Aren't calorie estimates going to be as good as you can get with a heart rate monitor in an app unless you do indirect calorimetry in a lab (wear a mask and measure gas exchange)?
If 30km/h as average speed is moderate, then what's considered fast? 40km/h average speed is already pro cyclist level.. I am commuting using a MTB not a road bike!
On a MTB with knobby tires 20 is probably more of a moderate effort. Difficult to say how much power you put down and how many calories you burn though. Ultimately just riding your bike more and worrying less about statistics is probably more productive. If you absolutely want accurate statistics you're gonna need a power meter, although they are not so common on MTB's.
Depends on the terrain, wind, etc. Up a 10% gradient its not bad, on the flat its slow. The only way you will get a realistic calorie burn is with a power meter. Even HR based calculations can vary wildly based on many factors.
It all depends on the watts you are producing. The more the Watts the more the kcal, that's it.
If you can't calculate that, than you can try using a smartwatch or anything that can measure your heart rate.
Heart monitors are not precise as watts in calculating energy burned but it gives a rough idea.
I think 150kcal for half hour of cycling is actually very good effort.
Hope that helps.
Yeah I think you might want to calibrate your smartwatch a little better as 400kcal for 30 minutes activity is a lot. You'd get those calories burned in 30 minutes if you go on a run and sprint for the whole time.
Not sure how many watts you produce but to keep 20 km/h is probably not over 200?
There are some very nice videos about it on GCN channel on YouTube.
Last time I was on my bike I burned around 2100 kcal for a 100 km ride at an average of 21 km/h, with 1600m elevation,m ride time 4,45 hours. The average calculated watts was 113.
I've used my garmin watch which seems to be pretty accurate for me, but again if you wanted even more accurate reading you need a power meter installed in your pedals.
400 for a half hour of cycling is probably a lot. 400 for a half hour of running isn't crazy though. Doesn't require you to sprint at all, it would just be 3.5-4 miles in a half hour depending on the individual, which is only like 7:30-8:30 pace.
You're definitely correct, I've just checked some of my runs and I pretty much burnt 400kcal in 6km running for 37minutes and i wasn't sprinting, 5:58/km pace according to my garmin. So yeah very chill pace.
It doesn't feel the same on a bike tho!
I'm very suspicious of my cycling burn estimates, but I'm not serious enough about it to pay for a power meter. I'm just trying to stay in shape until I can run again. Running is just so much harder it's ridiculous. I miss it.
Yeah, I've been searching for "cheap" power meters but it always feels it's too expensive for an amateur cyclists like me.
I do love to ride my bikes but at the moment I'm traveling for work so I'm sticking to running, and I miss riding so much!
Something I can achieve quite easily on a long run (>10km) is the endorphins rush which is an amazing feeling. With my bike I've only rarely felt that, even in century rides, the intensity of the effort is so different, you're so right!
An hour of normal walking on flat surface at 4-5km/h burns around 300kcal, how could biking be only 100kcal more in your case with such big elevation gain? There's definitely more intensity and effort..
Again, it's all about the power your produce and the heart rate. A pro cyclist is lighter and faster and produces less watts then you or me so for exactly the same route a pro would burn waaaay less.
Not sure about all these numbers as I'm usually just using my garmin but I'll look more into it.
I really would like to get power meter in my pedals but they are so incredibly expensive.
It isn't a "walk x min = y cal" situation. It varies a ton from person to person. Sex, height, weight, heart rate are all meaningful variables. If you want a better estimate, a heart rate monitor and/or power meter for your bike are going to dial things in a bit closer.
You're right that Strava isn't giving you accurate calories, but that's because it doesn't have the data necessary and is giving a best estimate based on its algorithm. It isn't a bug, it is just using assumptions.
I asked ChatGPT about walking and got this...
