# Calories burned: MTB vs. Road Biking



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Here's a hypothetical scenario:

One road bicyclist rides at 75% maximum effort on a level paved road for 5 miles.

One MTBer---of identical size, shape, and fitness as the road biker---rides at 75% maximum effort on a level gravel/dirt road for 5 miles.

QUESTION: Which rider burns more calories?

---
I'm posting because a popular fitness/weight loss website called My Fitness Pal makes the assumption that road bikers burn more calories than MTBers riding the same distance/time/intensity.

I say "No way." I do both road and mountain biking...and I'm ALWAYS more wiped-out after a long MTB ride than a long road ride.

Scott


----------



## Mike Gager (Jul 30, 2010)

hmm the fitness trackers i use show mountain biking as burning more calories

if you think about it the road bikes are going to be a lot more efficient then a mountain bike so even at 75% output it might take a road biker 20 minutes to do 5 miles but a mountain biker would take an hour


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

I'd have to agree with you. Given the gearing, the MTB ride in your scenario should take longer. At 75% effort the only difference should be time spent riding.


----------



## Twisted1 (Aug 24, 2010)

Mtb burns more. Think about going threw grass, rocks, mud. Its alot more leg power to go threw that then to just ride on the road


----------



## Leopold Porkstacker (Apr 21, 2010)

I used to burn more calories when I rode my roadbike, and that is because I would hammer 24MPH+ for 20 miles at a time before slowing down or resting… unless I was riding up in the hills, wherein my lowest gear ratio was a 39t x 23t, so lots of calories were burned there as well. Meanwhile, my current mountain bike (Surly 1x1 with lots of accessories + fat fat 24"x3" tires on 2.5" wide wheels + Alfine hub) weighs 48 pounds, so I am getting a pretty good amount of calories burned even on low-key rides.


----------



## manabiker (Jul 18, 2010)

If a road bike and a mountain bike were riding side by side on the road, the mountain bike having fatter tires, less air in the tires ,more weight, more area to catch wind, would be harder to ride and would never keep up, if both riders were equal, it seem pretty simple to figure, the road bike would use less energy and energy equals fuel that is calories.. what was so hard about that???
Then put the mountain bike on the trail and it has even more resistance with more turns per mile, mud, sand, gravel etc. 
I think someone has been smoking left handed cigarettes, if they think a road bike burns more calories..LOL!!


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

Trail Ninja said:


> I'd have to agree with you. Given the gearing, the MTB ride in your scenario should take longer. At 75% effort the only difference should be time spent riding.


Wow, only one guy got it right. If 75% effort is given (which it is), it doesn't matter what you're doing, or what you're doing it on. Time spent doing it is the only thing that effects calories burned. And because the road bike is more efficient, he'll cover the 5 miles in less time, and therefore burn less calories.


----------



## Blue&Yellow (Jul 14, 2010)

I asked myself the same question about 10 years ago and actually found that I burned more calories on the road bike. On a road bike you can push more of the time and it's easy to maintain a certain bpm or watts output, but on a mountain-bike there will always be technical sections or downhill sections where you can't give it your all. I do however believe that mtb is much better exercise all around, road racing only needs legs, lungs and heart.

If you want to be a supremely fast mtb:er it's good to get some road time in to build legs and cardiovascular.

If you want to be a supremely fast road racer it's good to get some mtb time in so that the odd slip and slide, curb or gravel won't put you on your behind.


----------



## KINBOY (May 23, 2004)

tduro said:


> Wow, only one guy got it right. If 75% effort is given (which it is), it doesn't matter what you're doing, or what you're doing it on. Time spent doing it is the only thing that effects calories burned. And because the road bike is more efficient, he'll cover the 5 miles in less time, and therefore burn less calories.


Exactly, though, Intervals (so explosive power bursts or short sustained efforts) are proven to have a higher residual caloric burn (the calories you burn after the exercise). 
The mountain bike tends to be more bursts and recovery where the road is more sustained efforts. 
If all was equal, the road and MTB you were to average 170 HR for 1 hour the caloric burns would be similar but the over all caloric burn would be higher if you tracked after effects.

