 Jul 2012)

My Garmin is about right then. Did 32.5 miles in 2 hours 10 mins and it said i burned just over 1000 calories


----------



## smutchin (3 Jul 2012)

I use myfitnesspal to record my food and exercise. When logging cycling workouts, I round down to the bracket below my actual speed (eg if I ride at 16mph, I log it in the 12-14mph bracket). Given that my weight loss (or gain) seems to follow a reasonably predictable pattern based on the myfitnesspal estimates, this seems a fairly reliable method.

So, for 40 minutes at "14-16mph" this morning (actually 29.3km/h = 18.2mph), myfitnesspal tells me I burned 446 calories. Sounds like a reasonable guess.

My Garmin, used with an HRM, gives me 396 calories for the same ride.

d.


----------



## MrJamie (3 Jul 2012)

Theres so much to take into account that its hard to measure, even with a power meter one persons muscle efficiency varies significantly from another.

For cycling..
Strava has me at upto 700 calories per hour.
Endomondo has me at about 1200 calories per hour.
Sportypal has me at about 1200 calories per hour.

By comparison for running..
Strava puts me at 1460 per hour.
Endomondo puts me at 1200 per hour
Sportypal puts me at 1250 per hour

While these estimates might be a bit high, Livestrong says a 10k run typically burns 700 calories, so I dont find it that hard to believe that carrying maybe 50kg on top of the average runner requires a huge amount more effort and at 19 stone (6'2) i can still run 10k in under an hour. 

Also, im sure 15mph on a full suspension Sports Direct Dunlop bike for example is worlds apart from 15mph on an aggressive geometry racing bike and a lot of these sites dont even ask for this info.


----------



## VamP (3 Jul 2012)

MrJamie said:


> Theres so much to take into account that its hard to measure, even with a power meter one persons muscle efficiency varies significantly from another.


 
Actually, while those differences exist, they aren't really all that significant. Running is a different story, but for cycling weight is definitely a tangential factor in determining calorie consumption.


----------



## mrmacmusic (3 Jul 2012)

Wow... I seem to have opened a can of worms! Thanks for the input though... it's safe to assume that Runkeeper's calorie consumption should be taken with a pinch of salt then , and is definitely on the high side.

Given that I used to weigh 252lbs and have maintained my new weight of 168lbs for 8 months now (at the request of my wife who didn't want me losing any more), I must have got the diet/exercise balance about right now. Whilst I usually cyclo-commute 5 days a week, there are odd days when I need to take the car – my food intake is pretty much the same whether I cycle or not, and there certainly isn't a 1200 calorie difference between 2 and 4 wheel days.

I still weigh myself every Saturday morning having got into that habit whilst "adjusting my lifestyle"... some weeks it'll be 11st13, others 12st 1lb – I guess my body just keeping itself right?


----------



## lulubel (3 Jul 2012)

mrmacmusic said:


> Wow... I seem to have opened a can of worms!


 
This argument comes up from time to time, and it's usually fairly heated. If what you're doing is working for you, just keep doing it.


----------



## MrJamie (3 Jul 2012)

VamP said:


> Actually, while those differences exist, they aren't really all that significant. Running is a different story, but for cycling weight is definitely a tangential factor in determining calorie consumption.


 Id read that a bike/drivetrain can be over 90% efficient IIRC, human muscles are around 20-30% efficient at converting glycogen etc to energy and on top of the actual energy put through the pedals a lot is wasted generating heat in the body, regulating that heat, pumping blood around etc etc. Theres also post-exercise calorie burn in calorie burn and maybe boosted metabolism, which i think is why doing weights are popular for burning fat.

Id love to know what to believe though, Livestrong says that for running additional weight is linear and says over 10k (6.2 miles) a 19 stone person will burn just over 1200 calories (same as the sports apps say), skinny ethiopian runner probably wont burn much more per hour but will run twice as fast and more efficently. Surely if I go out for an hour on the bike breathing as hard, high heart rate, dripping with sweat trying as hard as I can its not impossible I could burn a similar level of calories? Ill have to have a look at what my cheapy hrm says.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (3 Jul 2012)

I'd love to think that my short 15 mile ride today burnt off the 1000 calories which cyclemeter says it did but it doesn't know how much I pedalled, uphills or downhills...well it knows the terrain from the gps but it doesn't know if I flew down or coasted...well it could work it out from the gradient and speed but...

