then it says
"bicycling, general, 417 calories per hour burned"
so.. im a bit confused. they both seem to mean the same thing, because there are so many different speeds of bicycling listed and "general" and "to work, for leisure" sound very similar...
is there a difference?
or is one correct and one wrong??
(sorry if this is a confusing question, i myself am confused!)
The calories burned depends on your weight and the speed you are cycling at. This site gives you some idea, but no exact information.
I believe it's all relative to your age, weight, height, and physical exertion...(heart rate)
i know when I bike, 40 minutes, at average speed of 11.0 mph at an average distance of 8 miles, I burn 420 calories.
If you are feeling winded while biking, you are burning more calories than just a leisure ride where your heart rate isn't high at all.
~H~
they helped a lot :D
good advice
I wish this site's bicycling calorie burn was based upon reality, instead of ex recto.
Well I'm sorry to say that According to my POLAR heart rate monitor....that is EXACTLY the amount of calories I am burning....
BTW YES it's a mountain bike.
I NEVER use this site's calorie expenditures...NEVER!
Thanks anyways!
Another thing...you are probably in WAY better cardio or physical shape than myself...so of course you wouldnt burn as many calories as me. My heart rate is in 140 range for entire biking time.....Trust me, it ain't a 'leisure' stroll thru the park.
~H~
Original Post by haley_2008:
Another thing...you are probably in WAY better cardio or physical shape than myself...so of course you wouldnt burn as many calories as me. My heart rate is in 140 range for entire biking time.....Trust me, it ain't a 'leisure' stroll thru the park.
~H~
It doesn't work that way. To move a given mass a given distance against a given resistance in a given time takes the same amount of energy for a fit person as it does for an unfit person[1]. The difference in perceived effort is because the fit person's capacity for doing work is a lot greater.
Anyway, for the benefit of the other readers, the fact that you're using a mountain bike works out in your favor: it is heavier and less aerodynamic than a road bike, and offers a lot more rolling resistance. The Polar HRM is off by less than 10% in this case. It'd be off a LOT more for a road bike.
[1] energy = force x distance
force = acceleration x mass
None of these depend upon one's fitness level, which is why your calorie burn and my calorie burn are the same, given the same bike, the same road, the same wind, and the same speed.
If I were riding a 'road' bike, of course my heart rate would be a lot lower as I wouldn't be working as hard - thus burning fewer calories....therefore the heart rate monitor would probably still be dead on!
I agree with your energy/force blah blah blah however, are we the exact same weight and height? I don't believe we would burn the exact same amount of calories for an activity if we were not identical creatures having identical mass....I thought as you got into better shape, with less mass, it takes more of a certain activity to burn as many calories than it took at a higher weight....hard to explain what I am trying to say.
am I wrong to assume that part?
~H~
As you lose weight, the number of calories you burn for any activity goes down since it takes more energy to move a heavier body. So you are certainly right about that. But two people the same weight, one in shape and one not? I am not sure there would be a difference there.
Original Post by clharr:
As you lose weight, the number of calories you burn for any activity goes down since it takes more energy to move a heavier body. So you are certainly right about that. But two people the same weight, one in shape and one not? I am not sure there would be a difference there.
Exactly. For comparison, I weigh 157 pounds, and, for what it's worth, as your speed increases, wind resistance quickly dwarfs any other factor in the energy required to move the bike.
Riding uphill, however, weight is everything.
Original Post by haley_2008:
If I were riding a 'road' bike, of course my heart rate would be a lot lower as I wouldn't be working as hard - thus burning fewer calories....therefore the heart rate monitor would probably still be dead on!
I agree with your energy/force blah blah blah however, are we the exact same weight and height? I don't believe we would burn the exact same amount of calories for an activity if we were not identical creatures having identical mass....I thought as you got into better shape, with less mass, it takes more of a certain activity to burn as many calories than it took at a higher weight....hard to explain what I am trying to say.
am I wrong to assume that part?
