Calories burnt on commute

[GrasB]

Yikes that's far more sophisticated than I would ever need contemplate

Best guess is a good enough "guide" for me lol. Oh, forgot to mention that when combined with the heart rate monitor earlier in the week, the Garmin reckoned I'd burnt 1,300 calories on a 15 mile commute. My non-waife like status confirms this is a lie

There is a difference between a 'good guess' & accurate. If you wish to have a general estimate something like vicksters guide is a good one. Another thing to remember is that some of those calories you will have burnt off just 'living' so you often get an exaggerated idea of how much you need to eat.

 

[Twizit]

ooo what have I started! Just to be clear, I'm not out to measure my calories burnt in great detail, this was more just me noticing the large discrepancy between two GPS devices. That said, it's getting interesting.

I'd found another site that, like Vickster's, guesstimated 40 calories per mile. That said, according to Vickster's link at my 15 mph avg and 220 lbs

my calories burnt is more like 858 per hour

Either way I'm going to use it as an excuse to go eating more cake (honest....) but it's interesting to know.

 

[vickster]

Ah indeed, but I bet you weren't pedalling at 15mph for the whole hour, unless you are a serial RLJ'er

Either way I'm going to use it as an excuse to go eating more cake (honest....) but it's interesting to know.

Very honest that you will be using it as an excuse for more cake (I am like that too, but I go for a skinny muffin )

 

[Twizit]

Ah indeed, but I bet you weren't pedalling at 15mph for the whole hour, unless you are a serial RLJ'er

RLJ? Me? Never

15 mph is my average though - commute is 15 miles and it took 59 minutes this morning. Average riding speed is usually 17 - 18 mph when stops are taken out of the equation, so all those blasted lights cost me about 2mph

 

[cyberknight]

When i used to use high spec gym cycles about 15 or so years ago i would hit 1000 calories in an hour but to do that i was really going for it and the last 30 minutes was done at over 90 % of my theoretical heart rate.
Even with fans blasting at me i was drenched with sweat.

So my thought is the lower of the two reading is more accurate.

 

[quassleberry]

Oh blast it! and there was me eating more cake because I thought I'd earned it.

I have one of those watches that's supposed to tell you how far you've run, heart rate etc, but I can't get all the functions to work at the same time, I may as well be reading the french set of instructions. So when I'm running I just use the stopwatch, then only as a watch when commuting.

 

[BlackPanther]

I thought that cycling to work 22 miles per day would see the weight just fall off of me. After a full year cycling, this hasn't happened and I've only dropped from 12 1/2 stone down to 12 stone. I put this down to the fact that my legs are far more muscly now (muscle is heavy), and the fact that after about 4 weeks or so, I noticed that the commute got easier and easier, until I wasn't breaking sweat anymore on the ride in, and I now have to ride home super fast to get a proper workout. I suppose if you're really keen to burn more calories you could intentionally 'overdress'. A cheapo non-breathable waterproof jacket would make you sweat a lot more......or put some bricks in your panniers.

 

[DrSquirrel]

I use SportsTrack Pro on my Android, and doing the same route on two different occasions it can give a difference of 100's of calories.
It may be related to the fact that GPS readings for altitude are not very accurate, so if it notices more ups and downs it figures you're burning more.

+1 GPS altitude sucks, too erratic. Do remember that some bike GPS units have barometric altimeter in them, they might not be perfectly accurate without calibration but their relative altitude from A to B is much better and more important.