# Calculating Calories



## Ian Watts (28 Oct 2013)

OK - I have been using Endomondo to calculate calories burnt on a 20 mile bike ride. This links to My Fitness Pal which I also use.

Endomondo, and other calculators I have used, have a 20 mile, 1hr 45min ride burning between 1600 and 1800 calories. I am 42, 5 foot 11 inch, and weigh 18 stone 4 pounds.

People on My Fitness Pal swear blind the calculation is wrong, reckoning that a 20 mile bike ride of that duration should be more like 800-900 calories. 

Is there a way to check what is right, or do any cyclists on here have any opinion. I don't know what to trust.


----------



## buggi (28 Oct 2013)

no that's correct. I was used to cycle 1 hour to work and my HR monitor quoted 900 or so. Sounds about right to me.


----------



## Sittingduck (28 Oct 2013)

You're going to get a whole bunch of stuff said on this thread and wildly different numbers quoted. Many variables to be taken into account...


----------



## Ian Watts (28 Oct 2013)

OK - does a HRM make the calculation more reliable


----------



## vickster (28 Oct 2013)

My rough rule of thumb is 30-40 cals per mile, higher end if you are heavier and/or riding over lumpier terrain. So 800-900 sounds about right to me

Not that it really matters how exact it is if you are seeing the desired effect


----------



## colly (28 Oct 2013)

Yep 40 calories per mile is what I reckon too. That equates to 1 jelly baby per mile.
Probably too many variables to be all that accurate no matter what system you use.....your weight, bikes weight, wind against you or with you, amount of uphill, rolling resistance, dunno what else but maybe even how efficient you actually push the pedals.


----------



## Crankarm (28 Oct 2013)

Don't count calories just reduce portion size and up your mileage. I have never ever counted calories and managed fine. If you are telling yourself you shouldn't really be eating something or you shouldn't be having seconds or to put half back on the serving plate .......... you are probably right. Less is more. I think Pro riders count calories but they need to as they can't get enough calories!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Oct 2013)

Ian Watts said:


> OK - does a HRM make the calculation more reliable


No


----------



## VamP (29 Oct 2013)

900 calories per hour is a lot. I probably don't quite burn that in an hour of racing.

Contrary to popular opinion, being unfit doesn't mean you magically burn more calories for a given amount of work. Simply put, the more power you are putting out, the more calories you burn.

So I'd say the people on My Fitness Pal were closer to reality than your Endomondo. In fact, they are probably over-estimating too.


----------



## colly (29 Oct 2013)

Just a thought:
You ride for an hour at 15mph. Then another time you ride for two hours at 7.5 mph. Do you use the same amount of calories?

One ride lasts an hour the other twice as long but you have still covered the same amount of distance.

Wind resistance would I suspect add a little but at 15mph it isn't going to be that much.


----------



## uclown2002 (29 Oct 2013)




----------



## VamP (29 Oct 2013)

uclown2002 said:


>


 
Is that supposed to be the troll feeding itself?


----------



## michaelcycle (29 Oct 2013)

Ian Watts said:


> OK - does a HRM make the calculation more reliable



In your scenario - no.

If a HRM is used in a steady state session and preferably in a controlled setting (like a gym) then it can give a reasonable calculation (but really it would need a chest strap and be working off your VO2 Max data for good results.) This is because there is a strong correlation between oxygen update and energy expenditure in this scenario.

Outside of that, given your high weight I think somewhere in the region of 1,200 calories is about right for your ride.


----------



## Ian Watts (29 Oct 2013)

OK - I shall stop worrying. The result of this seems to be there is no reliable way of calculating calories burnt, so I shall stop worrying.


----------



## Herzog (29 Oct 2013)

Ian Watts said:


> OK - I shall stop worrying. The result of this seems to be there is no reliable way of calculating calories burnt, so I shall stop worrying.


 
I would...it's easiest!


----------



## uclown2002 (29 Oct 2013)

Ian Watts said:


> OK - I shall stop worrying. The result of this seems to be there is no reliable way of calculating calories burnt, so I shall stop worrying.



If you are tracking calories in and out I would err on the side of caution when calculating exercise calories, so use the lowest estimate you get from your sources.

