Hi,
Im a 6’2” 25 yr old man. Im reasonably fit and athletic but was looking to cut some fat and actually undertand my calorie intake and expenditure, which I’ve never really paid attention to.
From everything I’ve read cycling should burn more calories than walking, however google fit on my smartwatch is measuring walking as usingroughly the same amount of calories as cycling, even when im working much harder on bike than on foot.
I’ve not got a large sample but these are my trips:
Walking: - 5.29km, avg heart rate 111bpm, 58 minutes, 305 calories (flat gradient the whole time) - 10.25km, avg heart rate 130bpm, 2 hrs, 618 calories (two hills taking about 5 mins each, non steep gradient for both and flat the rest of the time) - 6.84 km, avg heart rate 103bpm, 1 hr 15 minutes, 390 calories (flat gradient the whole time)
Cycling - 16.5 km, avg heart rate 140bpm, 45 minutes, 287 calories (flat gradient, though heavy wind resistance at times) -29 km, avg heart rate 133bpm, 1hr 30 minutes, 514 calories (flat gradient, no serious wind resistance) -14.5km, avg heart rate 142, 40 mins, 250 calories (flat gradient, significant wind resistance)
I appreciate that these are nowhere near extreme workouts but it seems weird that a walk and a bike ride seem to burn roughly the same amount of calories even when im working significantly harder (based on avg heart rate) on the bike.
Im tracking everything using a Fossil Sport smartwatch and google fit, inputting what my exercise is at the start of the walk/ride.
Am I overestimating how many additional calories harder work will burn or am I using a poor measurement for expenditure?
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/loseit/comments/hhdll8/calories_burnt_cycling_less_than_that_burnt/
No comments:
Post a Comment