hmmm..was it really that many calories?

[stacie13]

Wow, all this info is totally promising. I recall many years ago having my b/f at the time tell me that he read something about how cycling is one of the most energy efficient types of exercise... or something like that - meaning that it wasn't very good for burning calories. It never stopped me from doing it, but I did wonder how true it was. I'm very happy to hear the sport I LOVE really burns those calories! While you're having fun... so great.

[Blueberry]

Wow, all this info is totally promising. I recall many years ago having my b/f at the time tell me that he read something about how cycling is one of the most energy efficient types of exercise... or something like that - meaning that it wasn't very good for burning calories. It never stopped me from doing it, but I did wonder how true it was. I'm very happy to hear the sport I LOVE really burns those calories! While you're having fun... so great.

Actually, it's one of the most efficient forms of transportation. The energy expended to cover a distance on a bike is much less than walking or driving. Of course, you wouldn't want to walk a century (at least I wouldn't!).

CA

[michelem]

See this post by SadieKate:

http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showt...light=calories

[OakLeaf]

If it's only taking distance, speed and weight into account, you get rides like mine yesterday.

To the LBS: 16.27 miles into a 16-20 mph headwind with 30 mph gusts. It took me 1:10. Computer says 655 calories.

From the LBS, 16.22 by a slightly different route. Thankfully the wind hadn't changed and it blew me all the way home in 0:54. Computer says 795 calories.

I think I probably burned a lot more calories on the upwind leg... even if I was going faster the other way!