Anyway, I usually halve it and am happy at that!


----------



## MattHB (3 Jul 2012)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> I'd love to think that my short 15 mile ride today burnt off the 1000 calories which cyclemeter says it did but it doesn't know how much I pedalled, uphills or downhills...well it knows the terrain from the gps but it doesn't know if I flew down or coasted...well it could work it out from the gradient and speed but...
> 
> Anyway, I usually halve it and am happy at that!



Export the tcx file to strava, it's interesting to see the differences. You can do this by email, it's very easy once you set it up right


----------



## Garz (3 Jul 2012)

mrmacmusic said:


> Just curious... According to the Runkeeper App that I use to track my miles, this burns approx. 600 calories.


 
I normally apply a 30% reduction to the digital calorie counters from devices. So probably closer to 400!

My Garmin always over-eggs the calories, as did my smartphone etc.


----------



## ColinJ (3 Jul 2012)

About 30-40 Cals/mile!


----------



## Thomk (3 Jul 2012)

ColinJ said:


> About 30-40 Cals/mile!


Yep. OP just wanted an approximation and I think this is as good as anything.


----------



## ColinJ (3 Jul 2012)

Thomk said:


> Yep. OP just wanted an approximation and I think this is as good as anything.


My experience is of losing 1 pound per imperial century, and 1.25 pounds per double metric century (200 kms = 125 miles), thus 3,500 Cals per 100 miles, 35 Cals/mile. I've consistently done that on probably 30+ 100 mile and 200 km rides. The numbers back up what I've read on reputable websites, and have calculated using some convincing-looking online cycling calculators, for example this one.


----------



## MattHB (3 Jul 2012)

ColinJ said:


> My experience is of losing 1 pound per imperial century, and 1.25 pounds per double metric century (200 kms = 125 miles), thus 3,500 Cals per 100 miles, 35 Cals/mile. I've consistently done that on probably 30+ 100 mile and 200 km rides. The numbers back up what I've read on reputable websites, and have calculated using some convincing-looking online cycling calculators, for example this one.



I put in everything from my big w/e ride and it came out 23 less than strava. So providing that site is good, strava is pretty bang on


----------



## MrJamie (3 Jul 2012)

I like that calculator and it seems to have me at about 700-800 cals per hour (15-16mph). I dont think the bar tops position quite represents sat upright on a mtb/hybrid with the aero traits of a brick wall though, since it makes rather small differences to effort required. Interestingly each 1% grade adds ~200 calories per hour too. 

The other thing these estimates are poor with IME is braking, if you were to accelerate to 20mph, brake to 5, then accelerate to 20 repeatedly for an hour youd use a lot of energy, but the estimators would only see your 10 miles at <10mph average and work off that and in that sense they dont distinguish between crusing 20mph along empty country roads and frequent stopping and accelerating in urban riding.

I tend to use the calories just to quatify how much ive done in the past week or month, rather than a reliable figure that entitles me to an entire cake at the end of each ride


----------



## Andrew_P (3 Jul 2012)

If my garmin was right I would be 3.5 stone by now..


----------



## ColinJ (3 Jul 2012)

MrJamie said:


> The other thing these estimates are poor with IME is braking, if you were to accelerate to 20mph, brake to 5, then accelerate to 20 repeatedly for an hour youd use a lot of energy, but the estimators would only see your 10 miles at <10mph average and work off that and in that sense they dont distinguish between crusing 20mph along empty country roads and frequent stopping and accelerating in urban riding.


Good point! Yes, they all assume constant speed. At least the one I linked to takes the weight of the bike (remember to include the weight of your clothes, drinks, tools and spares too) and wind speed into account.

My cheapo gym bike has a _calories burned_ function which works by measuring how many revs the flywheel does during the session. All very well, except that it does not have any way of knowing how much friction I have set on the drag brake! I can wind the brake off the wheel or do it up so tight that I can't turn the pedals without standing on them and it is all the same to the computer. I ignore it apart from the timer which I use to time my intervals.


----------



## mrmacmusic (4 Jul 2012)

ColinJ said:


> All very well, except that it does not have any way of knowing how much friction I have set on the drag brake! I can wind the brake off the wheel or do it up so tight that I can't turn the pedals without standing on them and it is all the same to the computer. I ignore it apart from the timer which I use to time my intervals.


