Say the same 5mile ride going at 5 miles per hour versus 10, 15 20 etc. Even though the faster speed means shorter ride does it also always result in more calories burned?
I have the same commute looking to up the exercise somehow.
Bicycles Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who build and repair bicycles, people who train cycling, or commute on bicycles. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
All other things being equal, yes. The increase in effort more than makes up for the decrease in ride time.
Consider two scenarios where one rides 20 km: first at 25 km/h, second at 30 km/h. In the first case, riding at 25 km/h takes 96 W of power, in the second, riding at 30 km/h takes 150 W according to this web page (using my own stats).
96 W * 20 km / 25 km/h = 276 kJ over 48 minutes 150 W * 20 km / 30 km/h = 360 kJ over 40 minutes
Thanks to a lucky mathematical coincidence, kilojoules of work is almost exactly equal to calories burned. Some estimating tools treat calories burned as 10% above kJ of work.
Speaking purely in calories and power, this is just a small elaboration on Adam's answer: the power required to maintain a certain speed against aerodynamic drag is proportionate to the cube of that speed. The time to complete a distance is inversely proportional to speed. Thus, you will always burn more total calories if you increase your speed. The fact I asserted about power and aerodynamic drag is available in the calculator that Adam linked.
I am oversimplifying a bit, since I'm ignoring elevation change and rolling resistance. The power to overcome rolling resistance (that is the power consumed to overcome the friction between tires and ground) is linearly proportional to your speed. However, I believe that the speed where aerodynamic drag is greater than rolling resistance is quite low, possibly in the region of 10mph. Whatever the case, the total power required to hold a certain speed does not increase linearly, thus giving you your answer.