How many calories does road cycling burn?

[mhespenheide]

I suspect that it's not an easy question to answer, in part because it depends on your own efficiency (for lack of a better word) on the bike.

I don't know how to explain that in scientific/medical/nutritionist/physiologist terms, but I've been riding since '87 or so. One of my coworkers is about my height and weight and I suspect general fitness, but he's been a runner for decades and is only just now picking up cycling. He spends way more effort than I do at a given pace. I strongly suspect that has to play into the calories that we each burn over a given amount of time.

I know that this has been studied for runners, c.f. "running economy". I'm not familiar with any similar studies among cyclists.

[nmrt]

tell that to kipchoge running a marathon at 13 mph.

Originally Posted by rnhood

19 miles at 12.9 mph average... you should try riding a bike, you'll get more exercise.

[tuxbailey]

Originally Posted by rnhood

19 miles at 12.9 mph average... you should try riding a bike, you'll get more exercise.

Yeah, woes to be middle age, overweight, and out of shape. Thanks for the encouragement /s

[giordana93]

Originally Posted by rnhood

19 miles at 12.9 mph average... you should try riding a bike, you'll get more exercise.

*** is that supposed to mean?

[tuxbailey]

Originally Posted by giordana93

*** is that supposed to mean?

Well, can't blame the comment since the stats were quite awful

[rccardr]

On a trainer/spin bike with readouts, perspiring freely and copiously and averaging about 165 watts, I burn an average of about 10 calories per minute, or 600 per hour.

But there's no freewheeling on a spin/trainer, so I figure maybe 450 per hour on a bike at 16 mph on a hilly ride unless it's hours of uphill like Skyline or Thunder Ridge.

[Louis]

The number I remember is ~10 calories / minute.

Less if you're going pretty slow on flat ground, more if you're going faster or climbing.

[Jef58]

I think monitoring heart rate would be good, and help with the calorie estimate.

[R3awak3n]

Originally Posted by tuxbailey

Well, can't blame the comment since the stats were quite awful

still a dick comment and how did he know you didn't climb 5k in 19 miles?

[LouDeeter]

I'm happy to get out the door to ride, any distance, any average. 12.9 average is a good pace, better than sitting on the couch for sure, particularly considering slowing for intersections and such. 90 minutes of exercise is good for the body and the brain. Keep at it. As for as caloric burn, I used to use 600 calories per hour unless I was going really slow or really fast, so I don't think that is far off. As I age, I have dialed the estimate down a bit and don't watch the calories as much as I do how I feel, what I eat, and what the scale shows. I've used 3500 calories per pound of fat too, although someone once told me that for every pound of fat you lose, you also lose a mile of blood vessels and a small amount of blood needed for that fat, so there is a small extra bonus.

[tuxbailey]

Originally Posted by LouDeeter

I'm happy to get out the door to ride, any distance, any average. 12.9 average is a good pace, better than sitting on the couch for sure, particularly considering slowing for intersections and such. 90 minutes of exercise is good for the body and the brain. Keep at it. As for as caloric burn, I used to use 600 calories per hour unless I was going really slow or really fast, so I don't think that is far off. As I age, I have dialed the estimate down a bit and don't watch the calories as much as I do how I feel, what I eat, and what the scale shows. I've used 3500 calories per pound of fat too, although someone once told me that for every pound of fat you lose, you also lose a mile of blood vessels and a small amount of blood needed for that fat, so there is a small extra bonus.

Come to think of it, 600 cal per hour or 10 cal per minute is not a bad estimate. If I pedal at 70 rpm for one minute burning 10 cal each minute doesn't seem unreasonable.

[dgauthier]

Trying to calculate expended calories is kinda complicated without some kind of measurement device (ie: powermeter).

I remember I initially lost about 2 lbs each week riding 130 miles a week. This gradually tapered off until I reached 193, at which point I dropped no further.

Clearly, I became so fit I stopped expending any calories at all!

If one cycles without losing weight, what is one trying to discover by counting calories? If one eventually stops losing weight while cycling, does that mean cycling has no weight loss benefit? Perhaps there's more than one thing going on...

[echappist]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

I suspect that it's not an easy question to answer, in part because it depends on your own efficiency (for lack of a better word) on the bike.

I don't know how to explain that in scientific/medical/nutritionist/physiologist terms, but I've been riding since '87 or so. One of my coworkers is about my height and weight and I suspect general fitness, but he's been a runner for decades and is only just now picking up cycling. He spends way more effort than I do at a given pace. I strongly suspect that has to play into the calories that we each burn over a given amount of time.

I know that this has been studied for runners, c.f. "running economy". I'm not familiar with any similar studies among cyclists.

running economy (a measurement of biomechanical efficiency) is not the same as metabolic efficiency (mentioned upthread, which is a measurement of energy produced over fuel burned). The latter has a narrow range, which, coupled with known work output, gives a fairly narrow range for energy burned.

Originally Posted by tuxbailey

Well, can't blame the comment since the stats were quite awful

still uncalled for. IIRC, aren't you coming back from a rather horrific crash?

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by tuxbailey

I did a ride this afternoon and the stats are as follow:

Male, 48 years old. 193 lbs, 5 ft 8".

Distance: 19.6 miles
Speed/Effort: Moderate, 12-14 mph. (actual avg speed is 12.9 mph.)
Time: 1 hr 30 mins.

According to various online calculator, including the one in my food tracking app, this event burned about 900 calories.

Does that look accurate? That seems very high to me. If that is the case then I am surprised that everyone who are trying to lose weight doesn't pick up cycling. That is like one meal worth in calories.

At the risk of sounding snide (which is definitely not my intent) I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. Quantifying something that you theoretically do for enjoyment will not lead to sustainable health results. Cycling confers many benefits in addition to fat loss: cardiovascular health, muscular endurance, and more efficient metabolism. If you perceive cycling as a "numbers game" it takes away from the visceral joy of the sport - which is why many of us do it in the first place.

Go for a ride. Have fun. See some things. The results will follow ...

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by rnhood

19 miles at 12.9 mph average... you should try riding a bike, you'll get more exercise.

Chris Froome is "slumming" on the Paceline whilst he's recuperating 😎