LOL! Thanks Colin – and that 30/40 calories per mile ready-reckoner above is much appreciated


----------



## amaferanga (4 Jul 2012)

MrJamie said:


> The other thing these estimates are poor with IME is braking, if you were to accelerate to 20mph, brake to 5, then accelerate to 20 repeatedly for an hour youd use a lot of energy, but the estimators would only see your 10 miles at <10mph average and work off that and in that sense they dont distinguish between crusing 20mph along empty country roads and frequent stopping and accelerating in urban riding.


 
Well firstly all they provide is a rough guide anyway.

From riding with a power meter, my experience is that stop/start riding and hilly rides actually lead to significantly lower average power than a flat (ish) road with no or minimal stops. The reason being that you just can't make up for the zero-effort parts (coasting and waiting at junctions) with the 'on' periods. My average power through the city is very low compared to what I do when I get a clear bit of road with no stops. Similarly, properly hilly rides with long descents lead to lower power than flat (ish) rides where I can keep a relatively constant (and actually quite modest compared to what I'd climb a hill at) power output.

Lower average power means lower calorie burn so I'd disagree with your statement for general riding (not so sure about you extreme example, but that's not real world riding).


----------



## jowwy (4 Jul 2012)

ColinJ said:


> Good point! Yes, they all assume constant speed. At least the one I linked to takes the weight of the bike (remember to include the weight of your clothes, drinks, tools and spares too) and wind speed into account.
> 
> My cheapo gym bike has a _calories burned_ function which works by measuring how many revs the flywheel does during the session. All very well, except that it does not have any way of knowing how much friction I have set on the drag brake! I can wind the brake off the wheel or do it up so tight that I can't turn the pedals without standing on them and it is all the same to the computer. I ignore it apart from the timer which I use to time my intervals.


but if you have en electronic computer on your excercise bike that adjusts the drag settings automatically which then ups the calorie expenditure accordingly its much easier


----------



## ColinJ (4 Jul 2012)

jowwy said:


> but if you have en electronic computer on your excercise bike that adjusts the drag settings automatically which then ups the calorie expenditure accordingly its much easier


It would be way more useful than the stupid calories-burned guesstimate that my device makes but I would be surprised if most affordable domestic equipment is accurately calibrated and gives consistent results.


----------



## VamP (4 Jul 2012)

ColinJ said:


> It would be way more useful than the stupid calories-burned guesstimate that my device makes but I would be surprised if most affordable domestic equipment is accurately calibrated and gives consistent results.


 
or indeed expensive gym equipment. It is a well known fact that fitness industry massages the egos of it's customers with exercise bikes, treadmills, calculators etc that generally wildly overestimate energy consumption.

I think the rule of thumb you gave above is pretty much on the money, and would recommend it to the OP or indeed anyone else who wants to estimate calorific consumption for the purpose of weight control.


----------



## jowwy (4 Jul 2012)

VamP said:


> or indeed expensive gym equipment. It is a well known fact that fitness industry massages the egos of it's customers with exercise bikes, treadmills, calculators etc that generally wildly overestimate energy consumption.
> 
> I think the rule of thumb you gave above is pretty much on the money, and would recommend it to the OP or indeed anyone else who wants to estimate calorific consumption for the purpose of weight control.


when i was 19stone i was using 50 calories per mile - since dropping down to 15stone i now use 40 calories per mile and it seems to be working out ok for me


----------



## VamP (4 Jul 2012)

jowwy said:


> when i was 19stone i was using 50 calories per mile - since dropping down to 15stone i now use 40 calories per mile and it seems to be working out ok for me


 

I think you're wildly overestimating, but making up for it elsewhere. So long as you're happy that's all that matters.


----------



## MrJamie (4 Jul 2012)

amaferanga said:


> Well firstly all they provide is a rough guide anyway.
> 
> From riding with a power meter, my experience is that stop/start riding and hilly rides actually lead to significantly lower average power than a flat (ish) road with no or minimal stops. The reason being that you just can't make up for the zero-effort parts (coasting and waiting at junctions) with the 'on' periods. My average power through the city is very low compared to what I do when I get a clear bit of road with no stops. Similarly, properly hilly rides with long descents lead to lower power than flat (ish) rides where I can keep a relatively constant (and actually quite modest compared to what I'd climb a hill at) power output.
> 
> Lower average power means lower calorie burn so I'd disagree with your statement for general riding (not so sure about you extreme example, but that's not real world riding).


Interesting  Id guess those rides with more "on time" had higher average speeds and hence calorie counts though?