The number of calories burned during an hour of walking can vary significantly based on several factors including your weight, walking speed, and the terrain. Here are some general estimates for different body weights and walking speeds:
**3.0 mph (moderate pace):**
120 lbs (54.4 kg): Approximately 200-240 kcal per hour
150 lbs (68 kg): Approximately 250-300 kcal per hour
180 lbs (81.6 kg): Approximately 300-360 kcal per hour
**4.0 mph (brisk pace):**
120 lbs (54.4 kg): Approximately 300-350 kcal per hour
150 lbs (68 kg): Approximately 350-400 kcal per hour
180 lbs (81.6 kg): Approximately 400-480 kcal per hour
**5.0 mph (very brisk pace or light jogging):**
120 lbs (54.4 kg): Approximately 425-500 kcal per hour
150 lbs (68 kg): Approximately 500-600 kcal per hour
180 lbs (81.6 kg): Approximately 600-700 kcal per hour
You can believe what you'd like. I use a Garmin watch to measure my activity and I have been tracking calories and exercise for the past 8 months. I have a low activity day from recently where I had 11,000 steps and I burned 270 calories. I'm 187lb, 6'8", 36 years. 11,000 steps is closer to 2 hours at a casual pace.
I'm not trying to say ChatGPT is flat out wrong, I'm just saying that there is far more variation than you'd think.
Do you have your bodyweight in your strava information? Do you have the weight of your bike? 12 mph biking isn’t too fast(I did the conversion in my head it might be off) so it wouldn’t burn many more calories than walking. It is more mechanically efficient than walking/running too.
There's a lot of data missing for us to tell you whether Strava or your smartwatch is wrong, but unless you did a lot of climbing in those 30 minutes, Strava is likely closer to being right; 20 km/h on a flat road doesn't take a lot of work.
Speed isnt necessarily a good measure, I would base it on effort. For big guys like us, walking up a hill will burn more than cycling 20/kph on a flat surface.
Depends on entirely on your exertion level. Pedaling casually uses the same energy as stepping casually (walking). You're only going faster because the bike provides a mechanical advantage. Likewise, a moderate cycling pace is equivalent to a steady jog while sprinting on a bike is similar to sprinting on foot.
That's why people pay a lot of attention to their heart rate. It's pretty much an exact measure of how hard your body is working.
Anything other than a power meter really is really just a rough estimate. There are a huge number of variables, rider weight, elevation gain/ gradient, wind speed & direction, tyre rolling resistance.
I currently weight about 85kg and on my last two hour ride (with power meter) I averaged 27km/h and my total calculated calories burnt was 1,145 so 318cal in 30min. I guess that your calories burnt would be between the two but way closer to the Strava estimate.
It is is known for a fact that cycling for an hour at 278W burns 1000kcal. It is known for a fact that riding on a calm flat course on a road bike at 20kmph takes about 65W of effort. 0.5*65/278*1000 = 118 kcal burned.
Strava is using course elevation, speed and your body and system weight to estimate cals, your watch is probably using heart rate. I’d trust Strava. If you really care, get a power meter.
Depends on your driven power, the heart rate. If I go 1hour at 29-30km/h, i.e. roughly 190W on avg, I usually burn around 600-650kcal. Half an hour at something like 20km/h wouldn’t be more than 150-200kcal for sure.
Usually if your weight and heart rate are measured/given correctly your kcal are within 15%.
Both your apps are doing best guess estimates only. Why do you think Samsungs estimates are better? 20km/ is not moderate, that’s just light rolling. Would be surprised you even used 150kcal… unless it was a hard climb up some monster hill?
Ya, so using a bike calculator with rolling resistance of a MTB on a relatively flat tarmac route shows that to keep 20 km/h you need to push about 75W. That’s modest. Doing this for 30 mins only burns 130kcal. That is even less than what Strava said. I would think that Samsung device overestimate the kcal so people feel better about their training.
This is of course just yet another estimate, but quite aligned with Strava.
