# Calories Burned During Mtn Biking



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

I know there is a huge difference in mountain biking styles, but I am curious how many calories mountain biking can potentially burn?
Most of my riding is fairly technical with periods of flow between areas with steps, rock gardens, granite boulders etc. Not too different from the trails at Kokopelli loops in Fruita (I know tons of mtn bikers have ridden here so it makes a good example).
I know after a long ride, my metabolism is sometimes fired up for several days after a high intensity ride. 
I often wonder if online fitness calculators don't take into account more technical trails when calculating mountain biking calories. 
By the way, I am 5'10 180 lbs.


----------



## fefillo (Jul 24, 2014)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I know there is a huge difference in mountain biking styles, but I am curious how many calories mountain biking can potentially burn?
> Most of my riding is fairly technical with periods of flow between areas with steps, rock gardens, granite boulders etc. Not too different from the trails at Kokopelli loops in Fruita (I know tons of mtn bikers have ridden here so it makes a good example).
> I know after a long ride, my metabolism is sometimes fired up for several days after a high intensity ride.
> I often wonder if online fitness calculators don't take into account more technical trails when calculating mountain biking calories.
> By the way, I am 5'10 180 lbs.


Too many factors I involved... But if you try an app like Strava it will give you an estimate of calories burned. I usually burn ~650-850 calories per hour depending on trail / intensity according to it. I don't do much climbing but try to ride as fast as I can.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## silentG (May 18, 2009)

I agree - lots of factors.

I burn between 650 to 1300 calories according to my Garmin when I ride. I think this is an approximation since I have ridden much harder and ended up with fewer calories burned that one might expect.

After over a year of keeping tabs on this I think that tools like GPS, Strava, etc are estimates and in reality you are burning more, particularly on more technical trails since you are using your whole body in addition to simply pedaling.

I did a four hour 20 miler yesterday and the Garmin said I burned 1099 calories which isn't peanuts but subjectively I felt completely spent compared to some shorter (distance and time) rides where i chalked up more calories.

Near as I can tell the algorithm used by these methods probably factors in your size, bike weight, and elevation change which is important certainly but on the face of it is a single long climb more difficult from an energy perspective than a constant transition between up/down over a longer distance?

Having said that, I use the calorie count as an estimate but go with the good old 'how do I feel' as far as effort goes.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

I have monitored my caloric burn rates on both Garmin Connect and Strava and the two incorporate slightly different algorithms. From the best that I have been able to determine is that none of the used algorithms use elevation or climb gradients, bike weight or your size. Your overall total weight is in the equation. The predominate factor in addition to weight is your heart rate. If your heart rate is not included in the equation, then the output or caloric burn is just an estimated linear guess.

Additionally, I have noted that in my personal case, Strava places a predominate emphasis on the duration than does Garmin Connect. That meaning that for me, Strava indicates a greater calorie burn for the same ride than Garmin Connect does.

*Calories Burned = [ (age in years x 0.2017) + (weight in lbs. x 0.0904)+ (heart rate x 0.6309) - 55.0969] x duration in minutes / 4.184*


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Cleared2land said:


> I have monitored my caloric burn rates on both Garmin Connect and Strava and the two incorporate slightly different algorithms. From the best that I have been able to determine is that none of the used algorithms use elevation or climb gradients, bike weight or your size. Your overall total weight is in the equation. The predominate factor in addition to weight is your heart rate. If your heart rate is not included in the equation, then the output or caloric burn is just an estimated linear guess.
> 
> Additionally, I have noted that in my personal case, Strava places a predominate emphasis on the duration than does Garmin Connect. That meaning that for me, Strava indicates a greater calorie burn for the same ride than Garmin Connect does.
> 
> *Calories Burned = [ (age in years x 0.2017) + (weight in lbs. x 0.0904)+ (heart rate x 0.6309) - 55.0969] x duration in minutes / 4.184*


I did the math and a 175 lb guy with a 140 bpm heart rate burns around 840 cal/hour. The awesome thing about cycling is that one hour of spinning (on a real bike not stationary) just feels like fun and not work!


----------



## Chader09 (Aug 14, 2013)

^^^ This. 

I have a super fun hobby (riding bikes) and it just happens to keep me fit & healthy too.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I did the math and a 175 lb guy with a 140 bpm heart rate burns around 840 cal/hour. The awesome thing about cycling is that one hour of spinning (on a real bike not stationary) just feels like fun and not work!