I know for example that if i ride on a road route my average speed is higher and so calorie estimate is higher. Say I try to average 15mph through certain parts of the cycle paths here, where im slowed very very frequently to brake for a junction, brake for people/dogs or take a narrow 90 degree corner it knackers my average speed, but on open road where i can average a bit more, I feel like i can sustain 15mph with much less effort because im not accelerating my mass up constantly. I agree as you say road cycling should burn more calories than urban (unless youre riding like that brunelle guy), but stop start urban cycling should be further off the estimate. 



ColinJ said:


> Good point! Yes, they all assume constant speed. At least the one I linked to takes the weight of the bike (remember to include the weight of your clothes, drinks, tools and spares too) and wind speed into account.
> 
> My cheapo gym bike has a _calories burned_ function which works by measuring how many revs the flywheel does during the session. All very well, except that it does not have any way of knowing how much friction I have set on the drag brake! I can wind the brake off the wheel or do it up so tight that I can't turn the pedals without standing on them and it is all the same to the computer. I ignore it apart from the timer which I use to time my intervals.


I got an exercise bike a few years ago when i woke up to my very poor fitness, its not bad i think its a magnetic brake on a 30kg flywheel and HRM, you adjust the resistance through the computer though so it knows what youre doing. I dont often use it anymore but ive been tempted to put a spoon saddle on it as it has a clamp for normal rails and use it in winter. The calorie estimates and mph on it increase dramatically depending on the level of resistance you set and interestingly enough last time i used it, I got nearly the exact same mph average as I do on a real bike, same crazy alleged calorie burn too. I think when I first got it I would do about 400 cals per hour and now it says about 1200, so while it might be nonsense numbers it shows how bad my fitness was


----------



## amaferanga (4 Jul 2012)

MrJamie said:


> Interesting  Id guess those rides with more "on time" had higher average speeds and hence calorie counts though?
> 
> I know for example that if i ride on a road route my average speed is higher and so calorie estimate is higher. Say I try to average 15mph through certain parts of the cycle paths here, where im slowed very very frequently to brake for a junction, brake for people/dogs or take a narrow 90 degree corner it knackers my average speed, but on open road where i can average a bit more, I feel like i can sustain 15mph with much less effort because im not accelerating my mass up constantly. I agree as you say road cycling should burn more calories than urban (unless youre riding like that brunelle guy), but stop start urban cycling should be further off the estimate.


 
I think you may be confusing perceived effort with calories burnt though. For example I could go out and do 5x1min intervals with a couple of minutes rest between intervals. Total time riding of only 13min, but if I did the intervals as hard as I could it'd be a fecking hard 13 minutes and would leave me quite fatigued. But since I'm resting and soft pedalling between the big efforts, the average power would actually be fairly low. I could very easily ride steadily for 13min at a higher average power - it'd probably feel really easy actually - and the calorie burn would be greater.


----------



## MrJamie (4 Jul 2012)

amaferanga said:


> I think you may be confusing perceived effort with calories burnt though. For example I could go out and do 5x1min intervals with a couple of minutes rest between intervals. Total time riding of only 13min, but if I did the intervals as hard as I could it'd be a fecking hard 13 minutes and would leave me quite fatigued. But since I'm resting and soft pedalling between the big efforts, the average power would actually be fairly low. I could very easily ride steadily for 13min at a higher average power - it'd probably feel really easy actually - and the calorie burn would be greater.


I agree with that about the intervals, but im talking more about the inaccuracy of these programs estimating calorie consumption purely by distance/speed, in relation to recovering momentum lost by braking not being accounted for (rather than just riding at different intensities). What im trying to get at is that if you look at a common local cycle facility here http://goo.gl/maps/OFCY or here http://goo.gl/maps/Jemk, in the simplest sense i can either a) ride unhindered down the road at a constant 15mph or b) ride at say 15mph along the cyclepath, which requires me to slow down for every single side road because theyre almost always obscured and then not only build the speed back but go faster to keep my average up and keep up with my "ghost rider". At the end of the hours riding with 15 miles covered at 15mph in both scenarios, surely the guy who has used the cycle facility has put in considerably more power and hence because so much of it has been wasted under braking. According to the phone app or garmin gps tracker both cyclists will have covered the same distance in the same time and therefore burnt the same calories, despite one being a 15mph cruise and the other really struggling to keep that average speed up.


----------