To demonstrate the variability I have a 2 garmin devices, a FR70 (in bike mode) and a Garmin 800, both syncd to the same HRM. However, the 800 is normally about 30-40% less in its estimate, so I would use that one if I was to track calories.


----------



## Phaeton (29 Oct 2013)

I noticed this when I imported my Endomondo rides into Strava the calories were only about 30%. Using the same ride
Endomondo 23.24 Miles, 1h:28m:42s, 1980kcal
Strava 23.2 Miles, 1h:28m:57s 646 Calories

Alan...


----------



## VamP (29 Oct 2013)

Phaeton said:


> I noticed this when I imported my Endomondo rides into Strava the calories were only about 30%. Using the same ride
> Endomondo 23.24 Miles, 1h:28m:42s, 1980kcal
> Strava 23.2 Miles, 1h:28m:57s 646 Calories
> 
> Alan...


 
And that Strava number is still a slight overestimate. But a darn sight better one than that Endomondo shocker.


----------



## jowwy (29 Oct 2013)

last year when i lost 4.5stones i used the calculation of 30-40calories per mile and it worked for me


----------



## Sittingduck (29 Oct 2013)

For the MFP calculator, I would be inclined to subtract a good 20% from the estimated values. I used to do it that way anyway and based upon deficits generated and weight lost, I reckon it wasn't that far out. A heavy guy riding at quite a hard effort might burn 800 per hour or thereabouts but it really depends on level of effort and elevation, wind, tyre type, etc etc. Best thing to do is to try a best guess method for a while and you will get a feel for what is roughly right.


----------



## Davidc (29 Oct 2013)

I've never worried about energy burn (i.e. calories) in itself, there are simply too many variables.

There was one circumstance though where I did (did - not any more sadly) which was when touring. With a heavy load for camping or slightly less B&B, and doing between 80 and 100 miles a day, I needed to eat about 5500 to 6000 calories a day to avoid losing weight.

With a lot less load and doing day rides of similar length every day for two weeks that drops to about 4500 to 5000.

(Average speeds between 10 and 15 mph)


----------



## Ian Watts (29 Oct 2013)

I've basically decided now to use http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/ to work out TDEE-20% (based on 3-5 hours of moderate exercise), and put that as a custom goal in MFP. I then will just concentrate on enjoying the exercise rather than running about the specifics of it. At 18.4 stone, any deficit is good.


----------



## uclown2002 (29 Oct 2013)

Ian Watts said:


> I've basically decided now to use http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/ to work out TDEE-20% (based on 3-5 hours of moderate exercise), and put that as a custom goal in MFP. I then will just concentrate on enjoying the exercise rather than running about the specifics of it. At 18.4 stone, any deficit is good.



Nice one, you can always adjust later if necessary.

You may know this but try to weigh yourself under similar conditions, i.e first thing in morning,before food and drink, after potty visit, stark bullock..... Also expect daily fluctuations through water retention. If your diet is working you should see a steady downward trend, but not necessarily day by day.

Good luck.


----------



## Ian Watts (29 Oct 2013)

uclown2002 said:


> Nice one, you can always adjust later if necessary.
> 
> You may know this but try to weigh yourself under similar conditions, i.e first thing in morning,before food and drink, after potty visit, stark bullock..... Also expect daily fluctuations through water retention. If your diet is working you should see a steady downward trend, but not necessarily day by day.
> 
> Good luck.


Cheers mate - just been for a big family meal and eaten all my calories in one meal (22 oz T Bone steak with all the trimmings). Better get out on my bike tomorrow. I do all the stuff above once a week - if ever the window cleaner came round while I was weighing myself he's run a mile.


----------



## Ian Watts (2 Nov 2013)

Endomondo publish their formula for working out calories for sports activities - I thought others might like to see it - this is based on not having a HRM:

*The formula looks like this: Calorie consumption in kcal = X kcal * body weight in kg * distance in km For instance, the factor for walking is 0.8. 