There are so many variables, in the garmin forums the calorie question has always been heated. Some think that the unit over estimates, under estimates etc when nothing (even in a lab) is within 5% and that is with a full lab setting.

I have always agreed with calorie tracking to keep people aware BUT not as an absolute. If you are tracking caalories you are more aware of your intake and use than if you are not. If at the end of the day you are looking at 'I ate 2300 and burned 2400 I am good" you will never succeed as the accuracy of any count/measure is a general term.

Sorry, it's a rant, this one always gets me.

KINesiology BOY


----------



## Jim311 (Feb 7, 2006)

I think it's complete conjecture and impossible to compare, which is why none of the calculators are ever accurate, with the exception of maybe some of those hub mounted calculators that know speed, cadence, etc, and calculate pretty well. It would depend largely on the trail and the road in comparison. If it's a smooth flat road being compared to a steep technical extended climb, the MTB would require more effort. If it's a flat, smooth singletrack ride against a tough steep road climb, the road bike would require more. It's just impossible to compare.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

*Mtb burn more*

I do agree that time spent would be less on the road so you burn less calories. Also, when I climb on the road bike, even the steepest road I'd can still crank at 5-6mph. At that speed you body need less core work out because faster you can go the less you have to fight for balance.

On the Mtb, some climb I can only travel 3mph and that's taking every bit of my balance to stay on the line not to mention extra surge of power to get over ledge and water bar.

So even though 75% of max on both road and mtb, Mtb would burn a more due to the extra use of muscle to maintain balance.

Even on the descend Mtb burn more calories than road.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

It's hard to gauge but in general mtb is, by nature, more interval, and road is more steady. Even with some hills thrown in.
And in general over same time, road bike burns more. Over same distance, mtb wins.
Gotta better 1 for ya. Control the type and amount of food you eat because it only takes a few minutes to eat, as compares to hours of exercise to burn the same calories. 
Go for a ride when you wake, before eating, or after a 45+ minute intense workout to tap into stores fat instead of food.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

In the scenario, the mountain biker burns more calories. Road bikes are very efficient and pavement adds less rolling resistance than a fire road. So it just takes less time and less total energy for the roadie to finish the five miles.

As far as which one is a better aerobic exercise, I think it's a lot harder to sort out. The terrain on an off-road ride frequently obligates the rider to ride hard and just as frequently prevents the rider from doing much more than piloting the bike, which certainly also costs energy. On a road ride, even in fairly hilly terrain if the bike has low gearing, it's possible to cruise at very low effort. For the same reasons, though, it's a lot easier to do structured workouts on a road ride, including stuff like 15-30 minute intervals at maximum intensity for that time. So it's possible to use more effort too.

I think for purposes of weight loss, it's actually more useful to think about which kind of riding is more fun, or motivates a person to work harder. For example, I have a hard time riding hard on my mountain bike outside of racing unless I'm climbing. It's just demoralizing for me to dump a lot of power into my bike only to have to slow down for a sharp turn or lose a lot of speed over an obstacle. I'm a lot happier if I just flow at whatever speed feels natural to me in the terrain, or maybe push things just a little bit. I pedal pretty much continuously regardless, but if I'm not trying to do speed work, I'll choose an easier ratio.

On the road bike, even if I start with the intention of doing an easy ride, I tend to push my pace. If I get into rolling hills, I'll start trying to carry speed up a hill, charge the top, shift into a bigger ring and push the descent, etc. I really like that kind of terrain.  Anyway, I think I work on my aerobic fitness more when I'm road riding, although it's certainly not as rounded a form of exercise as mountain biking - something some other posters have already mentioned.

A lot of people find road riding really boring, though. If a workout's no fun, it's a lot harder to keep doing it. Better to go with something that may be a little less effective but is more interesting, if it keeps you motivated and you actually do it.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

theMeat said:


> Go for a ride when you wake, before eating, or after a 45+ minute intense workout to tap into stores fat instead of food.