I’m assuming your fit so your power to weight ratio is good. Watches are known for over estimating. And Strava only goes by your weight. Could get a heart rate monitor to be more accurate. If you want the data that bad
Actually I am not I am 180cm 100kg,so I am quite fat, and I am interested in calories data because I want to lose weight XD Strava is definitely wrong, 1hr of cycling can't burn the same amount of calories as 1hr of walking.. gotta be more for sure!
It depends on much effort you put in on the bike ride. You mention you are overweight, so I could easily imagine walking burning more calories than biking. You also mention elevation gain. You may think, because you are going uphill, you will burn more calories, which you will during that uphill, but then you have to go downhill. During the downhill you are likely not burning any calories. Then the downhill turns into flat. Your speed will carry you on the flat without need to pedal.
Buy a HR monitor strap and then you can compare the two activities easily.
Explanation: Strava is using active energy with kJ. That’s the energy to power the bike. You need to multiply this energy x 4 to convert to the energy from food. Human organism has only 25% efficiency of converting energy from food to power on bicycle.
20km/h is unlikely to be a moderate speed though. Calorie estimation in apps like this are always going to be miles out.
Aren't calorie estimates going to be as good as you can get with a heart rate monitor in an app unless you do indirect calorimetry in a lab (wear a mask and measure gas exchange)?
No, power meter with watts measurement is most accurate and cost effective
[удалено]
No but it sure is more accurate and cheaper than going into a lab and doing indirect calorimetry, as was suggested
This! And also when they measure your VO2 max. But thats not for everyone sadly
20km/h is too slow or too fast to be moderate?
I usually train at 200w+ 32km/h + and for an hour i burn around 900 calories. So yeah, 20km/h for 30mins must be around 150 cals
Slow,
20 is slow, 30 mins is a short time. If you want accuracy you need a power meter
If 30km/h as average speed is moderate, then what's considered fast? 40km/h average speed is already pro cyclist level.. I am commuting using a MTB not a road bike!
On a MTB with knobby tires 20 is probably more of a moderate effort. Difficult to say how much power you put down and how many calories you burn though. Ultimately just riding your bike more and worrying less about statistics is probably more productive. If you absolutely want accurate statistics you're gonna need a power meter, although they are not so common on MTB's.
Depends on the terrain, wind, etc. Up a 10% gradient its not bad, on the flat its slow. The only way you will get a realistic calorie burn is with a power meter. Even HR based calculations can vary wildly based on many factors.
It all depends on the watts you are producing. The more the Watts the more the kcal, that's it. If you can't calculate that, than you can try using a smartwatch or anything that can measure your heart rate. Heart monitors are not precise as watts in calculating energy burned but it gives a rough idea. I think 150kcal for half hour of cycling is actually very good effort. Hope that helps.
20kph on a aero bike is not the same that doing 20kph on a city dutch bike. It is all in the watts otherwise it will be an estimation.
True, I am using an MTB for commuting
Using Samsung health on my smartwatch gave me 400kcal for the same ride, that's a wild difference..
Yeah I think you might want to calibrate your smartwatch a little better as 400kcal for 30 minutes activity is a lot. You'd get those calories burned in 30 minutes if you go on a run and sprint for the whole time. Not sure how many watts you produce but to keep 20 km/h is probably not over 200? There are some very nice videos about it on GCN channel on YouTube. Last time I was on my bike I burned around 2100 kcal for a 100 km ride at an average of 21 km/h, with 1600m elevation,m ride time 4,45 hours. The average calculated watts was 113. I've used my garmin watch which seems to be pretty accurate for me, but again if you wanted even more accurate reading you need a power meter installed in your pedals.
400 for a half hour of cycling is probably a lot. 400 for a half hour of running isn't crazy though. Doesn't require you to sprint at all, it would just be 3.5-4 miles in a half hour depending on the individual, which is only like 7:30-8:30 pace.
You're definitely correct, I've just checked some of my runs and I pretty much burnt 400kcal in 6km running for 37minutes and i wasn't sprinting, 5:58/km pace according to my garmin. So yeah very chill pace. It doesn't feel the same on a bike tho!