For a person with a weight of 75 kg taking a walk of 5 km, the formula looks like this: 
Calorie consumption in kcal = 0.8 kcal * 75 kg * 5 km 
Calorie consumption = 300 kcal *


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (2 Nov 2013)

Someone post a facepalm pic please


----------



## Cherrypop (2 Nov 2013)

Want to lose weight? Eat carbs the right way and your body will thank you for it, more importantly, eat real food.
http://theharcombediet.com/
Nothing new here, just things we might have forgotten.


----------



## Rob3rt (2 Nov 2013)

LOL.


----------



## jay clock (2 Nov 2013)

I used this one http://www.bikejournal.com/calories_calc.asp to give myself a base approx level of 32cal/km. A quick revisit says a 20 mile ride at 15mph for someone weighing 200 pounds says 1093 cals. Using the exact figures you give, results in 1043. So about a 1000


----------



## VamP (4 Nov 2013)

That's a vast overestimate.



jay clock said:


> I used this one http://www.bikejournal.com/calories_calc.asp to give myself a base approx level of 32cal/km. A quick revisit says a 20 mile ride at 15mph for someone weighing 200 pounds says 1093 cals. Using the exact figures you give, results in 1043. So about a 1000[/quoteThat's


----------



## 400bhp (4 Nov 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> LOL.



I like this bit


> “_The Harcombe Diet_” is the result of 20 years of research trying to answer the question “Why on earth do we have an obesity problem, let alone an epidemic, when we want more than anything else in the world to be slim?”



Then doesn't answer the question.

Man, there's some gems in that website


----------



## 400bhp (4 Nov 2013)

Question: Why get seemingly obsessed with calories?


----------



## Cherrypop (4 Nov 2013)

Worth perservering with the whole lecture if you want to look at the calorie and what you eat in a different way:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysoScJ2Q5RQ


----------



## 400bhp (4 Nov 2013)

No


----------



## User6179 (4 Nov 2013)

Ian Watts said:


> Endomondo publish their formula for working out calories for sports activities - I thought others might like to see it - this is based on not having a HRM:
> 
> *The formula looks like this: Calorie consumption in kcal = X kcal * body weight in kg * distance in km For instance, the factor for walking is 0.8.
> 
> ...


 
I found Endomondo to overestimate for cycling , Strava I thought was closer to the mark.


----------



## jay clock (4 Nov 2013)

400bhp said:


> Question: Why get seemingly obsessed with calories?


when I wanted to lose 3 stone (which I did and then kept off) I counted calories, worked on 2000 per day plus half the amount spent exercising, and it worked a treat. So not obsessing, but using it as a way to eat less energy and do more exercise. And by counting the cals you pretty much end up eating a more healthy diet in order to fill up on bulk


----------



## Crackle (4 Nov 2013)

Cherrypop said:


> Worth perservering with the whole lecture if you want to look at the calorie and what you eat in a different way:
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysoScJ2Q5RQ




Edited out: Just say I'm dubious and reacted a bit to the video.


----------



## Cherrypop (4 Nov 2013)

If you've listened to the lecture, you'll know that the evidence is far from established. But, it's up to everyone to make up their own minds. I'm not here to tell people what to think, merely that there is an alternative to eating a processed and sugar-laden diet. And I don't see that advocating cutting out the junk can in any way be 'dangerous rubbish'. I'd give that label to the foods we're advised to eat.


----------



## Crackle (4 Nov 2013)

Cherrypop said:


> If you've listened to the lecture, you'll know that the evidence is far from established. But, it's up to everyone to make up their own minds. I'm not here to tell people what to think, merely that there is an alternative to eating a processed and sugar-laden diet. And I don't see that advocating cutting out the junk can in any way be 'dangerous rubbish'. I'd give that label to the foods we're advised to eat.


There was a mix of things, uncontroversial facts presented in a way which made it seem new and other advice which was just a tadge bizarre. Ultimately, she's selling a book, not educating anyone with original research and the original research is out there if you want to go read it without Zoe's spin.


----------



## Cherrypop (4 Nov 2013)

Well, you have your opinion and that's absolutely fine. All I can say is that with 25 years experience in the NHS, several of which have been spent in clinical research, I can see that what she says makes absolute sense.
Tbh, she's simply taking the evidence that's out there and pulling it together to present the findings in a coherent way. These aren't her ideas that she's presenting but other people's. The evidence is out there that the advice we've been fed (no pun intended) about what we should be eating is seriously flawed. A doctor said to me fairly recently that type 2 diabetes will bring down the health service and I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately though, with the likes of the British sugar industry and Kelloggs sponsoring the dietetics advice, its a battle.


