All of my non-scientific exercise trackers put running:biking at a 2:1 ratio of calories burned per time.

Judging by how sloppy my running form is I’d say that’s a gentle estimate.

 

All of my non-scientific exercise trackers put running:biking at a 2:1 ratio of calories burned per time.

Judging by how sloppy my running form is I'd say that's a gentle estimate.

Thanks for the input. I guess that seems to make more sense, since my recent 20 min bike tests weren't really pushing it as hard a normal biking excursion. Just seems odd to me, during normal biking workout, I'm pushing it hard, huffing and puffing with heart rates in the 170's. Jogging though, I'm rarely huffing and puffing.

Never paid attention to calories burned until I got the watch. But is sort of frustrating it will take me twice the amount of time to burn the same amount of calories...I hate jogging/running as I have a plethora of problems with my lower body that biking doesn't exploit as bad.

 

Member has removed content due to fundamental disagreement with this site owner's views favoring expanded access for electric mountain bikes (eMtb) on multiuse singletrack in public lands.

 

I figure that when biking I'm sitting down a lot of the time and coasting a lot of the time. When running I can't really do either, and each stride means lifting my weight off the planet.

Biking is at least twice as fun though.

 

I figure that when biking I'm sitting down a lot of the time and coasting a lot of the time. When running I can't really do either, and each stride means lifting my weight off the planet.

Biking is at least twice as fun though.

You got a point there. Was thinking all things being somewhat equal, I'm pushing hard uphill, but then not using much energy downhill.

The big difference to me, is total duration. On a nice day off I can take the gravel bike out for a 6hr ride. There is no way that I would ever be able to jog for that amount of time... and if I did... I wouldnt be walking the next few days lol

True, I don't think I could jog/run for more than hour straight (my knees and hips would give out before then anyway)

Well I guess I can just continue to do both biking and jogging. I used to only do biking supplemented by some weight workouts. But with the watch, I'm pretty much doing multiple workouts every day. Biking is certainly more fun than any of them.

 

The big difference to me, is total duration. On a nice day off I can take the gravel bike out for a 6hr ride. There is no way that I would ever be able to jog for that amount of time... and if I did... I wouldnt be walking the next few days lol

 

Yeah, even a "short" ride of 90 minutes is enough time to complete a half marathon. A typical 3 hour weekend ride is enough time to run a marathon. A lot of folks can do that but not me.

 

Hello,

I bought an Apple Watch last Fall mainly for fitness tracking and such. I was definitely using it a lot to record my biking workouts. I do remember noticing a large caloric deficit using the Apple Watch versus just using Map My Ride on my iphone.

Since it was Fall, I only had a couple of months of biking before the weather turned. So to keep up my fitness, I started jogging pretty much all indoors. As the Apple Watch learned more and I kept pushing harder to beat my goals, I was averaging over 10 miles of walking/jogging a day and probably over 1,200 extra calories burned/day.

I took my bike out for the first time the other week for a very quick shake down between work meetings. I did a quick 20 mins of moderate intensity road biking. For that twenty mins, my watch only showed that I burned 80 calories averaging around 16x heart rate. However, for a 20 min jogging workout, averaging 140-150X heart rate, I'll burn north of 220 calories. I've used both Strava and the native biking apps on my watch (different 20 mins biking workouts) and they're still at the 80 calorie mark.

Can the caloric deficit really be that far off? I understand that they're different workouts, but given a higher heart rate for biking, I wouldn't think that it would be that drastic.

Are you using a chest strap? If you are not than you numbers are unreliable

 

Negative. I'm not that crazy about the exact number of calories, more like the ratio. I suppose I could get one and get a more accurate depiction between the two.

 

I can't remember where I saw it, but recently saw a graph that showed a comparison for calories burned during 30 mins for several exercises. It was something like... biking < jogging < jumping rope < rowing

I just remember thinking, damn, I should start jumping rope again. I actually have a nice one in the closet somewhere. It was a pretty significant "jump" in the calories burned.

It's about how many muscles are engaged in performing the activity, beyond heart rate.

 

True, I'd actually like to see what how punching a heavy bag would fare (like dancing around hitting from different angles). I used to do that all the time and I was literally winded within minutes. I still have the huge metal stand in my backyard, since my garage has a car parked in it now. Just not sure I'd do that kind of workout outside next to my neighbors.

 

I tried jumping rope a few years ago. It did not go well.

 

Did you forget to jump?

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

 

Using this example to show you what you already are discovering...

When I run inside on a treadmill, I burn about 120 calories every ten minutes. So similar to you.

This ride:

Was a 1,300 calorie ride in 130 minutes, so about 100 calories/ten minutes. And while the total elevation gain over the 29 miles isn't insane, it's a ride I do with a fairly brutal elevation profile. On a gravel bike.