Obviously there are a good number of variables that could affect these numbers. That calorie burn seems a little high for me, but with the formula, you could tweek and massage this to find something that you could live with.


----------



## kragu (Jun 14, 2011)

I'm a similar build and I'm burning about 100 cal per mile. Most of my rides have a ratio of about 1mi/250 vertical feet, when descending is factored in.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

I rode 25 miles on my 42 lb fat bike today over the course of 3 hours (a little stopping but not much). I wonder how much I burned on my fatty. Will never know. =(


----------



## challybert (Sep 5, 2014)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I rode 25 miles on my 42 lb fat bike today over the course of 3 hours (a little stopping but not much). I wonder how much I burned on my fatty. Will never know. =(


Call it 2000 calories. Now go ahead and enjoy that pizza and 6 pack and feel no guilt.


----------



## silentG (May 18, 2009)

A good read on this topic is How calorie measurement works on Garmin fitness devices | DC Rainmaker

Bottom line/executive summary is that distance/speed without HRM is less accurate than using a HRM.

Whether this accuracy/inaccuracy is important to you or less important is obviously a YMMV deal


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

silentG said:


> A good read on this topic is How calorie measurement works on Garmin fitness devices | DC Rainmaker
> 
> Bottom line/executive summary is that distance/speed without HRM is less accurate than using a HRM.
> 
> Whether this accuracy/inaccuracy is important to you or less important is obviously a YMMV deal


Interesting read you uncovered...thanks for sharing!


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

I ride with a HRM every ride and I link with Strava. I also used a watch based Zone tracking HRM prior to linking with Strava with a Wahoo HRM. Both methods gave me similar results for rides that I repeat very regularly. Obviously, tons of variables with one's output on each ride but for me, a 10-12 mile, 1200 - 1500' climb ride will yield about 1000-1200 calories. When I jump up to the 17-20 mile run with 2500-3000', I'm usually in the 2000 kcal range. That's almost a days worth of caloric intake for me.


----------



## fefillo (Jul 24, 2014)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I rode 25 miles on my 42 lb fat bike today over the course of 3 hours (a little stopping but not much). I wonder how much I burned on my fatty. Will never know. =(


People just gave you 2 or 3 ways to do it or calculate yourself. You could know if you wanted.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

fefillo said:


> People just gave you 2 or 3 ways to do it or calculate yourself. You could know if you wanted.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I did. Read post #5. I was curious how my heavy-ass fat bike would change things though.


----------



## challybert (Sep 5, 2014)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I did. Read post #5. I was curious how my heavy-ass fat bike would change things though.


Simplistically, using the formula in post #4, the pedaling of the heavier bike might be captured in a higher avg. heart rate. So, on Trailxyz in order to avg. 10mph on your 26lb bike your avg HR might be 155, whereas to do the same on a 42lb bike your avg. HR is 170. Thus, more calories calculated as having been burned.


----------



## bloodninja (Jul 11, 2012)

silentG said:


> A good read on this topic is How calorie measurement works on Garmin fitness devices | DC Rainmaker
> 
> Bottom line/executive summary is that distance/speed without HRM is less accurate than using a HRM.
> 
> Whether this accuracy/inaccuracy is important to you or less important is obviously a YMMV deal


I ride almost always with a HRM strap and my Garmin 510 uses the 2nd generation Firstbeat algorithm, which is supposed to be accurate to within 5-7%. I weigh just under 180, and riding "pretty hard" on technical trails I burn about 600 calories per hour.


----------



## challybert (Sep 5, 2014)

bloodninja said:


> I ride almost always with a HRM strap and my Garmin 510 uses the 2nd generation Firstbeat algorithm, which is supposed to be accurate to within 5-7%. I weigh just under 180, and riding "pretty hard" on technical trails I burn about 600 calories per hour.


I'm 180 with the Garmin 510 as well. Using the HRM strap I'm pretty much around 600 calories/hr as well pedaling pretty hard.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

bloodninja said:


> I ride almost always with a HRM strap and my Garmin 510 uses the 2nd generation Firstbeat algorithm, which is supposed to be accurate to within 5-7%. I weigh just under 180, and riding "pretty hard" on technical trails I burn about 600 calories per hour.





challybert said:


> I'm 180 with the Garmin 510 as well. Using the HRM strap I'm pretty much around 600 calories/hr as well pedaling pretty hard.