----------



## Crackle (4 Nov 2013)

Cherrypop said:


> Well, you have your opinion and that's absolutely fine. All I can say is that with 25 years experience in the NHS, several of which have been spent in clinical research, I can see that what she says makes absolute sense.
> Tbh, she's simply taking the evidence that's out there and pulling it together to present the findings in a coherent way. These aren't her ideas that she's presenting but other people's. The evidence is out there that the advice we've been fed (no pun intended) about what we should be eating is seriously flawed. A doctor said to me fairly recently that type 2 diabetes will bring down the health service and I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately though, with the likes of the British sugar industry, Kelligs


Sorry I edited my posts before you posted that.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Nov 2013)

Bonkers!


----------



## Cherrypop (4 Nov 2013)

o


Crackle said:


> There was a mix of things, uncontroversial facts presented in a way which made it seem new and other advice which was just a tadge bizarre. Ultimately, she's selling a book, not educating anyone with original research and the original research is out there if you want to go read it without Zoe's spin.


That's my point, the original research is out there and unfortunately, it doesn't support the advice we're given. Zoe has never, as far as I can tell, claimed any of this research as her own. Don't get me wrong, I'm not holding her up as some kind of heroine but she does unpick what the media feeds us and helps the public to question what we're told.
I see no harm in encouraging this. Her advice is ultimately that we should go back to eating real food - meat and 2 veg and lots of it. I'm all for that.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Nov 2013)

Cherrypop said:


> o
> 
> That's my point, the original research is out there and unfortunately, it doesn't support the advice we're given. *Zoe has never, as far as I can tell, claimed any of this research as her own.* Don't get me wrong, I'm not holding her up as some kind of heroine but she does unpick what the media feeds us and helps the public to question what we're told.
> I see no harm in encouraging this. Her advice is ultimately that we should go back to eating real food - meat and 2 veg and lots of it. I'm all for that.



But she has claimed ownership of "the diet" by naming it after herself making money off of its back. It has all the hallmarks of a fad diet.


----------



## User6179 (5 Nov 2013)

Crackle said:


> There was a mix of things, uncontroversial facts presented in a way which made it seem new and other advice which was just a tadge bizarre. Ultimately, she's selling a book, not educating anyone with original research and the original research is out there if you want to go read it without Zoe's spin.


 
I watched the last 20 minutes and she basically just saying that fatty foods are better than sugary foods and that carbs not fat is responsible for the obesity crisis.


----------



## Cherrypop (5 Nov 2013)

Eddy said:


> I watched the last 20 minutes and she basically just saying that fatty foods are better than sugary foods and that carbs not fat is responsible for the obesity crisis.


Correct. Had you watched the whole thing you'd know why this is the case. But, I'll leave it there, my blimming internet keeps dropping out and buggering up my posts and I've got a job to go to tomorrow! 
If this has stimulated a bit of debate, all the better. I'll think of you all tucking into your granola/ cornflakes/toast in the morning while I eat my several-egg omelette cooked in butter.....


----------



## Crackle (5 Nov 2013)

Cherrypop said:


> Correct. Had you watched the whole thing you'd know why this is the case. But, I'll leave it there, my blimming internet keeps dropping out and buggering up my posts and I've got a job to go to tomorrow!
> If this has stimulated a bit of debate, all the better. I'll think of you all tucking into your granola/ cornflakes/toast in the morning while I eat my several-egg omelette cooked in butter.....


 
I'll make one last contribution on this. I watched the video and got a bit agitated by it. Why, because the point of Zoe Harcombe is Zoe Harcombe, she's in it to sell books. She may claim to be an obesity researcher but she has no real qualifications in the field and definitely not anything at phd level. She's saying things we know but she's saying it in a confused way, a way in which people may take the wrong messages and her conclusions, when she reaches her own and doesn't use other people's, are at best and politely put, confusing. The stuff on exercise, carbohydrates and fruit is muddled and confused and ultimately wrong. I wanted to say that last night but my anger at her, one of a long line of sham experts on diet, muddled my mind.