On a mountain bike on a typical ride, even 100/ten minutes is pretty much impossible. IME.

When you're talking running and normal mountain biking, I would say Nat's guess of 2:1 for calorie burn during any given duration is in the right ballpark.

 

Are these devices coming up with calories burned from a preconceived algorithm related to said activity? Or actual real metrics taken from your body in real time?

I've always found this curious. I'm an active guy and I put mountain biking up there with cross country skiing or the like. Jogging way down the list

I reckon to TRULY measure how much calories you were burning doing something would be far more complicated than just a device on your body. Once upon a time I tested dredge water on fish. Calculating calories available to them in specific time frames was done under very controlled circumstances.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

 

Are these devices coming up with calories burned from a preconceived algorithm related to said activity? Or actual real metrics taken from your body in real time?

I've always found this curious. I'm an active guy and I put mountain biking up there with cross country skiing or the like. Jogging way down the list

I reckon to TRULY measure how much calories you were burning doing something would be far more complicated than just a device on your body. Once upon a time I tested dredge water on fish. Calculating calories available to them in specific time frames was done under very controlled circumstances.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

They all have their own proprietary algorithms that they rely on, which is why you'll get different caloric burn data from different devices for the same exercise.

Regarding accuracy, there is quite a range out there when it comes to wrist-based heart rate devices. In most of the studies I've seen, the biggest issue is proper fit of the band. If worn properly, you're likely to be within 2-3 bpm of the chest strap. So unless you're a pro, you'll be fine with a quality wrist-based heart rate monitor.

 

Do this:
20 mins of biking OUT OF THE SADDLE vs 20 mins of jogging, for what you feel is the same effort.
Out of the saddle you will likely be in 2-3 gears higher (faster). Your wattage output will increase and so will your calories burned (you are now supporting yourself with your legs, not your crotch). This will increase your caloric consumption.

energy (kcal) = avg power (W) X duration (hours) X 3.6

 

energy (kcal) = avg power (W) X duration (hours) X 3.6

Without a power meter how do these computers estimate power? The elevation gain over time component is obvious enough, but how do they figure drag and power consumed in level riding? Just assume average coefficients of friction and drag and guesstimate from there? If so I'd imagine that would vary a lot from individual to individual (not to mention from individual trail to individual trail) and have the potential to be pretty inaccurate.

 

I'm 50++ and I do both. I'll run (65-70km/wk total) and 1-2 mtb rides/wk. It wasn't easy but I started running 6 years ago and I have gradually built up my endurance and speed. I ran my first marathon race last year and have a couple more planned for this year.
Some things to consider:
Riding combined with running will get you a lot fitter than running or riding alone.
Training in a different cardio sport improves your central fitness (heart/lungs/blood).
Running and cycling use different muscles, so you'll have to run in order to train those specific muscles that don't cross over to cycling.
Running takes more energy and therefore burns more calories; however you can't out run [or ride] a bad diet. If the goal is to lose weight then it starts in the kitchen.

Happy running (and riding)

 

Hello,

I bought an Apple Watch last Fall mainly for fitness tracking and such. I was definitely using it a lot to record my biking workouts. I do remember noticing a large caloric deficit using the Apple Watch versus just using Map My Ride on my iphone.

Since it was Fall, I only had a couple of months of biking before the weather turned. So to keep up my fitness, I started jogging pretty much all indoors. As the Apple Watch learned more and I kept pushing harder to beat my goals, I was averaging over 10 miles of walking/jogging a day and probably over 1,200 extra calories burned/day.

I took my bike out for the first time the other week for a very quick shake down between work meetings. I did a quick 20 mins of moderate intensity road biking. For that twenty mins, my watch only showed that I burned 80 calories averaging around 16x heart rate. However, for a 20 min jogging workout, averaging 140-150X heart rate, I'll burn north of 220 calories. I've used both Strava and the native biking apps on my watch (different 20 mins biking workouts) and they're still at the 80 calorie mark.

Can the caloric deficit really be that far off? I understand that they're different workouts, but given a higher heart rate for biking, I wouldn't think that it would be that drastic.

You have no gears when you run and can't sit. Before I read this, having just seen the title, I expected running to burn a lot more calories then cycling. I've always thought that the most pure sport would be naked trail running. No high tech shoes or anything else. Just the runner and nature.

 

I started running last year, it seems like a beginner expends massive amounts of energy just trying to run, which reduces 1/3rd that or so over many months as the body figures out wtf is going on and adjusts. I'm no great fan of running, but it's effective and once you get to a certain level it can actually be ok, I guess...

You can also pedal a trainer pretty hard and burn lots of calories, when gyms were open I'd get on a bike or elliptical and knock out 500 cal in 30 min to warm up or after lifting.

