freedomnow2015

Does the cycling pace (if the same distance is travelled per session) affect the amount of calories burned during cycling? Where can I get data based on that, I cannot seem to find them anywhere, amount of calories burned depends on cycling distance & pace (not speed, does not interest me)?

Troul 

Yes. If the interval of time is changed for the same distance & terrain traveled, it will impact not only calories expelled but also change the average speed for that revisited route.

DrIsotope

You have two choices with regard to tracking energy expended while cycling: measure output with a power meter, or guess.

Garfield Cat

Maybe the data can be reached in a performance lab using a stationary bike. Try the local university that has a program for kinesiology.

Someone like Christie O'Hara from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Don't know where she is now. But she worked on her research paper there.

indyfabz

There are plenty of calories burned estimators you can find on the Interwebs.


E.g.,: https://captaincalculator.com/health...ng-calculator/




How many of them are even remotely accurate is another issue.

FBinNY 

Pace, or speed has a very significant effect on the calories butnrd to cover a given difference. That's because most of the effort is in overcomming wind resistance, which is proportional to the square of speed.

So if you ride twice as fast, you'll be working 4 times harder to cover the same distance and should expect to burn four times the calories.

Edit note, the original version was wrong, and I thank Oboile for pointing it out in post 19.

Altimis

The harder the pace, the harder the burn.

Sustainable is the key to get the most of it.

woodcraft

Strava. Gives a number for calories.

Not sure how you can separate pace from speed....

caloso

Yes, the faster you go, the more power it takes, and over a given course or for a given interval, more energy burned by the rider.

I have found this calculator to be fairly accurate, compared to a power meter, when estimating a long, steady climb, like Mt. Diablo (11 miles, fairly steady 6% rise).

rollagain

I think cadence is meaningless out of other context. On a steep downhill you could spin any rate you like at zero resistance because gravity is turning your wheels faster than your legs could. Try doing that same cadence going up that same hill; the comparison is like passive versus active motion.

Craptacular8

You can always wear a heart rate monitor when riding/exercising. They can either feed real time data to a watch that you wear (Polar or Garmin) common with runners, or with to an app on your phone. This can be helpful if you're trying to train in a specific heart rate, but should be pretty accurate for calorie counting.

FBinNY 

By pace, as distinct from speed, do you mean cadence?

if so, there's some evidence that slower cadence is actually more efficient, meaning less calories consumed, than higher cadence. This isn't to say it's better, because higher cadence is usually more sustainable and less stressful on the body.

But from a purely most miles for fewest calories, a lower cadence rider will tend to fare better. This is one reason that many asthmatics and others with breathing issues will tend to opt for cadences at the lower end of the range..

If you want to find your most efficient cadence you might do some experimentation. Find a decent sized hill. Climb it a few times to establish a working average climb time. Then repeat the same climb in a lower and higher gear ratios, aiming for the same time. Take your heartbeat during and immediately after, and note which ratios keep the pulse lowest.

hubcyclist

Well, actually I was just looking at this today for myself. For me, the calorie estimate I get from my HR versus the work calculated via my powermeter is about 15-16% high (this is from the last 4 days that I looked at and it was consistent). If trying to lose weight, definitely underestimate calories burned!

TimothyH

Estimating is not guessing.

There is enough scientific data and past history available so that we can get very close estimations based on weight of the rider as well as intensity and duration of the event. Heart rate can be used to gauge intensity very accurately.


-Tim-

TimothyH

There seems to be some confusion about pace vs speed.

Speed is distance per unit of time.

Pace is time per unit of distance.

Runners typically use pace - minutes per mile.


-Tim-

FBinNY 

You're making a tactical mistake by focusing on the details. Focus instead on the inputs and outcome.

Keep calorie intake as low as you're comfortable living with, and exercise as high. Watch what happens over time, ie. is your weight trending down?.

If the results are satisfactory, then any numbers you get are fine for comparative purposes. OTOH if the results aren't satisfactory, the numbers are meaningless and you need to make some adjustments, even if the numbers say you shouldn't have to.

Otherwise, use the numbers as tools, not counting on any precise significance, but as a rough comparative guideline.

kaos joe

I'm not a physicist, but this might be enlightening.

https://www.gribble.org/cycling/power_v_speed.html

Air resistance is the largest factor in the amount of energy we expend getting down the road. Air resistance increases as the cube of the increase in speed. Simply put, to double one's speed requires 2 to the 3rd power (2x2x2), or 8 times the power output, to overcome the resulting aerodynamic resistance.

Going fast is inefficient, unless you're actively looking to burn calories.

FBinNY 

I agree. I initially posted asking if he meant pace and speed to ,mean the same thing, though expressed differently.

Later, I posted based on reading his "pace" to mean cadence.

It's up to the OP to clarify, but that's not critical because each post makes clear by implication how that person is answering, ie. either pace = speed, or pace = cadence.

OBoile

I think you have this off by a factor of 2. Power is proportional to the cube of the speed (force is proportional to the square and power is force * speed). So, in your example, you are working 8 times as hard for half the time, so you would burn 4 times the calories.

FBinNY 

I know you're quoting a source, and this is a good example of the flaw in "internet knowledge".

Air resistance is proportional to the square of speed (in still air), not the cube. It's the power requirements that are proportional to the cube because the work done is proportional to the square, but the time is reduced raising the power.

ie.
2x speed = 2x2 drag (or force needed)
2x speed = 2x2x2 power distance, x force / time (twice the speed = half the time)

FBinNY 

Yes, you're right. I must have been half asleep.

The force needed at twice the speed is four times. I made the mistake of factoring time in work, rather than distance. I should not have considered time unless I were using power, in which case, I would have used the cube, but then divided by the time getting 2x2x2 / 1/2 or 2x2.

These things are best thought about by reducing the various terms to the 3 core elements force, distance and time.

work is force x distance
Speed is distance / time
power is work / time --- or force x distance / time.

Once you do that, and keep the units consistent everything will fall into place

Then once you set force = to the square of speed

TimothyH

Pace is neither speed nor cadence.

Equating pace with speed or pace with cadence is not a clarification but an incorrect use of the term.

They are related but not the same thing and even the OP is using the term pace incorrectly as "distance per session" instead of time per unit of distance.

It is difficult to have a conversation about pace when no one understands or agrees what pace even is.


-Tim-

FBinNY 

I didn't equate pace with either speed or cadence. I simply posted replies, with each conditioned on whether the OP intended to mean speed or cadence.

It doesn't matter if the term is used wrong, which it wasn't by the OP. The precise meaning of various words for the same thing isn't as important as an understanding of the intended meaning. However, I avoided the trap, by clearly saying I was speaking about speed or cadence in my various posts.

aplcr0331

Get a power meter. Then you'll know for sure, or at least you'll know better than every other metric out there.


Or just guess and make up some high number like people do on the elliptical at gyms.


Fitness trackers accurately measure heart rate but not calories burned

Troul 

Liabilities are likely to blame for the off calorie $'s in those tech-wearables. If the calorie burned was more stringent, we might see more folks dropping like flies from too much exertion-lack of nutrition/food, & more injuries... all tied to the fitness trackers that would put in place a harder [achieved] calorie algorithm.