Who will burn the most calories?

[fatblokish]

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.

All the extra weight of your kit that you mention is one of those imponderables. If the kit was stowed behind you and offered no further air resistance, and you had frictionless bearings on your wheels, and the two types of tyres had identical rolling resistance etc, then you would use 2.25 more energy to do the journey on your carbon bike than on the winter hack for the times you state. Unless you had to stop often for red lights; the extra mass of your kit requires energy to accelerate it.

 

[jowwy]

I've had this discussion on here before with people and gave up in the end - all devices work by using an average of said test data - as no person is average and we are all different - calories burned by one individual doing the same distance and same speed as the other, would be totally different as one's body composition would be different!!!

Thats just my opinion and take on the matter!!

queue the flamers

 

[amaferanga]

Doesn't quite answer the question, but I often ride to work on my road bike that has a power meter. Some days I ride hard and it takes around 35 minutes to get there, other days I ride easy and it takes closer to 40 minutes. The energy expended when I ride hard is more than when I ride easy (by around 10-15%) despite the fact that I'm riding for longer on the easy days. If I was on a heavier bike then the gap would probably be smaller, but I think the energy expended would still be greater on the road bike ridden hard. In this case the difference between hard and easy is only around 40 Watts - the difference between a serious road-rider and a leisure rider would be much bigger.

 

[apollo179]

+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.

+1
Unless youre a council worker in which case you expend zero energy in as long a time as possible.

 

[Markymark]

If it's about loosing weight, I've also heard, and can say proven from a sample of one (ie me!), that fat burning increases the higher the cadence. Ive used lower gears, pedalled faster to maintain speed and lost more flubber.

 

[rowan 46]

A calorie is a unit of heat or energy essentially its the amount of energy required to heat 1gram of water by 1degree c. your question states who would use the most calories the answer is that if the cyclist rode to the limits of his ability to the limits of his endurance he would use the same amount of calories whichever bike he rode. what would be different would be the distance covered and top speed between the bikes.

 

[rowan 46]

sorry if you are saying to go the same distance flat out then the bloke riding the heavier slower bike uses more calories. as he is going for a longer time.

 

[lejogger]

Rowan - eloquently and succinctly writing what I was clumsily attempting to.


+1

 

[fatblokish]

sorry if you are saying to go the same distance flat out then the bloke riding the heavier slower bike uses more calories. as he is going for a longer time.

For a longer time, yes, but using much less energy to achieve a slower speed. Try this http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php

I've tried a few examples and anything up to about 20kg seems to show that the faster one cycles, the more energy per mile is transferred. Not sure how this calculator works (e.g. does it allow for red lights, for those that acknowledge them etc)

 

[ushills]

Don't know if this help any but on my road bike I generally work out at 50 calories per mile and on my MTB around 80 calories per mile. This is using a Polar HRM and I generally keep my HR within the 150-168bmp zone for the entire session.

I am somewhat suprised by the difference a the road route is on country road but hilly the MTB route is off-road 50% canal and 50% singletrack and woods but generally flatish.

 

[I am Spartacus]

I also hate the myth that riding the heavy clunker will fit you up to be a quicker cyclist when you change to the summer carbon bike.

It is now quite accepted in fitness circles that burning calories and that hideous concept of 'burning fat' you can actually use high intensities.

I ride my winter bike which happens to be 2 kilo heavier than my race bike but only 'cos it is fitted with mudguards and other stuff to keep winter riding as civilised as poss.. if I lived in it a country that had a climate not 'weather' I'd not be using me clunker for sure.

To prove this the winter bike is always in a state of 'tinkering' to get the weight down - monies dependent sadly.( I wouldnt change the groupset tho', I am quite a fan of Sora.)

 

[Alien8]

For a longer time, yes, but using much less energy to achieve a slower speed.

Yes, but what Rowan specified is that on both bikes the rider as at their maximum output, the amount of energy expended per unit time is the same. Hence, the longer duration will use more energy, ie calories.

Don't know if this help any but on my road bike I generally work out at 50 calories per mile and on my MTB around 80 calories per mile.

80 cals/mile? Hmmm, I'd get your HRM calibrated.

 

[ushills]

80 cals/mile? Hmmm, I'd get your HRM calibrated.

FWIW the hrm is calibrated with my age, weight, sex etc and almost matches the calorie figures given by Endomondo so I'm fairly sure the cal/mile is accurate'ish.

As I see it if I keep my effort (i.e. heart rate at approximately the same level) and my cadence almost the same (i.e. average cadence 85rpm) then the variable comes down to the efficiency of the drive train, in this case the gearing and rolling resistance of the bike.

Due to the increase resistance of my MTB tyres, suspension, grass/mud vs tarmac etc. I end up using a lower gear on my MTB to maintain my cadence and effort and therefore travel less distance per calorie compared to my road bike with less rolling resistance and a higher gear. Therefore I will travel further on my road bike per calorie compared to my MTB or consume more calories per mile on my MTB compared to my road bike.

For information I can easily burn 900-1100 calories per mile on my road bike and keep my heartrate at 85-90% of HRmax, I know this is not burning fat as I am well into my anaerobic threshold but it seems to be my most efficient zone. I appreciate everyone is different and YMMV.

 

[amaferanga]

FWIW the hrm is calibrated with my age, weight, sex etc and almost matches the calorie figures given by Endomondo so I'm fairly sure the cal/mile is accurate'ish.

Well as accurate as a guess based on variables that don't really tell you what your power output is (which is what matters here) can be.

 

[Dan B]

For information I can easily burn 900-1100 calories per mile on my road bike and keep my heartrate at 85-90% of HRmax, I know this is not burning fat as I am well into my anaerobic threshold but it seems to be my most efficient zone. I appreciate everyone is different and YMMV.

Have you had your maxhr tested?