Does Biking at the Same Heart Rate as Running Really Burn the Same Number of Calories? Trying to Eat Enough

I would think it would be. Your cardiovascular system doesn't differentiate. That's a pretty high sustained HR on a bike. Have you been riding long so that you have built up the leg strength? are you using chest strap garmin on the bike?

Its definitely fairly accurate, as long as you are working hard on the bike you will be burning a lot of calories

Cycling is not a weight bearing activity and you won't burn the same number of calories per hour at the same heart rate as running. If your bike is accurate you can make a pretty good guess at the calories burned (around 30 calories per mile but it varies). Garmin isn't accurate for this purpose whether you're running or cycling.

try this? wrote:

Cycling is not a weight bearing activity and you won't burn the same number of calories per hour at the same heart rate as running. If your bike is accurate you can make a pretty good guess at the calories burned (around 30 calories per mile but it varies). Garmin isn't accurate for this purpose whether you're running or cycling.

I agree with this if you are measuring by time. But i think by HR it would be pretty accurate IF you use a chest HRM strap. garmin wrist readings are all over the place and generally read on the high side. This would over estimate HR and calories burned.

try this? wrote:

Cycling is not a weight bearing activity and you won't burn the same number of calories per hour at the same heart rate as running.

Slightly less calories per hour biking, but one hour of biking is nothing. You can ride for many more hours at a decent intensity biking compared to running.

backwards wrote:

try this? wrote:

Cycling is not a weight bearing activity and you won't burn the same number of calories per hour at the same heart rate as running. If your bike is accurate you can make a pretty good guess at the calories burned (around 30 calories per mile but it varies). Garmin isn't accurate for this purpose whether you're running or cycling.

I agree with this if you are measuring by time. But i think by HR it would be pretty accurate IF you use a chest HRM strap. garmin wrist readings are all over the place and generally read on the high side. This would over estimate HR and calories burned.

You're nuts if you think the calorie counts that Garmin gives you are accurate, even if you use a strap.

If you are maintaining your body weight, then you are meeting your needs. Although read Burn to learn why it is not so simple.

The biggest difference between Running & cycling is coasting. You can get your heart rate up there but if your not careful it will drop by more than you thing on the downs.

try this? wrote:

You're nuts if you think the calorie counts that Garmin gives you are accurate, even if you use a strap.

I don't think the Garmin calorie count is accurate but i think that 1 hour at 165 HR running will burn the same number of calories as 165 HR biking.

This is assuming that the HR is accurate.

The advantage of biking is that you can get a much, much more precise measurement of your calories burned than you can with running (as long as you have a power meter). You can calculate your kilojoules as average watts × ride length in seconds / 1000 and 1 Calorie=4.186 kJs. The only unknown variable is how efficient you are in converting energy into movement. A good estimate would be 25%. So if you know your average watts, you can a very good estimate of your calories (kJs/4.186/0.25). Heart rate conversions to calories in running by comparison are virtually useless.

try this? wrote:

Cycling is not a weight bearing activity and you won't burn the same number of calories per hour at the same heart rate as running. If your bike is accurate you can make a pretty good guess at the calories burned (around 30 calories per mile but it varies). Garmin isn't accurate for this purpose whether you're running or cycling.

I forgot to note that 30 calories per mile is only accurate if you are pushing around 170-180 watts average, which isn't very intense. If you go a little more intense and average 250 watts, you are burning over 40 calories a mile.

try this? wrote:

Cycling is not a weight bearing activity and you won't burn the same number of calories per hour at the same heart rate as running. If your bike is accurate you can make a pretty good guess at the calories burned (around 30 calories per mile but it varies). Garmin isn't accurate for this purpose whether you're running or cycling.

The thing that differentiates running from biking is it is fairly easy to ride for hours on end (where as the pounding from running would be far more difficult). When I was doing triathlons, I would drop a considerable amount of weight while training simply because I was training longer. If you are keeping your heart rate that high for that long, I could see the need to eat to keep weight if that is your goal.

Really informative discussion here! Thanks, everyone.

Based on my back of the envelope math — and after recording my average wattage of 265W for this morning’s 75 min. HIIT ride — it seems like the Garmin is pretty darn accurate, perhaps even undercounting slightly!

BikerBoi wrote:

Really informative discussion here! Thanks, everyone.

Based on my back of the envelope math — and after recording my average wattage of 265W for this morning’s 75 min. HIIT ride — it seems like the Garmin is pretty darn accurate, perhaps even undercounting slightly!

265 isn't high intensity. It's equivalent to something like 7 minute miling.

bikerun wrote:

BikerBoi wrote:

Really informative discussion here! Thanks, everyone.

Based on my back of the envelope math — and after recording my average wattage of 265W for this morning’s 75 min. HIIT ride — it seems like the Garmin is pretty darn accurate, perhaps even undercounting slightly!

265 isn't high intensity. It's equivalent to something like 7 minute miling.

Unless you know his weight, saying it is or isn’t high intensity is a complete guess. Someone who weighs 130lbs pushing 265W for 90 mins is 4.5W/kg and is very impressive and hard work. Different story of that person weighs 200lbs.

chickenlegsmc wrote:

bikerun wrote:

265 isn't high intensity. It's equivalent to something like 7 minute miling.

Unless you know his weight, saying it is or isn’t high intensity is a complete guess. Someone who weighs 130lbs pushing 265W for 90 mins is 4.5W/kg and is very impressive and hard work. Different story of that person weighs 200lbs.

I agree with chickenlegs that rider mass is inversely related to the intensity, but I'll add that while 265W for an experienced cyclist isn't high intensity, it could be for someone without cycling fitness - even if they are a strong runner. For example, I can hold 265W until I run out of fuel (if I'm not eating), which is about 2 hours if I've really loaded up. For my wife, 265W is high intensity.

Funnily enough, both of you were pretty much dead-on — I weigh 130lbs. and had absolutely zero cycling-specific fitness prior to my running injury, save for 3 short weeks of biking during a stress reaction back in May 2020.

We need to see a Strava link to believe this.

Holding 4.5W/kg for 90 minutes is elite level.

What is your FTP?

As many says, HR reflects the actaual work done. The heart responds to the need of oxygen, which in the end is due to the aerobic metabolism. We have two aerobic fuels, which is fat and glucose. These fuels need different amounts of oxygen so if you compare very slow cycling with intense running it can be skewed. But I guess you don't as you try to hit the same HR and then the metabolism would be comparable and then the same oxygen need covered by the heart regardless of cycling or running. Now in cycling you use less muscle volume so it is normal to have a lower HR for the same felt effort. But in general same HR gives same energy use which is the same in calories.

You can always do some standing cycling to employ more of the body and either raise the HR or reduce the "effort"