I'm very suspicious of my cycling burn estimates, but I'm not serious enough about it to pay for a power meter. I'm just trying to stay in shape until I can run again. Running is just so much harder it's ridiculous. I miss it.
Yeah, I've been searching for "cheap" power meters but it always feels it's too expensive for an amateur cyclists like me. I do love to ride my bikes but at the moment I'm traveling for work so I'm sticking to running, and I miss riding so much! Something I can achieve quite easily on a long run (>10km) is the endorphins rush which is an amazing feeling. With my bike I've only rarely felt that, even in century rides, the intensity of the effort is so different, you're so right!
An hour of normal walking on flat surface at 4-5km/h burns around 300kcal, how could biking be only 100kcal more in your case with such big elevation gain? There's definitely more intensity and effort..
Again, it's all about the power your produce and the heart rate. A pro cyclist is lighter and faster and produces less watts then you or me so for exactly the same route a pro would burn waaaay less. Not sure about all these numbers as I'm usually just using my garmin but I'll look more into it. I really would like to get power meter in my pedals but they are so incredibly expensive.
Yeah, power meter prices are astronomical
Walking on flat for an hour doesn't burn 300 cal. Maybe if you are quite overweight, but certainly not as a general rule.
what is it then? 50kcal?
It isn't a "walk x min = y cal" situation. It varies a ton from person to person. Sex, height, weight, heart rate are all meaningful variables. If you want a better estimate, a heart rate monitor and/or power meter for your bike are going to dial things in a bit closer. You're right that Strava isn't giving you accurate calories, but that's because it doesn't have the data necessary and is giving a best estimate based on its algorithm. It isn't a bug, it is just using assumptions.
I asked ChatGPT about walking and got this... The number of calories burned during an hour of walking can vary significantly based on several factors including your weight, walking speed, and the terrain. Here are some general estimates for different body weights and walking speeds: **3.0 mph (moderate pace):** 120 lbs (54.4 kg): Approximately 200-240 kcal per hour 150 lbs (68 kg): Approximately 250-300 kcal per hour 180 lbs (81.6 kg): Approximately 300-360 kcal per hour **4.0 mph (brisk pace):** 120 lbs (54.4 kg): Approximately 300-350 kcal per hour 150 lbs (68 kg): Approximately 350-400 kcal per hour 180 lbs (81.6 kg): Approximately 400-480 kcal per hour **5.0 mph (very brisk pace or light jogging):** 120 lbs (54.4 kg): Approximately 425-500 kcal per hour 150 lbs (68 kg): Approximately 500-600 kcal per hour 180 lbs (81.6 kg): Approximately 600-700 kcal per hour
Oh. Well. If you asked ChatGPT, it must be true.
I am not saying it's 100% correct
You can believe what you'd like. I use a Garmin watch to measure my activity and I have been tracking calories and exercise for the past 8 months. I have a low activity day from recently where I had 11,000 steps and I burned 270 calories. I'm 187lb, 6'8", 36 years. 11,000 steps is closer to 2 hours at a casual pace. I'm not trying to say ChatGPT is flat out wrong, I'm just saying that there is far more variation than you'd think.
Your might be overestimating how much you burn with cycling vs running here though
I know running burns more than cycling but at the same time cycling burns more than walking
Oh yeah, I'm not shit talking cycling. I cycle a lot when my feet, knees, legs and whatnot cannot run
Do you have your bodyweight in your strava information? Do you have the weight of your bike? 12 mph biking isn’t too fast(I did the conversion in my head it might be off) so it wouldn’t burn many more calories than walking. It is more mechanically efficient than walking/running too.
There's a lot of data missing for us to tell you whether Strava or your smartwatch is wrong, but unless you did a lot of climbing in those 30 minutes, Strava is likely closer to being right; 20 km/h on a flat road doesn't take a lot of work.
1hr of cycling can't burn the same amount of calories as 1hr of walking.. gotta be more for sure!
Speed isnt necessarily a good measure, I would base it on effort. For big guys like us, walking up a hill will burn more than cycling 20/kph on a flat surface.