Yep, thats exactly what I did to get totally RIPPED. Your body will use fat stores as the immediate energy source for the pre-breakfast ride. However, I did notice body fat makes for a poor source of high performance-related energy(more prone to bonking HARD) and rightfully so...since it is genetically a source of emergency fuel - intended for only the most basic of sedentary life functions(i.e; eating, sleeping breathing, etc.).

Oh, the MTB burns way more calories than the "efficient" road bike, according to my HRM.


----------



## manabiker (Jul 18, 2010)

I burn way more on my MOUNTAIN BIKE, my road bike is a 2005 Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic


----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)

Since I've been "training" for this cyclocross thing (first race is next Sunday), I've been very loosely following a cyclocross training regimen. They promote road cycling as both heavy endurance training and for "recovery rides", spinning at high cadence at around Zone 1 (this is the type of ride I will do today). However, as far as bike handling is concerned, MTB'ing is truly superior over road riding in regards to cyclocross training. I throw in MTB'ing in my routine or I ride trails AND road with my cyclocross bike (like what I did yesterday).

Yesterday I was descending a pretty rough fire road on my CX bike and, what I thought was a stick, was actually a rattlesnake. Last split second, I bunnyhopped it. If I was ONLY a road rider with no other background, I highly doubt I would've been able to do that, that quick. But, I ride BMX and MTB still and can rock a decent bunnyhop.

At the clinic I attended, we had a drill where we had to go down into a small wooded singletrack area, dismount, carry, and run up the hill as fast as we could. I was suprised how many people couldn't ride DOWN into the pit. Many people had to walk down it. Those who were MTB'ers rode down it.

FWIW, road riding is a great calorie burner, but even if MTB'ing doesn't theoretically burn more calories, it sure does offer incredible fringe benefits, especially for cyclocross riding.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

SWriverstone said:


> One road bicyclist rides at 75% maximum effort on a level paved road for 5 miles.
> 
> One MTBer---of identical size, shape, and fitness as the road biker---rides at 75% maximum effort on a level gravel/dirt road for 5 miles.


In this case, rolling resistance will be more for the MTBer. So, it takes longer to do the 5 miles. Longer time at the same effort = more calories.

... I don't have 5 miles of level paved road, or 5 miles of level dirt road, not to speak about 5 miles of level trail.


----------



## Bikinfoolferlife (Feb 3, 2004)

It's obvious the mtb will take more effort under the prescribed circumstances (the flat 5 mile 75% effort thing on pavement vs dirt/gravel). It's like trying to compare which is more enjoyable, though of course I find mountain biking more enjoyable in general, but I know roadies who say just the opposite...suum quique


----------



## gcedillo (Aug 19, 2007)

You can measure with a power meter and MEASURE actual energy expenditure in Watts, that way is dificult to lie to yourself like I did before, it is disheartening but some days you feel like you did a maximum effort (yes with recovery periods and all) and you discover a much lesser performance, the only thing is that this thing is expensive.


----------



## iloj (Oct 20, 2009)

....a level gravel / dirt road is not mountain biking !


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

iloj said:


> ....a level gravel / dirt road is not mountain biking !


... and this relates to the OP in what way?


----------



## bingemtbr (Apr 1, 2004)

MTB's burn more. 

Used to train with a HR monitor. An hour trail ride at 75% max effort burned more calories for me than an hour road ride at 75% max effort. The higher HR/cal output was probably due to engaging more, different muscle groups. I could push 100% effort on a road bike in various conditions, (wind, rain, group pace lines, etc.) but still could not burn as much as what I did on a mediocre trail ride. 

FWIW, the HR monitor was set up to my body type and body mass as per the instructions provided. There was no setting on it to distinguish different activities. It didn't know if I was cycling, running, or play badminton.


----------



## herbn (Sep 17, 2005)

i was gonna say, 75%=75% but that's just legs right,or are you adding all the muscle groups up,if you just measure leg output then after a few hrs the other muscles used will burn more calories on the mtn bike,arms and core.