You can pick up the same advice about trans fats, saturated fats, complex and simple carbohydrates, how carbohydrates are needed, when they are needed, how much, when and how to take exercise, not to boom and bust with your diet, manage your cholesterol, avoid type 2 diabetes and all the other messages from NICE guidance and the BHF etc... And it's clear and unconfused, not muddled by pseudo science and advice which might easily be misinterpreted and lead to mistakes. There's also more to life than eating to stay slim, Zoe seems to have missed that bit out.

Enjoy your eggs and butter, nothing wrong with either.


----------



## Ian Watts (5 Nov 2013)

400bhp said:


> Question: Why get seemingly obsessed with calories?


Because ultimately weight loss comes down to calories in vs calories out, and I am morbidly obese. If I don't count calories I could easily consume 4-5000 calories a day of unhealthy crap. Tracking calories works for me - It keep me in the right ball park. But therefore I want to know what I am expending too. The conclusion I have from this forum is that endomondo hasn't got a clue and everyone else just estimates. I was hoping for a scientific answer that gave an accurate figure, but maybe I was hoping for too much. That is no offense to anyone who has answered. I appreciate all your comments.


----------



## Ian Watts (5 Nov 2013)

Cherrypop said:


> Worth perservering with the whole lecture if you want to look at the calorie and what you eat in a different way:
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysoScJ2Q5RQ



I'll watch it and make up my own mind


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Nov 2013)

Ian Watts said:


> Because ultimately weight loss comes down to calories in vs calories out, and I am morbidly obese. If I don't count calories I could easily consume 4-5000 calories a day of unhealthy crap. Tracking calories works for me - It keep me in the right ball park. But therefore I want to know what I am expending too. The conclusion I have from this forum is that endomondo hasn't got a clue and everyone else just estimates.* I was hoping for a scientific answer that gave an accurate figure, but maybe I was hoping for too much. That is no offense to anyone who has answered. I appreciate all your comments*.



All you will get is estimates, some are better than others. However all of these algorithms etc I have found to be inferior to a basic assumption of ~40kCal per mile (I compared this basic rule of thumb to work done measured using my power meter data and it held up very well for me, a lot closer than various other algorithms).


----------



## Ian Watts (15 Nov 2013)

Well have now got a HRM and it has reduced my estimate by about a third.


----------



## uclown2002 (15 Nov 2013)

Ian Watts said:


> Well have now got a HRM and it has reduced my estimate by about a third.



How does it compare with Rob3rt's rule of thumb, ~40kcal per mile?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (15 Nov 2013)

uclown2002 said:


> How does it compare with Rob3rt's rule of thumb, ~40kcal per mile?


40cal per mile of what? The HRM doesn't know what you're doing


----------



## Ian Watts (15 Nov 2013)

uclown2002 said:


> How does it compare with Rob3rt's rule of thumb, ~40kcal per mile?



Rob3rt's rule of thumb - 760
Without HRM Endomondo - 1725 calories
With HRM Endomondo - 1298

Anyway - as I was using My Fitness Pal before, you were meant to eat calories burnt in a day (on top of daily calories), and I don't bother with that now. I just thought it was interesting that at least with the HRM it had more data to go on. With no way to measure, including Rob3rt's rule of thumb, it all seems fairly arbitrary anyway - no offense intended. Actually as I'm now constantly losing 1kg a week, all I care is that now it is working.


----------



## uclown2002 (15 Nov 2013)

Ian Watts said:


> Rob3rt's rule of thumb - 760
> Without HRM Endomondo - 1725 calories
> With HRM Endomondo - 1298
> 
> Anyway - as I was using My Fitness Pal before, you were meant to eat calories burnt in a day (on top of daily calories), and I don't bother with that now. I just thought it was interesting that at least with the HRM it had more data to go on. With no way to measure, including Rob3rt's rule of thumb, it all seems fairly arbitrary anyway - no offense intended. Actually as I'm now constantly losing 1kg a week, all I care is that now it is working.