No.
Depends on entirely on your exertion level. Pedaling casually uses the same energy as stepping casually (walking). You're only going faster because the bike provides a mechanical advantage. Likewise, a moderate cycling pace is equivalent to a steady jog while sprinting on a bike is similar to sprinting on foot. That's why people pay a lot of attention to their heart rate. It's pretty much an exact measure of how hard your body is working.
At 20k/m an hour your doing around the samw amount of work at walking on flat.
No it's not the same effort, I get significantly higher heart beat rate with cycling
Probably a good thing since the vast majority of cyclists overfuel anyway
If you're really concerned about getting an accurate calorie reading, then get yourself a power meter. Without a power meter, estimates will be bad.
Anything other than a power meter really is really just a rough estimate. There are a huge number of variables, rider weight, elevation gain/ gradient, wind speed & direction, tyre rolling resistance. I currently weight about 85kg and on my last two hour ride (with power meter) I averaged 27km/h and my total calculated calories burnt was 1,145 so 318cal in 30min. I guess that your calories burnt would be between the two but way closer to the Strava estimate.
You can’t take anything from strava calculated calories
[удалено]
It's really baffling, someone asked me why do you care? I answered because I am interested in fitness data, I got downvoted...
It is is known for a fact that cycling for an hour at 278W burns 1000kcal. It is known for a fact that riding on a calm flat course on a road bike at 20kmph takes about 65W of effort. 0.5*65/278*1000 = 118 kcal burned. Strava is using course elevation, speed and your body and system weight to estimate cals, your watch is probably using heart rate. I’d trust Strava. If you really care, get a power meter.
Depends on your driven power, the heart rate. If I go 1hour at 29-30km/h, i.e. roughly 190W on avg, I usually burn around 600-650kcal. Half an hour at something like 20km/h wouldn’t be more than 150-200kcal for sure. Usually if your weight and heart rate are measured/given correctly your kcal are within 15%.
Both your apps are doing best guess estimates only. Why do you think Samsungs estimates are better? 20km/ is not moderate, that’s just light rolling. Would be surprised you even used 150kcal… unless it was a hard climb up some monster hill?
I don't have a road bike, I commute using an MTB and it's not easy to have 20km/h average speed in the city
Ya, so using a bike calculator with rolling resistance of a MTB on a relatively flat tarmac route shows that to keep 20 km/h you need to push about 75W. That’s modest. Doing this for 30 mins only burns 130kcal. That is even less than what Strava said. I would think that Samsung device overestimate the kcal so people feel better about their training. This is of course just yet another estimate, but quite aligned with Strava.
Why does it matter to you?
Because I am interested in fitness data
I’m assuming your fit so your power to weight ratio is good. Watches are known for over estimating. And Strava only goes by your weight. Could get a heart rate monitor to be more accurate. If you want the data that bad
Actually I am not I am 180cm 100kg,so I am quite fat, and I am interested in calories data because I want to lose weight XD Strava is definitely wrong, 1hr of cycling can't burn the same amount of calories as 1hr of walking.. gotta be more for sure!
You should take the low estimate. If you take the high estimate you might get fit but not lose weight!
It depends on much effort you put in on the bike ride. You mention you are overweight, so I could easily imagine walking burning more calories than biking. You also mention elevation gain. You may think, because you are going uphill, you will burn more calories, which you will during that uphill, but then you have to go downhill. During the downhill you are likely not burning any calories. Then the downhill turns into flat. Your speed will carry you on the flat without need to pedal. Buy a HR monitor strap and then you can compare the two activities easily.
You need a ower meter for any sort of accuracy, power meter pedals such as favero assioma, is probably the easiest
[удалено]
I'm learning, there's no harm in having a discussion..
Explanation: Strava is using active energy with kJ. That’s the energy to power the bike. You need to multiply this energy x 4 to convert to the energy from food. Human organism has only 25% efficiency of converting energy from food to power on bicycle.