----------



## gcedillo (Aug 19, 2007)

power meter


----------



## Critter7r (Apr 5, 2007)

manabiker said:


> *If a road bike and a mountain bike were riding side by side on the road, the mountain bike having fatter tires, less air in the tires ,more weight, more area to catch wind, would be harder to ride and would never keep up, if both riders were equal, it seem pretty simple to figure, the road bike would use less energy and energy equals fuel that is calories.. *what was so hard about that???
> Then put the mountain bike on the trail and it has even more resistance with more turns per mile, mud, sand, gravel etc.
> I think someone has been smoking left handed cigarettes, if they think a road bike burns more calories..LOL!!


But if both riders are riding at 75% of capacity, the difficulty of their work is irrelevant. If I'm climbing a mounting using only my arms and using 75% of my maximum HR, and you (as an idnetically sized and shaped and fitness of an identical level) were juggling bananas with only your feet and using 75% of your maximum HR, then we're burning exactly the same number of calories. Granted, if we're talking about an equal distance, then it's likely that the MTB'er will take longer to cover that distance, so yes, he'll use more calories, but only because of the time factor.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Critter7r said:


> But if both riders are riding at 75% of capacity, the difficulty of their work is irrelevant. If I'm climbing a mounting using only my arms and using 75% of my maximum HR, and you (as an idnetically sized and shaped and fitness of an identical level) were juggling bananas with only your feet and using 75% of your maximum HR, then we're burning exactly the same number of calories. Granted, if we're talking about an equal distance, then it's likely that the MTB'er will take longer to cover that distance, so yes, he'll use more calories, but only because of the time factor.


+1

The OP was *equal* distance and *equal* effort. The *only* thing that could possibly effect calories burned is *time spent*.



> Here's a *hypothetical *scenario:
> 
> One road bicyclist rides at *75% maximum effort* on a level paved road for *5 miles*.
> 
> ...


This statement is a slightly different scenario because it includes * equal time*. It's also an improbable scenario as the time spent shouldn't be equal.



> I'm posting because a popular fitness/weight loss website called My Fitness Pal makes the assumption that road bikers burn more calories than MTBers riding *the same distance/time/intensity*.


If all three were equal, the calories burned would be equal too. The distance is irrelevant for calculating calorie consumption. Time and intensity will determine how many calories you use.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

It's quite normal to ride at 75% on the road, another story altogether on the mountain bike. If you ride 75% on the road for 1 hr, you may be satisfy. Not the same as MTB, you'd feel like you've not put in the work out. It takes so much for me to hit 90% on the road, MTB it comes almost automatically.

Don't know about you guys, but 75% Max HR is low for MTB riding regardless of fitness level,IMO. Even if the Max HR is 200 BPM at 75% is only 150, most riders' max HR is 10-20 bpm less. For those who use HR monitor, you'd know the bulk of time spent on an avg ride is between 80-90%. One thing for sure it's more fun to time-trial on a MTB, than paved road, as many things keep your mind off the pain and keep you pushing harder. On the road at 90% you just feel the pain every second.

May be what's OP was asking is generally what most of us understand. When get technical about the wording, we have different answer, because at the end of the day 75% is 75% regardless.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

SWriverstone said:


> Here's a hypothetical scenario:
> 
> One road bicyclist rides at 75% maximum effort on a level paved road for 5 miles.
> 
> ...


Well your hypothetical question has a really easy answer....

The same rider at the same level of output....

So who goes faster the roadie....therefore the MTB guy has to ride longer at the same level of output.....so the MTB guy puts out more energy.

A better questions the same rider on the road and on a MTB ride at 75% of max, for the same amount of time.

Both riders put out the same amount of energy.


----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)

jeffscott said:


> Well your hypothetical question has a really easy answer....
> 
> The same rider at the same level of output....
> 
> ...


Which weighs more: a pound of rocks or a pund of feathers? Hmmmmmm?!


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Dion said:


> Which weighs more: a pound of rocks or a pund of feathers? Hmmmmmm?!


Let's say the rock is made of gold, silver or gemstones. Then the feathers are heavier.

Troy vs. Avoirdupois


----------



## Bikinfoolferlife (Feb 3, 2004)

Trail Ninja said:


> +1
> 
> The OP was *equal* distance and *equal* effort. The *only* thing that could possibly effect calories burned is *time spent*.
> 
> ...


