New to the forum and pretty new to cycling. I have been an on again off again runner over the last 15 years. Since July of last year I have averaged about 25 miles of running a week. In December I bought a PowerBeam as I wanted to start training for duathlons.
I am 5’5", 143 pounds (12% body fat) in case the info is pertinent to my question below.
This past Monday I ran 11.2 miles in 1:51 and burned an estimated 696 calories based on the estimate from my Garmin 910. Avg hr was 133.
Today I biked 37.6 miles in 1:56 and burned an estimated 1487 based on the data from the Powerbeam. Avg power was 149 and avg hr was 137.
So time and hr was relatively close between the two sessions, but the calorie estimate difference is 100%.
Is this due to:
a) I am new to cycling so inefficient
b) my weight is low enough that the running calorie burn per minute at the same heart rate is simply going to be lower based on my mass
c) cycling is primarily all large muscle vs running being a combo of large and small (arm swing), so at the same hr, the legs are working harder in cycling and thus the bigger muscles are burning more cals
Or …
BTW, while the data is from two specific sessions this week, the pattern is consistent across my running and biking sessions, so the above data is not an anomaly.
…
Today I biked 37.6 miles in 1:56 and burned an estimated 1487 based on the data from the Powerbeam. Avg power was 149 and avg hr was 137.
…
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but that calorie calculation doesn’t seem right. I would think it should be closer to 1000 ((149w * 7200s) / 1000 = 1073kj)
I generally estimate running at approx. 100 calories per mile depending on intensity.
On a side note, what do you actually do with ‘calories burned’ information? Whereas I find that info marginally interesting, I never find it beneficial to any areas of my training.
I generally estimate running at approx. 100 calories per mile depending on intensity.
On a side note, what do you actually do with ‘calories burned’ information? Whereas I find that info marginally interesting, I never find it beneficial to any areas of my training.
I use it to estimate my caloric needs for the day. For several yrs I’ve been doing this, using 275 cal/1000 swim, 140 cal/mi run, 55 cal/mi bike, and 100 cal/mi walk. Came up with these off of several sources of estimated caloric burn, and they are based on me at 6’2", 175 lbs, and 8% fat. Also, I’ve had my BMR measured and it came out at about 2400 cal/day sitting quietly in a chair, so I estimate 2700 for my average caloric burn before workouts. So, I can do a rough calculation of cals burned every day and then balance this against my food and drink intake. This method has worked pretty well over several years.
Sometimes if I forget to switch activities on my Garmin the calorie count is way off. For instance, if it thinks I’m running but im actually biking my calories are through the roof and vice versa.
Sometimes if I forget to switch activities on my Garmin the calorie count is way off. For instance, if it thinks I’m running but im actually biking my calories are through the roof and vice versa.
That’s funny!!! You finish a 25-mi bike and it says you burned 3000 calories!!!
It’s a very rough estimate but if you are going at an endurace/‘all day’ pace then its roughly 100 calories a mile running and 400ish an hour cycling. The garmin readings for calories burned is most of the time 40% higher than the actual calories burned. Not sure why it said you only burned 700 calories for 11.2 mile run. That one should be 500 calories higher. Roughly
I don’t really use the calorie count for anything myself, although I do find it interesting to look at from time to time. I noticed this week that the way garmin estimates calories with a heart rate monitor and without give crazy different numbers. I did a 8mi run with my heart rate monitor on wednesday and it said i burned 761 calories. On thursday I forgot the heart rate monitor so I ran without it, this time 9.5 miles (very very close to the same pace–both were on a treadmill and I was using a footpod). The garmin estimated I burned 1311 calories on that run!
I’m inclined to believe the 761 is closer to reality, clearly. I was running at my every day run pace which is confortable for me. My average heart rate was 149. I hope no one is basing their calorie intake on garmins estimates without a heart rate monitor!
It’s a very rough estimate but if you are going at an endurace/‘all day’ pace then its roughly 100 calories a mile running and 400ish an hour cycling. The garmin readings for calories burned is most of the time 40% higher than the actual calories burned. Not sure why it said you only burned 700 calories for 11.2 mile run. That one should be 500 calories higher. Roughly400ish calories an hour cycling = ~110 watts avg = way low. All day pace varies, obviously, but I would think all day pace for most people here would be at least 600 calories.
It’s a very rough estimate but if you are going at an endurace/‘all day’ pace then its roughly 100 calories a mile running and 400ish an hour cycling. The garmin readings for calories burned is most of the time 40% higher than the actual calories burned. Not sure why it said you only burned 700 calories for 11.2 mile run. That one should be 500 calories higher. Roughly
I am hoping Starky reads this and plans on eating (400 / 2 = 200 calories to replace per hr) in his next Ironman.
