›

Cycling calorie burn

lottielouise123lottielouise123
in Triathlon

Hi, I dont know where to post this, but was wondering roughly how many calories cycling 30 miles in 3:30 burns for a 9 stone female? My Garmin says 1699kcal, could this possibly be correct?

Thanks

· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • ZoglugZoglug
    you will read different things different places, but probably somewhere around 400 and 600 calories per hour. However there are many different factors involved including how windy it was, the route you tackled (hilly/flat) gear you used, so essentially how hard you worked. So i would say the garmin is in the ball park.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RunningInPleasePassRunningInPleasePass ✭✭✭
    cals for your ride = 0.06 (effort) x weight in lbs x time in mins or 1564 cals in your instance
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • lottielouise123lottielouise123

    Ok thanks, I didnt know if I could believe the Garmin or not. Although it was the furthest ive cycled ever, (normally 5 miles at a time) I wasnt sweating that much and the only aches I have are from falling off! The route was mainly flat with some hills. I didnt realise that I could cycle so far, (have been concentrating on running until now, but plan to do a duathlon and a tri when I learn to swim!).

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Try TaffiaTry Taffia

    Im sure the calculations need to be looked at LOL!

    http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/calories-burned-cycling.php

    male cycling over 20MPH not drafting.............  1,379 cals! 12 hour race i done 16,548 cals.............i didt' loose weight LOL!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Orange 5Orange 5

    I have used a Polar for years various models and a Garmin I feel I can safely comment. I'm a bit heavier than you, in my 40's. I burn as quoted above between 400-600 cals an hour. 600 cals is flat out race pace. I always found my Polars to be pretty consistance as they just worked on HR.

    I found when I got my Garmin 405 I got ridiculously high calorie readings. I also found that when I do a mountain bike ride on which my HR is higher overall but distance shorter my Garmin would say I'd burnt less than on a road ride that was easier. So it seems to go off HR & distance.For running it seems to say pretty much what my Polar would say. I doubt very much some one of your weight could burn much more than 600 cals in an hour.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RunningInPleasePassRunningInPleasePass ✭✭✭
    The calc and figures I used came from an article found in Tri Europe Magazine in May.

    They pretty much compare with my Garmin 405 readings for running and cycling.

    http://triathlete-europe.competitor.com/files/2011/02/PacificHealth.pdf

    Pretty much ignore the advertising of product, but it's an interesting read.

    Calc stuff is on Page 19.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Hog-mouseHog-mouse ✭✭✭

    Just curious - when running rule of thumb is 100kcal /hr - so why when cycling do you go on time? A 30 mile cycle ride for me would be sub 2hrs - I usually guestimated 600 - 800 kcal though this does concur with your formula.

    My Q. why when cycling, cycling a distance fast burns fewer kcal than cycling the same distance slowly?

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RunningInPleasePassRunningInPleasePass ✭✭✭
    e.g. 200lb person on a 30 mile ride which takes 2 hrs

    .08 x 200 x 120 = 1920cals

    Same person but time taken = 90mins

    .12 x 200 x 90 = 2160cals

    So the rider burns more calories not less
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Orange 5Orange 5

    There are probably lots of various studies on calorie calculation and I'm sure they vary greatly.

    Another thing personally that I rely on is Weight Watchers. I follow their eating plan as it's healthy eating and also I easily put weight on (I eat too much !!). They have a thing called activity points and in return for earning one activity points you can eat an item roughly between 70-100 cals. They don't use calorie counting as such but if you look at the calorie content of the item you are allowed to eat it comes between 70-100 cals. Weight Watchers also allow for weight, gendr,height and age. If I go off their recommendation it still comes out at the lower figures I quoted.

    I reckon if I went off that calculation by RPP I'd need a gastric band fitting within six months !!!

    I don't earn calories and then purposely eat something to off-set whats burnt as I thihnk it is all a bit of a minefield.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RunningInPleasePassRunningInPleasePass ✭✭✭
    Orange, remember you need to burn 3500 cals to lose 1lb in weight.

    You also don't need to consume the amount of cals to replace what you've burnt off, you just need a quantity of carbs to replenish your energy store.

    Did you read the article I posted earlier.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Htc24Htc24
    I would say a lot less calories, you were averaging a 7 minute mile which is similar to a running pace, I run and cycle a lot and based on maintaining my weight I would say I burned 700 cals an hour running (7 miles an hour, slow woman) and half that cycling (15- 16 hilly miles an hour). I would say maybe you burned 1000 calories for 30 miles in 3.5 hours.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Orange 5Orange 5
    No I didn't read the article. I was simply offering my opinion, another view. I did know you need to burn 3,500 cals to lose a pound in weight.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Hog-mouseHog-mouse ✭✭✭

    That equation still results in a greater calorie burn for a slower ride over the same distance.

    cycling 10mph - 3 hrs = 30 miles (30 miles in 180 mins)
    cycling 15mph - 2 hrs = 30 miles (30 miles in 120 mins)

    0.06 x 180 x 112 = 1209.6
    0.08 x 120 x 112 = 1075.2

    Total energy expenditure = energy expenditure value of activity x duration of activity in minutes x your body weight in poundsThis also suggests that I'm burning more calories than any other calculator including my Garmin. I'd still think that I'd only be burning 800.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Orange 5Orange 5
    All a bit to deep for me. Never was good at maths. Just scoff some chocolate you'll be fine image
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Doozer.Doozer.
    Orange 5 wrote (see)
    No I didn't read the article. I was simply offering my opinion, another view. I did know you need to burn 3,500 cals to lose a pound in weight.
    Both of you are infact incorrect - it requires a calorie deficit of 3500 inorder to lose 1lb of fat.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • scinsanescinsane ✭✭✭
    Sheeeet - that means I have to have a calorie deficit of 224,000 calories to get to 15 stone..........
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • exiled claretexiled claret
    Don't forget that as you exercise you will probably gain muscle mass, so in all probability you'll probably need a bigger calorie deficit that that to get to your goal weight!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Doozer.Doozer.
    If your muscle mass increases so does your Basel Metabolic Rate (BMR) - Therefore needing more calories to perform essential functions - you still need the same amount of calorie deficit to lose 1 lb of fat
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.