Not quite. The proposal is equal effort and distance with different tire sizes and surfaces, time isn't specified. Time will be determined by efficiency as a result; fatter tires on a gravel road aren't as efficient as skinny tires on a paved road and it will take more time (due to the less efficient interface of tire/road, somewhat also aerodynamics) for the circumstances specified.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Bikinfoolferlife said:


> Not quite. The proposal is equal effort and distance with different tire sizes and surfaces, time isn't specified. Time will be determined by efficiency as a result; fatter tires on a gravel road aren't as efficient as skinny tires on a paved road and it will take more time (due to the less efficient interface of tire/road, somewhat also aerodynamics) for the circumstances specified.


Yeah, we determined that MTB would take more time & therefore more calories in swSilverstone's hypothetical scenario.

The "equal calories" refers to the statement made by the My Fitness Pal website in the OP .



> I'm posting because a popular fitness/weight loss website called My Fitness Pal makes the assumption that road bikers burn more calories than MTBers riding the same distance/time/intensity.


I'm aware that the statement isn't likely to be possible. It assumes that MTB's and road bikes use the same time & intensity to cover the same distance


----------



## Bikinfoolferlife (Feb 3, 2004)

Trail Ninja said:


> Yeah, we determined that MTB would take more time & therefore more calories in swSilverstone's hypothetical scenario.
> 
> The "equal calories" refers to the statement made by the My Fitness Pal website in the OP .


I only commented because the part you quoted had only to do with the OP's scenario, not the website's assumptions he mentioned....


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Here's what is mostly_* involved*_:

Road(flat ride):
1. Steering
2. Occasional shifts
3. Maintaining cadence

Mountain(singletrack):
1. Low speed balancing
2. Shifting gears
3. Shifting body weight(climbs/descents)
4. Looking ahead
5. Braking
6. Applying power to climb
7. Clearing obstacles

Its apparent mountain riding is clearly a bodily resource-sapping(calorie-burning) endeavor on all counts. Just completing a single ride without putting a foot down places your powers of concentration on full sensory overload!!!


----------



## herbn (Sep 17, 2005)

Zachariah said:


> Here's what is mostly_* involved*_:
> 
> Road(flat ride):
> 1. Steering
> ...


Lets see i


----------



## KINBOY (May 23, 2004)

gcedillo said:


> You can measure with a power meter and MEASURE actual energy expenditure in Watts, that way is dificult to lie to yourself like I did before, it is disheartening but some days you feel like you did a maximum effort (yes with recovery periods and all) and you discover a much lesser performance, the only thing is that this thing is expensive.


Yes and then is it a power meter at the wheel, crank etc? At the wheel you need to compensate for drive train loss (different on every bike) and your specific efficiency level (we all burn at different levels, efficiencies and proportion of energy source). Different calorie sources are more or less efficient. 
An athlete is more effient at using energy, using multiple caloric sources, even breathing!
*
A power meter is measuring your output NOT your burn rate. * :madman:

Also, if you are using the power meter you are not factoring external influences, temp, humidity and wind. All of these effect your output vs real time burn rates.

Take a ride on a 70 deg day and a 90 deg day and use a power meter. On the hotter day if your body is working the same the output is different as your body is using more energy to control its temperature.

Also, road you have a nice steady cooling of wind from motion, relitave to MTB there is a variance as speed is not the same and you are often sheltered. But cooler in the shade.

You see the issues, this is why Calorie counts are usually out a minimum of 20% and usually near 50-75% across the entire population.

KIN


----------



## macpacheco (Dec 17, 2016)

SWriverstone said:


> Here's a hypothetical scenario:
> 
> One road bicyclist rides at 75% maximum effort on a level paved road for 5 miles.
> 
> ...


