Distance vs Time vs Calories

[crossy]

When I used to run I used the formula of 100 calories per mile. It didn’t matter what time I took to run the mile it was still 100 calories. Working it out if I took 1 hour or 40 minutes to run 6 miles I would still work out to 600 calories. Would cycling be the same?

[Nearholmer]

I’m a bit sceptical about what you say regarding running (and, isn't taking 1h 40m to cover six miles walking anyway?), but all sorts of factors affect the rate of energy consumption when cycling, notably wind, surface roughness, and hills.

A mile downhill on a smooth road with the wind behind you might consume virtually no energy above metabolic base, just a tiny bit to fuel muscles for steering and balance. A mile up a steep, rocky track, into the teeth of a gale will consume rather a lot of energy.

There are some “rough average” figures kicking around as guides for people cycling for light exercise, 30 to 40 Calories per mile is sometimes cited, but they probably don’t mean much at an individual level for a particular bike ride, and I’m never totally convinced even by the numbers that things like heart-rate monitor algorithms calculate. The latter certainly catch the general drift, so will give a higher number for a harder ride, but I doubt they are particularly accurate as absolute figures.

[Paulatic]

A Quick Look at my watch data and unsurprisingly I don’t have any big variation in avg speed.
All I can say is
Cycling 35Cal / ml
Walking 80Cal/ ml
Badminton 330Cal/ hr

[PH]

When I used to run I used the formula of 100 calories per mile. It didn’t matter what time I took to run the mile it was still 100 calories. Working it out if I took 1 hour or 40 minutes to run 6 miles I would still work out to 600 calories. Would cycling be the same?

The same what? Calories per mile? No, cycling is far more efficient. Calories per hour? No running requires far more effort.
If you have a HRM, you can make a simple efficiency calculation, speed divided by heart rate. That gives you a comparative figure, rather than a value, but f you are happy with the running formula, transferring it on the basis of that ratio is going to put you in the right region. However, I would be very surprised if your running was a consistent 100 cal per mile at any speed. Like with cycling, your body will be most efficient in a very narrow band, you don't save much by slowing that down and it can take a lot of extra effort to even slightly increase it.

[crossy]

That was 1hr to do 6 mile or 40mins to do 6 miles not 1hr 40 min to do 6 miles even I wasn’t that slow.

[Cugel]

Calorie counting - is it any use for anything?

The first difficulty is counting them. Various food-types are given values but they probably vary a lot due to all sorts of factors such as water-content or the calorie-form and how easily a body can absorb them.

When exercising, the energy-burn rate varies with a long list of factors and there's no truly accurate or even good-guess to be made by gym machines or gizmo-watches.
*******
What's the objective of counting them? Usually weight loss attempts or measuring exercise abilities. There are far better ways to do this that don't involve counting made-up metrics. For example ....

To lose weight just change the type of food eaten and the quantities of it. Food types make a huge difference to how your body responds, including how they affect your on-going appetite, often the bugbear of weight-loss diets.

To measure energy output, observe how fast or otherwise efficient you are at the exercise you're trying to improve at.

To estimate energy requirements for doing something, do it and find out when you run out of energy then respond by fuelling for that next time. Repeat until you know for different levels and periods of the exercise.

***********
It's a mad habit to attempt to insert spurious metrics like calorie counts into these activities. It just confuses and misleads from one's actual experiences, generally the best method of finding things out.

[Jdsk]

I’m a bit sceptical about what you say regarding running (and, isn't taking 1h 40m to cover six miles walking anyway?), but all sorts of factors affect the rate of energy consumption when cycling, notably wind, surface roughness, and hills.
...

Sure, but I think the question is about what happens if you keep those the same and vary only time to complete.

The same what? Calories per mile? No, cycling is far more efficient. Calories per hour? No running requires far more effort.

I don't think that the OP was asking for that comparison. Rather whether the asserted effect is the same for each mode.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

When I used to run I used the formula of 100 calories per mile. It didn’t matter what time I took to run the mile it was still 100 calories. Working it out if I took 1 hour or 40 minutes to run 6 miles I would still work out to 600 calories. Would cycling be the same?

I don't know and I can't recall either any direct studies or analysis.

My first thought on the latter is that aerodynamic work is much higher when cycling than when running. And the power that requires goes up with an exponent of greater than one with speed. But the time taken goes down with only a power of one. So I'd expect the total work done to go up with speed, and not be constant across differing times to complete.

The next step in that analysis would be to separate out the basal work of generating heat from the additional work required to complete the exercise.

Jonathan

[Blondie]

No because the relationship between power and speed on a bike is not a linear relationship, it is cubic. The faster you go, the greater the energy cost per mile.

[Morzedec]

Quick - another pasty, please. Fit now for the next 100 miles.



Happy days.

[foxyrider]

No because the relationship between power and speed on a bike is not a linear relationship, it is cubic. The faster you go, the greater the energy cost per mile.

not always - get a nice tailwind and it could be lower than going slow in the other direction.

[gbnz]

not always - get a nice tailwind and it could be lower than going slow in the other direction.

Or no wind. Had a 66 mile gym ride over the summer, persistent wind has been unpleasant. Yesterday, took the 66 mile former gym route, purely to do the shopping? Absolutely no wind, both there and back, it was easy beyond belief. Hadn't realised I'd passed over one of the slight climbs on the return, a section which is always a slog, until I was 2-3 miles past it, despite the XL Ortlieb panniers, packed to the brim. Couldn't quite believe it

And calories, time, distance ? Had a 47 mile gym ride in the spring, then a 66 mile gym ride over the summer. Despite good intentions, not once looked at the scales, concerning as the only decent bakers locally, are near the 47 & 66 mile gyms, c/w far too much consumption. Felt slimmer & slimmer, aside from 01 June, not once weighed myself

But having sensibly taken out a gym membership locally, for the winter months, just a 7 mile round ride away, 4 weeks ago ? Only checked the scales this week, as was somehow feeling "fatter". Must have dropped a stone without trying over the summer, But past 4 weeks, dropping the 66 miles to 7 miles, has had a notable effect, am having to actually think about what I'm eating, first time since January ! In contrast to a summer excess bakery consumption, the only decent bakeries locally, being on the 47 & 66 mile gym rides.

Given that I've only had 8-9 actual "rides" this year (Nb. Gym routes having more than sufficient moors, castles, iron age forts, Roman roads, estuaries, views en route to suffice) and have literally not had a minute "doing" cardio @ the gym), has proved to me that miles do make the difference

[Blondie]

No because the relationship between power and speed on a bike is not a linear relationship, it is cubic. The faster you go, the greater the energy cost per mile.

not always - get a nice tailwind and it could be lower than going slow in the other direction.

That's a bit like saying you use less energy coasting downhill to riding slower uphill in the opposite direction. Perhaps I should have said all other variables being the same.

Either way, it highlights the idea of you have ridden this distance or duration and therefore purely based on these variables burned these calories, is a flawed concept.

[Manc33]

See if this spreadsheet helps. It's only based on my own findings, but it's based on more than 160 bike rides and might give a reasonable answer. Enter stuff next to yellow cells, the answer is next to green cells:

Code: Select all

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ie7bb5w8cgw2awc8q9sd3/Cycling-Calorie-Calculator.xls?rlkey=hws631dw7151svmyunrxudwde&st=r83a125h&dl=1