 

I'm no great fan of running, but it's effective and once you get to a certain level it can actually be ok, I guess...

If I'm short on time I can be dressed and out the door running in under five minutes, workout completed in 30.

For the first mile or so I'm just hurting and questioning my life choices but after I hit that flow state running feels really good. Then the feeling passes and I'm several miles from home questioning my life choices again.

 

When I started seriously running is when I lost weight so I'm well aware that running burns more calories than cycling. I normally gain some weight in the winter time but interesting, I didn't this past year, despite not running. I imagine that is from working from home and eating better, especially not having the occasional office donut and hitting the candy bowl a few times a day.

The treadmill and trainer are torture devices for me, road running is a little better but not much, I really need trails to run. And that's why I haven't been running, just doesn't seem to make sense to drive to the trails to run but maybe I'll start (I normally would stop on my way to work and run as I drive past a NPS NRA).

 

I lost about 30# when I was running a lot. I think a big part of that weight loss was because there was less of a celebratory mood with running. You know how after a good group ride you and your friends might get some food and beer, then enjoy the camaraderie of talking about how fun the ride was? After running no one with whom I ran wanted to eat or drink to celebrate (unless you count kale smoothies as food and drink). There wasn't much to regale either. "Hey, remember how awesome that one curve was that we ran around at a 10 min./mi pace?" "ME NEITHER!"

Also, with every 5# I lost I could really tell how much easier running became, both from a physical exertion standpoint and from a joint impact standpoint.

 

You shouldn't Google "hashers" then.. Ohhhh the beer, and the running problem.

I know, old post. But I like beer, and don't mind running.

 

275w is 1000 Calories/hr. Easier to do cycling in the heat because of better cooling.

 

I got down to about 150lb when I was running and endurance mtb racing, which is tiny for my frame. My mom told me I looked like I was straight out of a concentration camp (so nice of her...). I wish I could get back into it, but I just find it to be so incredibly boring and I never could hit that "zoned out" phase.

This thread is very interesting though. I was always told that mountain biking burned more calories than running because your heart rate fluctuates more. Obviously bad info, but I never really questioned it (mainly because I'm not a calorie counter).

 

I got down to about 150lb when I was running and endurance mtb racing, which is tiny for my frame. My mom told me I looked like I was straight out of a concentration camp (so nice of her...). I wish I could get back into it, but I just find it to be so incredibly boring and I never could hit that "zoned out" phase.

This thread is very interesting though. I was always told that mountain biking burned more calories than running because your heart rate fluctuates more. Obviously bad info, but I never really questioned it (mainly because I'm not a calorie counter).

I think mtb varies a lot, rocky jank trails can take a ton of effort both up and down. OTOH flow trails and smooth low angle climbs would be comparatively low exertion.

 

Anything that only uses HR to calculate calories burned is a guess. A buddy I ride with has a HR of 150 for the same ride I have 130. We both have power meters on the gravel bikes now and he reports 550ish Calories burned while I get 700ish. Thing is he is 40lbs lighter so takes less power to move him around regardless of HR. Before he got his power meter this year his calories burned estimate was 1100 for that same ride loop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A couple weeks ago I ran and mountain biked the same course for 7 miles, not too hilly.

The run was measured with vivoactive 3 using HR on the wrist. Average HR was 153 and 987 calories. The ride was measured with garmin 530 using HR strap, so distance and hr were more accurate. Average HR 167 and 600 calories burned.

 

Yep, rode one of those trails Saturday where you finish and look at your distance and elevation and say "that's all?" Lots of momentum sucking rocks and roots. And rolling hills vs sustained climbs, most of the trails near me are constant up and down and you can often get part way up the climb just with momentum from coming down the last hill.

 

Calories burned by heart rate can be very inaccurate.

Fitness trackers accurately measure heart rate but not calories burned

A Stanford inquiry into the accuracy of seven wristband activity monitors showed that six out of seven devices measured heart rate within 5 percent. None, however, measured energy expenditure well.

www.med.stanford.edu

Also running does burn a lot more calories because it's a full body exercise. Compared to cycling where it's mostly just your legs doing the work. Mountain biking on chunky terrain might get close to the calorie burn of running since it requires a lot more use of your core and upper body.

A power meter on a road bike will give you an extremely accurate amount of calories burned since it's measuring the actual amount of work being done by your legs.

 

But won't measure any of the upper body or core

 

That might be one of my favorite first posts of all time. Bump a 2 year old thread to hype roller skating.

 

Here's your skating enthusiast "Marsh Harrison" About - Cora

Real human names followed by some numbers is a standard bot username format, as indicated by the AI generated pictures on that page.