Likely the MTB rider, since he's going to loose a lot of energy to imperfections in the gravel/dirt.
The road biker would need to ride much, much faster to use more calories (loosing more energy to air friction than the MTB rider looses to the road).
At the same time, its easier for the road rider to better use his muscles by concentrating on the 360 degrees of pedal force, while the MTB rider might be more focused on obstacles and constantly having to recover from lost speed due to bumps and such. Better usage of his muscles = higher calories/time passed.
Since the speeds would be so much different, I think its more useful to compare calories per time rather than calories per distance. In that view, the road rider that can achieve high speeds can use so many more calories.
Road allows the rider to better find his optimal effort levels and focus on slowly increasing his intensity. MTB usually have ups/downs which limit how efficiently you can spend your calories.
Feeling of how spent you are at the end of a workout isn't the same as using more calories. It has more to do with maximum exertion (force peaks) and how long you did that.
The winner of any medium/long distance race uses higher pedal speed to minimize muscle wear, which is exactly trying to reduce him from getting spent and having to slow down. Top riders do 100-120rpms on the pedal, which is insanely fast and requires very high concentration and ultimate levels of muscular efficiency.


----------



## Giodog2000 (Jun 6, 2016)

Are they pretty much spot on or some flaws?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

What weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of sand?


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

If nothing else, the heavier average weight of a mountain bike is going to take more energy to move. Hence, more calories burned.


----------



## luvdabeach2001 (Nov 11, 2011)

Hawg said:


> If nothing else, the heavier average weight of a mountain bike is going to take more energy to move. Hence, more calories burned.


It takes a given amount of fuel to make an engine work at 75% effort, depending on how effort. At 75% effort it will take longer to move a heavier object the same distance as a lighter object, thus more fuel will need to be burned.

The video does a fairly good job but still has a few variables that aren't negated, i.e. Can the roadie just put down more power than the mtn biker? The course for both makes a difference also.

If I spend too much time worrying about how many calories I am burning on a given ride I tend to not have as much fun which means I don't ride as long and then don't burn as many calories.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

luvdabeach2001 said:


> It takes a given amount of fuel to make an engine work at 75% effort, depending on how effort. At 75% effort it will take longer to move a heavier object the same distance as a lighter object, thus more fuel will need to be burned.
> 
> The video does a fairly good job but still has a few variables that aren't negated, i.e. Can the roadie just put down more power than the mtn biker? The course for both makes a difference also.
> 
> If I spend too much time worrying about how many calories I am burning on a given ride I tend to not have as much fun which means I don't ride as long and then don't burn as many calories.


It also ignored or failed to collect HR data.

Personally, I'll always work harder on a road bike, I'll pedal to a certain exertion level until I spin out. On a mountain bike, I'll coast far more often. Sometimes I'll really work on my MTB, but that's the exception, not the rule, where the opposite is true of road riding.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Interesting perspectives. 

The road bike is such a good training and fitness tool because its so flexible. You can cruise for an hour and burn basically nothing (but get a decent stretch), or you can mash for an hour until your heart nearly explodes and your legs burn. Theres some really well studied methods of riding a road bike to maximize your workout and get the most out of the time you spend on the bike. Road bike training is down to a science. 

You definitely can apply that to riding a mountain bike, but it seems a bit impractical sometimes. Around here most rides involve some pretty steep, long climbs. Taking it "easy" on those climbs still gets your heart pounding and legs burning, and results in most casual riders pushing bikes or going home. Its hard to get new riders to ride a mountain bike with me because everything is so steep! A few hours on the road bikes is anywhere from kid-friendly to a serious fast ride where Im dropped early on. 

In short, I think the road bike takes the ticket for a training tool, regardless of which burns more calories in a specific scenario. I think that was more about picking a scenario that favors mtb than picking one as a fair comparison. You can tailor a training program on a road bike that favors your body type and goals, its much harder riding dirt trails. Also, zombie thread!


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

richde said:


> Personally, I'll always work harder on a road bike, I'll pedal to a certain exertion level until I spin out. On a mountain bike, I'll coast far more often. Sometimes I'll really work on my MTB, but that's the exception, not the rule, where the opposite is true of road riding.


Same here. During mtb rides there are hundreds of "excuses" to rest for brief periods (downhills, dangerous terrain, corners, etc.) whereas road riding offers no such relief. Either discipline can be as painful as you want it to be though.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

Mountain biking dictates your posture. Cornering, descending, etc, all pull you out of your fully enaged maximum output position. If you just want to expend maximum energy, engage every muscle and pound like the hulk. If you want to be dynamic, move around on the bike and flow with the terrain.

