# Another calories-burning question ...this time for fixed gear riding



## Djudd (Jan 29, 2004)

Anyone have numbers on calories burned (per hour) riding a fixie. I assume the charts I have for calories burned on a geared bike are not applicable (for obvious reasons).
thank you


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*I'm thinking...*



Djudd said:


> Anyone have numbers on calories burned (per hour) riding a fixie. I assume the charts I have for calories burned on a geared bike are not applicable (for obvious reasons).
> thank you


That it would probably be about the same really. To get a true accurate measurement, you need to determine what your normal metabolic rate is, and what you're currently burning. How you do this, I don't know for certain. Here is a quick search I did for metabolic rate calculations:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=metabolic+rates


----------



## 53T (Jul 20, 2002)

*Obvious???*



Djudd said:


> Anyone have numbers on calories burned (per hour) riding a fixie. I assume the charts I have for calories burned on a geared bike are not applicable (for obvious reasons).
> thank you


If you go like hell on a fixed for 1 hour, then go like hell on your race bike for an hour, you burn the same amount of calories. Of course on the race bike you cover more ground, assuming some diversity of terrain.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

*coasting*



53T said:


> If you go like hell on a fixed for 1 hour, then go like hell on your race bike for an hour, you burn the same amount of calories. Of course on the race bike you cover more ground, assuming some diversity of terrain.


I think the primary difference would be coasting. When descending on a normal bike, if you are coasting, your effort is minimal. When descending on a fixed bike, you are still "going like hell." For flat ground, I doubt there is a difference, depending upon gear selection.

I have no idea how to measure this, unless there is a close correlation between heart rate and colories burned.


----------



## PdxMark (Feb 3, 2004)

*My purely subjective opinion...*

Is that fixed gear riding on regular variable terrain (arbitrary mix of climbing, descending, flats) seems to burn 15%-20% more than multi-geared riding. This is based on how much I eat and how I feel. I think the extra work comes from descending, as Doug said, but also sustained out-of-saddle climbing and higher-than-usual cadence on fast flats. 

So it's probably subjective to the point of pointlessness, but I do notice a difference, so that's what makes me think it's more than just a 10% noise range difference.

And, quite literally this time, YMMV.


----------



## PdxMark (Feb 3, 2004)

On further reflection, I think the difference is more like 10%-15%... 20% is too high


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

*sounds about right*



PdxMark said:


> On further reflection, I think the difference is more like 10%-15%... 20% is too high


In reality, what I found that I have done on very hilly rides on the fixed is to rest up a bit before the monumental efforts, like any hill over 10% grade, knowing that I'll need every bit of power I can muster to get up it. This probably accounts for a bit less energy burned in the "saving up" period, maybe even a resting period after the steep parts, but off the scale energy expended while climbing hard (out of the saddle for miles on end).

I think this only applies to the hillier routes, though. On flatter routes, I probably burn more calories on a geared bike, because I can keep my power right in an optimum range for heart rate and cadence (with a higher average heart rate, which I assume means higher total energy expended). Fixed will nearly always have some sections where I'm spun out (like tailwinds) or at a sub-optimal cadence.


----------



## fast klein (Nov 11, 2004)

DougSloan said:


> In reality, what I found that I have done on very hilly rides on the fixed is to rest up a bit before the monumental efforts, like any hill over 10% grade, knowing that I'll need every bit of power I can muster to get up it. This probably accounts for a bit less energy burned in the "saving up" period, maybe even a resting period after the steep parts, but off the scale energy expended while climbing hard (out of the saddle for miles on end).
> 
> I think this only applies to the hillier routes, though. On flatter routes, I probably burn more calories on a geared bike, because I can keep my power right in an optimum range for heart rate and cadence (with a higher average heart rate, which I assume means higher total energy expended). Fixed will nearly always have some sections where I'm spun out (like tailwinds) or at a sub-optimal cadence.



I think that in sections were you are at sub optimal cadence you are probably burning more callories because you are working less efficiently. IMO when you are in that optimal range for heart rate and cadence that you talk about you are working more efficienly, not spinning as fast or pushing as hard up the hills. I suppose that you could argue that you could find a heart rate zone and cadence that you could keep up at a higher rate for longer amounts of time though. I guess it depends on the ride; how much time you have the terrain that you are covvering, etc.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*Does the answer have something to do...*

with the difference in work required?

Clearly, if you spend the same amount of effort on each, you'd burn the same amount of calories. I've been wondering the same question the OP asked, myself, as most of my training I've started on is on a fixed gear. 

I find that doing hills (and very little terrain out here is flat-as-a-board) takes a whole lot of effort; more standing on uphills than in my (admittedly limited) experience on gearies, pushing a larger gear than I might shift to, which probably takes more effort and burns more calories than I would spend on a multi-gear bike, and then on the way down, I'm having to use energy resisting the pedal motion to prevent myself from spinning out like crazy, which takes more energy than the 'soft-pedaling' I often did on a gearie. <b> I </b> probably burn a <b> lot </b> more on a fixie, because I was a big <b> wimp </b> on a multispeed bike. But if you're not...

If you go from sitting and spinning gently up, coasting down, to standing and hammering up, then spinning like crazy down, that's one thing, right? But if you were mashing a pretty big gear anyway up the hill and still pedalling down it, would there be a change at all? I'm going to guess not.

The main point of it seems to be, IMHO, that it's an entirely personal matter about how many more calories YOU burn on a a fixie. The question would be: "how much more effort does your fixed gear bike make you decide to spend on an average ride?" 

*shrug* Usual 'YMMY' and "I don't have any serious sage information here" disclaimers.


----------



## ukiahb (Jan 26, 2003)

*A HRM might help.....*

there is evidently a connection between calories burned and heart rate as my Sigma HRM does display calories burned after a timed workout. I don't imagine it is all that accurate, but it might work well to establish a differential between riding geared and fixed on a given course 
( maybe something like 10% more on a fixed gear??)....then that factor could be applied to amounts given for geared riding. I'lll try it sometime and post my results. My intuitive sense is like that of other posters, that there would not be a big difference on a fairly flat course, but that it is probably significant on a hilly one. ....though a hilly course would take longer on a fixie, so even if total calories burned were higher, calories/hr might not be that much more than on a geared bike.


----------