~H~
I agree that calories burned depend on your age, height, and weight. So, her polar is probably pretty accurate for her. I know when I look up an activity on CC, the numbers change depend on whether I logged a different weight, so it definately matters! It takes longer for a person with a lower weight to burn calories with the same activity than someone who is at a higher weight for their height.
Okay, one point I see being left out in this argument...does the amount of lean muscle mass versus fat factor into the calorie burning equation? I have frequently seen materials both in print and on the internet that suggest people with great lean muscle mass burn more calories. What exactly does this mean for someone in better shape? Or is it just pounds, where someone with higher weight burns more calories regardless of their shape, and the amount of muscle does not count?
One more point, almost as an aside, I ride my bike to and from college everyday, and also work out three times a week at the gym, on machines that tell me what I am burning. Shouldn't two activities that raise my heart rate equally burn equal calories in a given amount of time? Running gets my heart rate up pretty high, but an equivalent amount of elliptical cross-training (calorie-equivalent) does not raise my heart rate as high or seem as strenuous. And cycling seems HARDER for the amount of calorie burn...can these numbers be wrong? Or am I just terribly confused?
Original Post by clharr:
As you lose weight, the number of calories you burn for any activity goes down since it takes more energy to move a heavier body. So you are certainly right about that. But two people the same weight, one in shape and one not? I am not sure there would be a difference there.
Well it will make a difference in the percentage of carbohydrate/fat burned of total calories. Out of shape person would be more in the anaerobic side of the exercise, thus burning higher percentage of carbohydrates stored in a body. A fit person will be in the aerobic side, so the higher percentage of fat, from total calories expended, will be used. This means out of shape person won't be able to maintain the same speed for as long as in shape person.
UD
Bicycling is a non-weight bearing activity so, as Behanna points out, weight is not a factor. And on a road bike height is not a factor either. Even riding up hill, where weight will effect speed, won't have much impact on calories either unless you don't ride down the other side.
Well... in a perfect world where there is no wind resistance, and rider just moves at a constant speed yes. In real world mass does make a difference since it takes more energy to accelerate heavier things. For example going from a stop sign, red light, countering group accelerations, etc. Difference might be small, but over time it adds up. For hills, mass does make a difference. It takes more energy to lift a heavier mass then a lighter one.
UD
Mass work both ways. It takes more energy to accelerate mass but less energy to maintain the speed of the larger mass (bodies in motion tend to stay in motion), also the lighter rider will decelerate faster and therefore have to accelerate more often. And the heavier rider will have an advantage over the lighter rider on the decents.
The are many different types of bicycling and they will favor different types of riders but for the average recreational cyclists mass won't be the biggest factor in regard to calories burned. Intesity of effort and duration are key.
Original Post by trhawley:
Mass work both ways. It takes more energy to accelerate mass but less energy to maintain the speed of the larger mass (bodies in motion tend to stay in motion), also the lighter rider will decelerate faster and therefore have to accelerate more often. And the heavier rider will have an advantage over the lighter rider on the decents.
The are many different types of bicycling and they will favor different types of riders but for the average recreational cyclists mass won't be the biggest factor in regard to calories burned. Intesity of effort and duration are key.
What he said.
Ballisticians speak of "cross-sectional density;" i.e., mass per unit cross-sectional area. The greater the cross-sectional density, the less a projectile is slowed by wind resistance.
Heavier riders have greater cross-sectional density than slower riders (they joke of having an "aero belly" 
), and that is one reason that they can truck right along on the flats, and descend like stones. Of course, the other reason is that larger people tend to have more muscle mass, and can thus keep the watts up.
One guy I ride with is over 6' tall and around 195 pounds. He can grind me to powder, even though I'm 5'8", 157 pounds, and visibly slimmer than he. He's just a beast, pure and simple.
Get quick and free access to the Calorie Count database!
Text "BB" to 432584 to get started.