Are you two using Garmin Connect, Strava or something else to see your results? They use different algorithms and I see a higher calorie burn on Strava than I do on Garmin Connect. The Garmin 510 is only recording the HRM and the end software incorporates the algorithm.


----------



## challybert (Sep 5, 2014)

Cleared2land said:


> Are you two using Garmin Connect, Strava or something else to see your results? They use different algorithms and I see a higher calorie burn on Strava than I do on Garmin Connect. The Garmin 510 is only recording the HRM and the end software incorporates the algorithm.


Garmin connect


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

The simplest way:

Buy a Stages crank arm that matches your current drivetrain. Or any power meter, really.

It will give you the number of kJ produced each ride, and one can (generally) accurately translate that into calories burned.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> The simplest way:
> 
> Buy a Stages crank arm that matches your current drivetrain. Or any power meter, really.
> 
> It will give you the number of kJ produced each ride, and one can (generally) accurately translate that into calories burned.


Not exactly...

A bikes power meter that is attached to the cranks is little more than a strain gauge that takes the torque inputs and converts that into an electrical discretionary objective output. This output is then calculated through whatever software the power meter device manufacturer has elected to use to establish the observable energy output that the rider has or is producing watts or kilojoules.

The power meter does not measure or calculate any other inputs or outputs. The software that the device manufacturer incorporates is what then calculates through some established baseline algorithm the desired output such as calories consumed by using a Thermochemical equation. However, this calculation is limited in its accuracy without the input from a heart rate monitor input.

For those who are interested in the conversion from kilojoules to calories: 1 kJ = 239.0057 calth

The energy in thermochemical calories E(calth) is equal to the energy in kilojoules E(kJ) times 239.0057: 
Convert 0.6 kilojoules to thermochemical calories.
E(cal) = 0.6kJ × 239.0057 = 143.4 calth

So, to clarify something here&#8230;the power meter software is using the same algorithms to calculate your very general calorie burn estimate as outlined above. .

The power meter out only generates a kilojoule output that we need to relate to power at the pedals. We need the complete algorithm (see below) that Garmin Connect or Strava uses to get the full, and more accurate 'Calories Burned' information that needs your weight, heart rate, age, and duration just as does Garmin Connect or Strava.

* It's the software algorithms that calculate the calories, NOT the power meter. The power meter is just a physical device that measures power, not calories burned.*

*Calories Burned = [ (age in years x 0.2017) + (weight in lbs. x 0.0904)+ (heart rate x 0.6309) - 55.0969] x duration in minutes / 4.184*


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Ok.

I don't know of anyone that actually looks at calories burned, because, at best, it's a guess.

Why do I say that? Because my HR can be 15bpm higher for a given effort if I have a cold, and it's hot outside. I'm not burning any more calories; my heart is just beating faster because I'm ill and it's hot. That's it. My legs are not producing more power, and consuming more fuel.

With power, and kJ, what you see is what you've done. There is no estimate, no guessing, no hoping the fact that you wore arm warmers on an 80 degee day didn't make your HR 3bpm higher. Watts * time(s)/seconds = kJ. The display unit (Garmin, etc) is more than capable of doing a simple equation and displaying that information accurately. A 3500kJ ride is a 3500kJ ride. Work.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

I have always just wanted to know a ballpark figure. +/- a 150 cal per mile on my trails. I know it will never be exact. Guess I need a get one of those fancy toys you all are talking about.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I have always just wanted to know a ballpark figure. +/- a 150 cal per mile on my trails. I know it will never be exact. Guess I need a get one of those fancy toys you all are talking about.


Really? Keep it simple...I mean really simple. You did some basic, rough calculation in post #5 and determined you burned 850 calories an hour (that's a little high for me, but&#8230. And let's assume you are averaging 12 mph on your favorite trail. Do the math&#8230;850 divided by 12 equals 70.83 calories per mile. Change any of the given variables and run the numbers.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Cleared2land said:


> Really? Keep it simple...I mean really simple. You did some basic, rough calculation in post #5 and determined you burned 850 calories an hour (that's a little high for me, but&#8230. And let's assume you are averaging 12 mph on your favorite trail. Do the math&#8230;850 divided by 12 equals 70.83 calories per mile. Change any of the given variables and run the numbers.


