Who will burn the most calories?
- Thread starter Chris-H
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
DiddlyDodds
Random Resident
- Location
- Littleborough
Ive often wondered myself , the answer if anyone has one will be interesting
Kiwiavenger
im a little tea pot
- Location
- Carclaze, St Austell
depends on the gearing and the speed. i can vary between 1200 and 1400 calories burnt on my hybrid for 22 miles depending on wether i want to just spin or if i want to put a bit of effort into it.
snailracer
Über Member
On the same bike, riding faster burns more calories for the journey, even though the journey takes less time. So the bottom line is, ride slower = less tired.
Thats my thinking too but then you have to think the longer spells of faster riding on a lighter bike.
This is based on the same rider doing the same route,same weather conditions etc etc.
Stephen wilby
Active Member
He would be more effort demanding if he did it in the same mount of time. But lets say he put maximum effort in on both but completed the ride on the lighter bike faster he would do the same amount of calories burned no?
snailracer
Über Member
IRL, the lycranaut on the racy road bike is riding likely hard, while the POB on the hybrid probably isn't. My bet is, the typical POB uses less calories per mile, or per journey.
On the face of it, you'd expect the person on the heavier bike to burn more calories, in the same way that a fatter person will burn more calories during day to day stuff than a thinner person.
But I certainly burn more calories on my road bike than my heavy hybrid, because it demands to be ridden hard (fnarr)
If you cycled both at the same speed, you would burn more calories on the hybrid, but in practise that doesn't happen.
But I certainly burn more calories on my road bike than my heavy hybrid, because it demands to be ridden hard (fnarr)
If you cycled both at the same speed, you would burn more calories on the hybrid, but in practise that doesn't happen.
fatblokish
Guru
- Location
- In bath
Ignoring all sort of imponderable yet significant variables, the faster one travels the more energy is needed. Air resistance, which for the majority of cyclists is the limiting factor in achieving speed (in my case it's a sore arse), increases by a factor of four for a doubling of speed.
In short, the faster one goes the more energy is transformed over a given distance.
In short, the faster one goes the more energy is transformed over a given distance.
coffeejo
Ælfrēd
- Location
- West Somerset
snailracer
Über Member
+1
Also, power = force X speed
So to double your speed, you need to increase your power output by a factor of 8: cube law.
Going twice as fast means you get there in half the time, however at 8 times the power output, you would still expend 4 times the total energy over the same route.
I disagree with this point. Surely it's all about effort exerted? If I cycle to work on my carbon bike with no kit and it takes me 20 minutes, but I cycle on my commuter bike with all the gear and extra weight but it takes 30 minutes I haven't burned more calories on the carbon just because I got their quicker. It takes more effort to power the heavier bike so if i put in exactly the same amount of effort on both bikes I will burn the exact same amount of calories despite arriving at different times...
If I were to up my output on the commuter bike and manage to maintain a speed perhaps equal to the carbon bike and arrive at the same time then obviously I will have burned more calories for that journey.
briantrumpet
Legendary Member
- Location
- Devon & Die
I'm no expert, but having read various threads where this has been debated I work on the assumption of burning about 700 calories for 20 miles in an hour. Which equates to half a box of Co-op chocolate brownie squares. I think (from what I read - which is a dangerous thing to do, I realise) that most 'calories-burned counting-devices' tend to overestimate the figure. But I've no idea where the accurate (lower) figure is supposed to come from.