Indeed, it's all guesswork but keep up your progress


----------



## Ian Watts (15 Nov 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> 40cal per mile of what? The HRM doesn't know what you're doing


Which makes it even more arbitrary, i'll just keep enjoying exercise and eating healthy and losing weight. It's why I am doing this.


----------



## Albert (15 Nov 2013)

My Garmin 800 reckons that I average 400 calories an hour when riding in hilly Mid-Wales - 1,000ft of climbing per 10 miles @ 10-12mph average speed. This seems to be reasonably accurate.
I eat normal food, avoiding nothing. Decent sized bowl of porridge for breakfast, light lunch - portion of chicken + salad (lots of raw spinach) and a big, cooked, meat and 3 veg supper, followed by a large selection of fruit. I nibble the odd bar and always have a cake/sticky bun with my black (no sugar) Costa/Starbucks coffee when I am out. I ride 5 - 10 hours a week + one 1.5 hour gym session - cardio rowing (10mins) and treadmill intervals (30 mins) and weights.
I have gradually lost 7 kilos since February.


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Nov 2013)

Taking the last 12 months worth of data accumulated using my power meter, dividing total work done (kJ) by miles I get a figure 43.8 kJ per mile.

Working on the assumption that kJ = kCal then that is 43.8 kCal per mile.

Note: This assumption of kJ = kCal will of course have limitations, however it is a FAIR assumption to make since the conversion between kJ and kCal is ~0.24 IIRC and the efficiency of the human body is somewhere around 25% (give or take a few % between individuals, this is where error is being introduced, as everyone will vary a little) in converting energy into physical action (the rest goes into heat etc) so you can see that the conversion factors pretty much cancel out leaving a 1:1 relationship between kJ and kCal burnt! Of course the calibration on my power meter will also be a source of error, however it is specified to be within +-1.5%.


----------



## gam001 (16 Nov 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> 40cal per mile of what? The HRM doesn't know what you're doing


Rob3rt's rule of thumb works out pretty well for my rides too...

I usually do flattish rides at around 18-19mph at around 225watts. I have read that 285watts per hour burns around 1,000 kcals. [Where's Carol Vorderman when you need her...] So, over an hour, I would burn around (225/285*1000)=789watts (call it 790 ). Over say 18.5 miles in an hour, that would be 790/18.5=42.7 kcals per mile ridden - pretty close to Rob3rt's "40-ish" 

Obviously, if ridden over hilly terrain, this number would increase. There are other factors too (e.g. weather, aerodynamics, type of bike, etc), but overall this sounds like a sensible guide to me for a road-bike user.

I'm going to remember this when I'm thinking of heading home early..."just another 15 miles = around 600 calories" 

EDIT - HR has always grossly over-estimated my kcals (usually saying around double what the power meter says, and PM supposed to be fairly accurate according to sports scientists).


----------



## 400bhp (16 Nov 2013)

gam001 said:


> Rob3rt's rule of thumb works out pretty well for my rides too...
> 
> I usually do flattish rides at around 18-19mph at around 225watts. I have read that 285watts per hour burns around 1,000 kcals. [Where's Carol Vorderman when you need her...] So, over an hour, I would burn around (225/285*1000)=789watts (call it 790 ). Over say 18.5 miles in an hour, that would be 790/18.5=42.7 kcals per mile ridden - pretty close to Rob3rt's "40-ish"
> 
> ...



Next time you're out with me I will shout this at you


----------



## gam001 (16 Nov 2013)

400bhp said:


> Next time you're out with me I will shout this at you


D'oh!


----------



## Ian Watts (17 Nov 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Taking the last 12 months worth of data accumulated using my power meter, dividing total work done (kJ) by miles I get a figure 43.8 kJ per mile.
> 
> Working on the assumption that kJ = kCal then that is 43.8 kCal per mile.
> 
> Note: This assumption of kJ = kCal will of course have limitations, however it is a FAIR assumption to make since the conversion between kJ and kCal is ~0.24 IIRC and the efficiency of the human body is somewhere around 25% (give or take a few % between individuals, this is where error is being introduced, as everyone will vary a little) in converting energy into physical action (the rest goes into heat etc) so you can see that the conversion factors pretty much cancel out leaving a 1:1 relationship between kJ and kCal burnt! Of course the calibration on my power meter will also be a source of error, however it is specified to be within +-1.5%.