Either way, you aren't enjoying your ride 100% if you are thinking about calories.


----------



## mr_chrome (Jan 17, 2005)

From a physics standpoint, 75% of whatever you measure compared to 75% exerted in another form of physical prowess is still equal....... 

Work = force X distance 
Power = work / time

If you measure something by either one of these equations with the answer being 75% output, whatever you are comparing is equal - it is the variables on the other side that change and THAT is where you see the comparisons between MTBikers and roadies.....


----------



## abelfonseca (Dec 26, 2011)

@75% effort on both for the same amount of distance, you will be burning more calories on the MTB as you will take longer to complete said distance.


----------



## bakerjw (Oct 8, 2014)

Good analysis by many.
Time is the key factor. If a mountain biker is putting out an average of 200W of power for an hour and a road cyclist is also putting out an average of 200W of power for an hour, then they have both pretty much burned the same number of calories.

One difference that has been mentioned.
When road riding, I get into a zone where cadence, heart rate and speed tend to even out and I will maintain it for long stretches. This builds a strong base.
When mountain biking, the power output often comes in spurts. Intervals. this has a different conditioning effect.
I am of the belief that both of these types of training are important.


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

During trail riding, I can ride at threshold between the technical sections that demand peak power (or near it), but my capacity for delivering that peak power will be diminished. If I ride at 60% threshold on the easy parts, I can deliver peak power over and over for hours.

During road riding, I can sneak up to 80% peak power and hold it for as long as I want. It is not terrain limited. 

Then there are the issues of long trail downhills, switching to another trail, moments of indecision, stopping for other riders.

After a two hour hard road ride, I'm done for the day, for any type of work besides reclining and drinking a beer.

After a two hour hard mountain ride, I'm tired, but I can still change the oil in my truck and feed the cows.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

bakerjw said:


> Good analysis by many.
> Time is the key factor. If a mountain biker is putting out an average of 200W of power for an hour and a road cyclist is also putting out an average of 200W of power for an hour, then they have both pretty much burned the same number of calories.


This works if they're both riding seated on flat, straight terrain where there is no upper body action required. As soon as the mountain biker has to get up off the saddle and/or throw the bike around with his upper body, his power might remain at 200 watts but his HR will probably go up, thereby using more calories. I've noticed that it's really hard to keep watts as high, at the same HR, mtb'ing as compared to road biking because of the other muscle usage that is required.


----------



## SingleSpeed73 (Dec 28, 2016)

Is all about the power output, period. Unless you put a power meter on your MTB, you won't know. Speaking from experiences training with a power meter in road racing, I can burn about 300 to 400 cal per hour, as a 140lb rider. If you weight more, you burn more cal. Cal burn based on our heart rate monitor is totally inaccurate. They are talking about into the thousands. LOL... Think about....if you burn over 1000 cal in one hour, where are you getting your cal replenishment? From your energy drinks and energy bars...which equal to couple of hundreds of cal.  

MTB diggs more into your anaerobic threshold effort than at your aerobic threshold. It works on your muscles more. Road cycling is more about riding at threshold and only at your max 1 minute to 5 minutes efforts you are digging in your reserve, anaerobic threshold efforts. This happens on short steep climbs or attacking or sprinting. Most people in to road cycling do not do that unless they are training to race. In a race, you are expected to burn matches in order to keep up with the attacks or to keep up with the surges in the field. You would feel the muscle burn before your reach to your max threshold heart rate...for most people, it is about 170 bpm to 185 bpm.


----------



## SingleSpeed73 (Dec 28, 2016)

Here is an interesting thread....converting watts to cal usage...

https://www.cyclingforums.com/threads/watts-to-calories.430255/


----------



## mr_chrome (Jan 17, 2005)

Again, folks, from a physics POV, if you look at calories for total output, & MTB = Road, they are the SAME; it is the other side of the equation (max peak watts, VO2 threshold, etc...) that are different and change how you feel after either ride........


----------

