<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Calories Burned Biking</title>
	<atom:link href="http://morechristlike.com/calories-burned-biking/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://morechristlike.com/calories-burned-biking/</link>
	<description>Changed into the same image</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 09:09:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The_Mick</title>
		<link>http://morechristlike.com/calories-burned-biking/comment-page-1/#comment-2705</link>
		<dc:creator>The_Mick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 00:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://morechristlike.com/?p=7750#comment-2705</guid>
		<description>You don&#039;t include weight at all except to note it will &quot;effect&quot;.  Double the weight and you DOUBLE the calories per mile walking or running.

The Dr. Edward Coyle to whom you refer and base your calculations published calorie consumption PER POUND of biker weight.  So doubling the weight in cycling ALSO doubles the calories burned.

Coyle&#039;s numbers are based on TOP athletes.

The rule of thumb for slow biking (around 10 mph) is that your Calories burned are about 1/4 of your weight in pounds per mile.

For walking/running, the Jalories burned are closer to 2/3 of your weight in pounds per mile.

However, the casual cyclist will typical travel 3x as far as a walker in the same amount of time, and that&#039;s also roughly true for racing cyclists compared to runners.  So biking is an excellent way to burn calories fast and your shoulders, arms, back, and legs tend to get toned much bettier with biking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You don&#8217;t include weight at all except to note it will &#8220;effect&#8221;.  Double the weight and you DOUBLE the calories per mile walking or running.</p>
<p>The Dr. Edward Coyle to whom you refer and base your calculations published calorie consumption PER POUND of biker weight.  So doubling the weight in cycling ALSO doubles the calories burned.</p>
<p>Coyle&#8217;s numbers are based on TOP athletes.</p>
<p>The rule of thumb for slow biking (around 10 mph) is that your Calories burned are about 1/4 of your weight in pounds per mile.</p>
<p>For walking/running, the Jalories burned are closer to 2/3 of your weight in pounds per mile.</p>
<p>However, the casual cyclist will typical travel 3x as far as a walker in the same amount of time, and that&#8217;s also roughly true for racing cyclists compared to runners.  So biking is an excellent way to burn calories fast and your shoulders, arms, back, and legs tend to get toned much bettier with biking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bob</title>
		<link>http://morechristlike.com/calories-burned-biking/comment-page-1/#comment-2690</link>
		<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 14:29:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://morechristlike.com/?p=7750#comment-2690</guid>
		<description>Hi Steve,

I didn&#039;t take the rise and fall of elevation and a number of other things like wind speed, temperature, runner/cycler weight, and elevation into the equation.  While these things will effect running and cycling some what differently I think the general premise of the article still stands.

Bob.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Steve,</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t take the rise and fall of elevation and a number of other things like wind speed, temperature, runner/cycler weight, and elevation into the equation.  While these things will effect running and cycling some what differently I think the general premise of the article still stands.</p>
<p>Bob.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Lewnau</title>
		<link>http://morechristlike.com/calories-burned-biking/comment-page-1/#comment-2685</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Lewnau</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 May 2011 17:37:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://morechristlike.com/?p=7750#comment-2685</guid>
		<description>Hello, while I agree that biking long distances is easier than running the same distance, you&#039;re comparisons / calculations fail to include elevation.  The Western States 100 that Scott Jerek won has 18,090 of total elevation gain.  A person may burn 110 calories per mile running on flat ground, but when climbing hills that number increases exponentially.  That&#039;s a 3.5% grade for 100 miles, so he would be burning about 3000 more calories making it 14000 calories or 900 calories per hour.  Obviously it&#039;s hard to include all factors, but saying one is better than the other seems moot.  It&#039;s all subjective in the end.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello, while I agree that biking long distances is easier than running the same distance, you&#8217;re comparisons / calculations fail to include elevation.  The Western States 100 that Scott Jerek won has 18,090 of total elevation gain.  A person may burn 110 calories per mile running on flat ground, but when climbing hills that number increases exponentially.  That&#8217;s a 3.5% grade for 100 miles, so he would be burning about 3000 more calories making it 14000 calories or 900 calories per hour.  Obviously it&#8217;s hard to include all factors, but saying one is better than the other seems moot.  It&#8217;s all subjective in the end.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Mutch</title>
		<link>http://morechristlike.com/calories-burned-biking/comment-page-1/#comment-782</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Mutch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:28:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://morechristlike.com/?p=7750#comment-782</guid>
		<description>Hi Michael Knowles,

What is your average speed or the time it takes for you to do 20km on your bike? Your calorie burn in 20km will depend on what your average speed is.

Each stationary bikes will have different resistance settings but you can set them up equivalent to actual road cycling.

Thanks!

Bob.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Michael Knowles,</p>
<p>What is your average speed or the time it takes for you to do 20km on your bike? Your calorie burn in 20km will depend on what your average speed is.</p>
<p>Each stationary bikes will have different resistance settings but you can set them up equivalent to actual road cycling.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Bob.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Knowles</title>
		<link>http://morechristlike.com/calories-burned-biking/comment-page-1/#comment-776</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Knowles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:57:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://morechristlike.com/?p=7750#comment-776</guid>
		<description>When I bike I burn 560 cal in 20 km. Is this correct. Is stationary biking equivalent to actual road biking</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I bike I burn 560 cal in 20 km. Is this correct. Is stationary biking equivalent to actual road biking</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

