rule of thumb for calories burned?

silverharp

I did google a bit first but couldnt find what I was looking for eactly. As best as I could gather you burn 20 calories per km, not sure what speed that was at, but if your average speed is 15km/hr 20km/hr or 25km/hr , is there a factor to apply to the basic calorie burn?

2nd question is height covered, does it matter much from a calorie point of view if you end up where you started. so for example if your height done is 500m, does it add anything to the per km calorie amount.

I'm sure there are other factors but just looking for a ballpark figure.

cheers

Liamo08

silverharp wrote: »

I did google a bit first but couldnt find what I was looking for eactly. As best as I could gather you burn 20 calories per km, not sure what speed that was at, but if your average speed is 15km/hr 20km/hr or 25km/hr , is there a factor to apply to the basic calorie burn?

2nd question is height covered, does it matter much from a calorie point of view if you end up where you started. so for example if your height done is 500m, does it add anything to the per km calorie amount.

I'm sure there are other factors but just looking for a ballpark figure.

cheers

You can find rough estimates here based on speed, duration and bodyweight:
http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/calories-burned-by.php?search=cycling

To be more accurate you should take into account your heart rate to get more accurate results.

Lumen

Liamo08 wrote: »

You can find rough estimates here based on speed, duration and bodyweight:
http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/calories-burned-by.php?search=cycling

To be more accurate you should take into account your heart rate to get more accurate results.

Those aren't bad but a bit on the high side (maybe +20%) compared to my own data.

velo.2010

Whoa,
5040 calaries burned for me by that calculator. I'd agree and say a little on the high side for me. 170km at 27.1 for 64kg. Felt like I burned more on the way back to Sandyford. Flatter run home then to Kildare also skews results slightly.

**Timbuk2**

I use the calories burned on my heart rate monitor, but I tell it that I am 10kg lighter than I am so it gives accurate results. I still think they are a bit on the high side. On a 4 hour cycle I burn close to 1800 calories. When I attend/teach a spin class (50 minutes) I burn 700 calories, with an average heart rate of about 168 (82% of max).

Possedion

I suppose you also need to factor in what you are consuming when cycling. Energy Bars and Drinks etc.

billy.fish

Lumen wrote: »

Those aren't bad but a bit on the high side (maybe +20%) compared to my own data.

If that data is from a Garmin ignore it

Lumen

billy.fish wrote: »

If that data is from a Garmin ignore it

No, power meter.

Beasty

Lumen wrote: »

No, power meter.

Yeah, but what records your power meter data?:D

@billy.fish - we've had a few threads about the dodgy Garmin calorie readings, although they do seem quite consistently out. General view seems to be you should multiply the Garmin reading by 50 - 60% or so to get a sensible calorie count

silverharp

I found what seems to be a reasonable calculator here

http://www.goodhealth.com/healthwise/articles/interactive_tool_how_many_calories_did_you_burn#what_does_this_tool_measure


it doesnt show metric values , but it comes out at (for avg. wt) just over 425 calories per hour at a slow speed around 16km p/hr and 725 per hour at ~25km

so a 3 hr cycle could be between 1300 to 2200 calories depending on speed, nice! . I assume the count is not marginal so you would burn ~80 per hour anyway just watching tv. Then you are going to eat extra as was mentioned by someone above.

ROK ON

The new Garmin 500 seems to calculate calories differently than th 305 Edge. I have seen as low as 400 and as high as 870 depending on HR.
On the old Garmin 305 it recorded 1400 cals for me regardless of effort.

irishmotorist

ROK ON wrote: »

The new Garmin 500 seems to calculate calories differently than th 305 Edge. I have seen as low as 400 and as high as 870 depending on HR.
On the old Garmin 305 it recorded 1400 cals for me regardless of effort.

Does this not make sense though? Higher HR indicates higher effort - more output = more calories out?

ROK ON

irishmotorist wrote: »

Does this not make sense though? Higher HR indicates higher effort - more output = more calories out?

That's my point. The 305 simply churned out the same number whereas the 500 is based on effort and is calculating calorie burn similar to where many exercise/diet websites estimate calorie burn cycling for a man of my weight.

billy.fish

irishmotorist wrote: »

Does this not make sense though? Higher HR indicates higher effort - more output = more calories out?

NO
for the love of god no

You could be under sever dehydration and have a massivly elevated HR.

billy.fish

ROK ON wrote: »

That's my point. The 305 simply churned out the same number whereas the 500 is based on effort and is calculating calorie burn similar to where many exercise/diet websites estimate calorie burn cycling for a man of my weight.

Its not based on effort, its based on a reaction.

Only way you can calculate an energy expenditure based on 'effort' is to calculate it based of the mechanical work put in less the economy of the cyclist (20-25% depending).

Heart rate is a response to a stimulus, or stimuli. It is not a consistant measure of 'effort'

Victor

Lumen wrote: »

Those aren't bad but a bit on the high side (maybe +20%) compared to my own data.

Are you accounting for the bike?

Yes, I'm calling your bike fat.

billy.fish

That whole 'should the bike be in calculations' is a massive arguing point in scientific papers at the moment (well actually since forever)

On many people like to sit on the fence about