You're right. I guess I am satisfied with that ballpark figure. No fancy toys needed for me. 
And I agree. I tend to believe in conservative estimates. I am just gonna say I burn roughly 600 calories an hour. 
I like to know for nutritional reasons also. I am cutting now but when I go balls to the wall on crazy cardio days I naturally eat more but still want to eat at a deficit because eating 2300 calories on a day when you burned 4,000 is just not healthy.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I am just gonna say I burn roughly 600 calories an hour.
> I am cutting now but when I go balls to the wall on crazy cardio days I naturally eat more but still want to eat at a deficit because eating 2300 calories on a day when you burned 4,000 is just not healthy.


If you're burning 600 cal/hour (as you stated), then you're cranking about 6 hours and 40 minutes of continuous riding. Averaging 10 mph is more than a 66 mile ride. Really!? That's a pretty serious trail ride friend.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Cleared2land said:


> If you're burning 600 cal/hour (as you stated), then you're cranking about 6 hours and 40 minutes of continuous riding. Averaging 10 mph is more than a 66 mile ride. Really!? That's a pretty serious trail ride friend.


I have ridden more than 6 hours before on plenty of occasions. I was just giving an extreme example my friend. Chill a bit. Mkay?


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

My comment was more of a kudos comment, not as you took it.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Nah I get ya it's cool. =)


----------



## pharmaboy (Nov 11, 2005)

Cleared2land said:


> If you're burning 600 cal/hour (as you stated), then you're cranking about 6 hours and 40 minutes of continuous riding. Averaging 10 mph is more than a 66 mile ride. Really!? That's a pretty serious trail ride friend.


You gotta include the calories you have burned just living and add the calories for the ride. So you probably use 2500 calories a day living, then a hard 3 hr ride is another 2500, so a 5000 calorie day. Probably one of Elvis' famous sandwiches.

Edit - just by chance when mountain biking I find strava's estimate of kj if you pretend it's calories seems to pretty close. Ie it estimates output, and you happen to be from 20 to 25% efficient - so read strava kj and think total calories used


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Yeah my basal metabolic rate is around 1700 calories. Meaning if I were knocked unconscious and did not move for a whole day I would burn at least 1700 calories alone. A 4000 calorie day is not too crazy to think about.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

My biggest trail ride in one day was 52 miles. It took most of the day and our average was pretty slow. It kicked my butt.


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

Cleared2land said:


> I have monitored my caloric burn rates on both Garmin Connect and Strava and the two incorporate slightly different algorithms. From the best that I have been able to determine is that none of the used algorithms use elevation or climb gradients, bike weight or your size. Your overall total weight is in the equation. The predominate factor in addition to weight is your heart rate. If your heart rate is not included in the equation, then the output or caloric burn is just an estimated linear guess.
> 
> Additionally, I have noted that in my personal case, Strava places a predominate emphasis on the duration than does Garmin Connect. That meaning that for me, Strava indicates a greater calorie burn for the same ride than Garmin Connect does.
> 
> *Calories Burned = [ (age in years x 0.2017) + (weight in lbs. x 0.0904)+ (heart rate x 0.6309) - 55.0969] x duration in minutes / 4.184*


This is pretty spot on to what Strava shows. My ride for today on Strava shows 4,001 calories, this formula shows 3,982.

I used moving time (instead of elapsed) and average heart rate.


----------



## RebelPro (Mar 8, 2015)

Based on my HRM and the Digifit app, this is how much I burned on my last ride.

Distance: 7.83 miles
Duration: 1:51H (including stopping to catch my breath)
BMP avg: 157
BPM max: 190
MPH Avg: 4.2
Calories: 1,708


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Your calories per hour is considerably higher that any of my apps provide. I average about 600 to 630 calories per hour for about the same HR output. 

The only factor that I am able to adjust to match your calorie rate would be to add a much higher body weight to the algorithm.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

^ What type of riding are you guys doing? Sustain XC-style riding or more technical types of trails? When I ride more aggressive trails I tend to session obstacles more. I will attempt an obsticle, then rest while my buddy does it, repeat and move on. Then usually there is some consistent climbing/descending between this. Curious how that affects it.
For the sake of cutting, I have always just used 500 cal per hour as a generic number that seems to work. When I am cutting, I will naturally raise my caloric intake on days I ride, but I will want to be in the red at the end of the day to burn fat. Using that formula has worked for me. Down about 30 pounds this winter.


----------



## RebelPro (Mar 8, 2015)

I'm 5'11" and I weight 182 lbs

I can't tell you whether or not the HRM or app or both are wrong because that is something I have no knowledge of. I use the Bluetooth Polar HR7 heart rate monitor connected to my iPhone 6 using the Digifit app for both calories and distance tracking.


----------