At least that gives me something scientific behind it - better to understand than "Rule of Thumb". You obviously understand this more than me. Why does this page say that 1Kcal= over 4 KJ. http://www.unit-conversion.info/energy.html - and this site - http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/energy/kj-to-kcal.htm (I realise I am arguing against myelf now that Kcal would be even less.)
I am not arguing - genuinely interested. Seriously losing faith in endomondo anyway as it seems to be uninterested in cadence / hrm sensors etc anyway. I do better with my 3 year old Garmin oregon 300, but that won't calculate calories.


----------



## Rob3rt (17 Nov 2013)

Ian Watts said:


> At least that gives me something scientific behind it - better to understand than "Rule of Thumb". You obviously understand this more than me. Why does this page say that 1Kcal= over 4 KJ. http://www.unit-conversion.info/energy.html - and this site - http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/energy/kj-to-kcal.htm (I realise I am arguing against myelf now that Kcal would be even less.)
> I am not arguing - genuinely interested. Seriously losing faith in endomondo anyway as it seems to be uninterested in cadence / hrm sensors etc anyway. I do better with my 3 year old Garmin oregon 300, but that won't calculate calories.



1/0.24 = ~4.


----------



## Albert (17 Nov 2013)

Today in chilly (10c) light wind conditions:
34.5 miles @11.3mph. 2949ft of climbing. 3hrs 2min 30secs. HR - 88mins below 70%, 93mins between 70% and 80%. 9mins between 80% and 85% (some 14%+ ramps). Ave Cadence 65. Calories 1199 - measured by Garmin 800.
I would say that this is an accurate _enough_ measurement.


----------



## Ian Watts (17 Nov 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> 1/0.24 = ~4.


I'm an idiot - I missed that completely.


----------



## HB2210 (17 Nov 2013)

colly said:


> Yep 40 calories per mile is what I reckon too. That equates to 1 jelly baby per mile.
> Probably too many variables to be all that accurate no matter what system you use.....your weight, bikes weight, wind against you or with you, amount of uphill, rolling resistance, dunno what else but maybe even how efficient you actually push the pedals.



Wow 1 jelly baby per mile puts your eating/workout ratio into context !!


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Nov 2013)

I'd be as sick as a dog if I tried eating my milage in jelly babies, hah.

And my milage is not that high either!


----------



## Ian Watts (18 Nov 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> I'd be as sick as a dog if I tried eating my milage in jelly babies, hah.
> 
> And my milage is not that high either!


I can't stand Jelly babies - now if they were fruit pastilles!!


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Nov 2013)

Ian Watts said:


> I can't stand Jelly babies - now if they were fruit pastilles!!



I like them but for some reason, anything more than half a bag of Jellybabies makes me feel really sick.


----------



## HB2210 (18 Nov 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> I like them but for some reason, anything more than half a bag of Jellybabies makes me feel really sick.



Your not trying hard enough ... Persevere


----------



## 400bhp (18 Nov 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> I like them but for some reason, anything more than half a bag of Jellybabies makes me feel really sick.



gelatine


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Nov 2013)

HB2210 said:


> Your not trying hard enough ... Persevere



If I wanted to be sick, I'd just neck a SIS gel!


----------



## HB2210 (18 Nov 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> If I wanted to be sick, I'd just neck a SIS gel!



Shrimps and bananas ??


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Nov 2013)

HB2210 said:


> Shrimps and bananas ??



No I love those! Only thing Aldi is good for!


----------



## HB2210 (18 Nov 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> No I love those! Only thing Aldi is good for!



Ahhhh old school sweets, gotta love shrimps and bananas .... Too nice tho


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Nov 2013)

Contrary to my appearance, I am a proper hog when it comes to sweets and biscuits, I will eat them until I feel sick, then eat some more. People seem shocked when I tell them about my relationship with Maryland cookies!


----------



## HB2210 (18 Nov 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Contrary to my appearance, I am a proper hog when it comes to sweets and biscuits, I will eat them until I feel sick, then eat some more. People seem shocked when I tell them about my relationship with Maryland cookies!



You obviously work it off, wish I had your problem ....


----------