One rule of thumb is 100 calories per mile for running/jogging/walking. The faster you run, the more you burn per hour.
For cycling, I’d have to do the math, but because of the efficiency involved with the drivetrain, it being less/non weight bearing, it is less. The number that comes to my mind is 750 kilojoules (roughly 750 calories) in 1 hour is 207 or so watts.
So, your run estimate was probably low. Your bike estimate likely high.
One rule of thumb is 100 calories per mile for running/jogging/walking. The faster you run, the more you burn per hour.
For cycling, I’d have to do the math, but because of the efficiency involved with the drivetrain, it being less/non weight bearing, it is less. The number that comes to my mind is 750 kilojoules (roughly 750 calories) in 1 hour is 207 or so watts.
So, your run estimate was probably low. Your bike estimate likely high.
Your bike math is pretty much right on the money.
Assuming a GME of 23.9% Calories on the bike are equal to kj of work performed (the 23.9% GME assumption balances out the 4.184 kj of work per dietary Calorie)
and kj of work = 3.6hoursaverage_power
So 200 watts AP ~= 720 Calories per hour
If an athlete knows their GME from a lab test that included a gas exchange mask and appropriate protocol they can refine that estimate but it’s pretty close for most riders.
One rule of thumb is 100 calories per mile for running/jogging/walking. The faster you run, the more you burn per hour.
For cycling, I’d have to do the math, but because of the efficiency involved with the drivetrain, it being less/non weight bearing, it is less. The number that comes to my mind is 750 kilojoules (roughly 750 calories) in 1 hour is 207 or so watts.
So, your run estimate was probably low. Your bike estimate likely high.
Your bike math is pretty much right on the money.
Assuming a GME of 23.9% Calories on the bike are equal to kj of work performed (the 23.9% GME assumption balances out the 4.184 kj of work per dietary Calorie)
and kj of work = 3.6hoursaverage_power
So 200 watts AP ~= 720 Calories per hour
If an athlete knows their GME from a lab test that included a gas exchange mask and appropriate protocol they can refine that estimate but it’s pretty close for most riders.
So if we take 200 watts as roughly 20 mph on flat ground, then the cyclist is only burning 36 cal/mi??? I’ve seen the bike calculator.com web site and that is its prediction for me at 175 lbs, 6’2", and 7% fat. Based on my experience though, I definitely need to eat more than just 36 cal for every mile ridden. As I posted above, I use 55 cal/mi bike, 140 cal/mi run, and 275 cal/1000 yd swim to calculate my caloric needs. I’ve been using these numbers for about 20 yrs and they seem to work for me as I’ve maintained my weight over the years.
So if we take 200 watts as roughly 20 mph on flat ground, then the cyclist is only burning 36 cal/mi??? I’ve seen the bike calculator.com web site and that is its prediction for me at 175 lbs, 6’2", and 7% fat. Based on my experience though, I definitely need to eat more than just 36 cal for every mile ridden. As I posted above, I use 55 cal/mi bike, 140 cal/mi run, and 275 cal/1000 yd swim to calculate my caloric needs. I’ve been using these numbers for about 20 yrs and they seem to work for me as I’ve maintained my weight over the years.
I’m surprised - even during a hard effort, more than ~400 cal/hour (+~100 from a bottle) will make me feel terrible. Frequently, during hard hour efforts, it’s just bottle calories.
So if we take 200 watts as roughly 20 mph on flat ground, then the cyclist is only burning 36 cal/mi??? I’ve seen the bike calculator.com web site and that is its prediction for me at 175 lbs, 6’2", and 7% fat. Based on my experience though, I definitely need to eat more than just 36 cal for every mile ridden. As I posted above, I use 55 cal/mi bike, 140 cal/mi run, and 275 cal/1000 yd swim to calculate my caloric needs. I’ve been using these numbers for about 20 yrs and they seem to work for me as I’ve maintained my weight over the years.
I’m surprised - even during a hard effort, more than ~400 cal/hour (+~100 from a bottle) will make me feel terrible. Frequently, during hard hour efforts, it’s just bottle calories.
Replace when I get home to the fridge
I didn’t mean to imply that I was taking all those calories in during the workouts but rather that I need to eat more than just 36 cal/mi of cycling and 100 cal/mi running. Actually, I eat as little as possible during training and rather just have a big dinner when I get home:)
