# calorie count differences



## brett sleger (14 Aug 2013)

Hi there I use both endomondo and strava, for endomondo I use for live tracking I then upload it to strava once I have done it.
I will have a calorie count as something like 1200 on endomondo which will then be something like 400 on strava does anyone know why this is?
I thought it may be because endomondo uses height and weight with age whereas strava just uses weight and age?
Any one else notice a difference?


----------



## Moda (14 Aug 2013)

Wow! 1200cals what sort of excercise are you doing?


----------



## vickster (14 Aug 2013)

My rule of thumb estimate is 30-40 cals per mile, more if really pushing it, or up hill, or if you are heavy...seems to be fairly consistent with Strava

Not that it really matters ultimately


----------



## potsy (14 Aug 2013)

I too use the 30-40 cals per mile figure to give me a rough idea of what extra goodies I can eat after a bike ride 

My Garmin pretty much doubles that figure which seems way too high.


----------



## VamP (14 Aug 2013)

The reason will be that both are total guesses. 

@vickster 's method is as good as any, better than most.


----------



## uclown2002 (14 Aug 2013)

Have you considered a heart rate monitor?


----------



## marzjennings (14 Aug 2013)

I've found Strava under calculates calories and power by a lot. I prefer the numbers from my garmin unit which at least incorporates my HR readings.


----------



## Barry Bean (14 Aug 2013)

Even with HR and Cadence monitors, the same workout will get three different totals from Strava, Garmin, and Map My Ride.


----------



## VamP (14 Aug 2013)

Barry Bean said:


> Even with HR and Cadence monitors, the same workout will get three different totals from Strava, Garmin, and Map My Ride.


 
That's because HR and Cadence data has no direct correlation to the calories burned.


----------



## uclown2002 (14 Aug 2013)

I would expect a hrm pre-loaded with personal info like age, weight and resting heart rate to be most accurate.
I cycled reasonably hard (7/10) today for 3.25 hrs and got the following 'calorie burned' readings:-

Strava - 2158 kcal
Garmin Edge 800 - 1591 kcal
Garmin FR70 - 2800 kcal
Myfitnesspal - 2547 kcal

Astonished with the difference between the 2 garmin devices, pre-loaded with same personal info.


----------



## ushills (14 Aug 2013)

Cadence I agree, but HR is linked to work done which in turn roughly based on weight etc will give an approximation of calories burnt.

I find my 200 within 10% of my polar hrm and Strava about half of both other devices.


----------



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

ushills said:


> Cadence I agree, but HR is linked to work done


It isn't. The only thing a HRM can tell you is how fast your heart is beating.



> which in turn roughly based on weight etc will give an approximation of calories burnt.


weight of what? fat tissue? muscle tissue?


----------



## vickster (15 Aug 2013)

uclown2002 said:


> Astonished with the difference between the 2 garmin devices, pre-loaded with same personal info.



Says it all really


----------



## Moda (15 Aug 2013)

uclown2002 said:


> Astonished with the difference between the 2 garmin devices, pre-loaded with same personal info.


I think I'm correct in saying that the 800 uses a much better algorithm (FirstBeat, which they pay an additional royalty for using) than your forerunner which is a bulk standard one. If you used the forerunner 610 then I'm sure the 2 figures would be the same as it too uses FirstBeat. The Firstbeat website goes into much much more detail as its aimed at athletes.


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Aug 2013)

When you are comparing between these units, are you setting the forerunner on cycling mode? I ask because if not, comparing a running unit to a cycling unit is a mugs game!

If the manufacturer has any sense, they will realise that the calorific burn rates vary with sport for obvious reasons. Taking into account that HR is not a particularly good metric for calculating calorie burn in the 1st place, if you then neglect to even fit your algorithm to the sport the device is to be used for, then you may as well just make a number up!

You will simply not get a true value for calorie burn outside of a lab, accepting that any values are a fairly inaccurate estimate is a healthy idea!

FWIW, training with a power meter, the rule of thumb posted by Vickster matches the measured kJ data much better than most HR based estimates.


----------



## VamP (15 Aug 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> FWIW, training with a power meter, the rule of thumb posted by Vickster matches the measured kJ data much better than most HR based estimates.


 
This is my experience also.


----------



## ushills (15 Aug 2013)

According to research the calorie count on polar units should be within 12% when a correct VO2max is inputted, this is for men, for women the units are much more inaccurate generally giving a 33% over estimate.


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Aug 2013)

ushills said:


> According to research the calorie count on polar units should be within 12% when a correct VO2max is inputted, this is for men, for women the units are much more inaccurate generally giving a 33% over estimate.


 

12% IMO is a very large error and that is when a correct VO2 max is entered (BTW you will need to clarify the statement made in the research, are you refering to HR at VO2 max)? Given most people do not have access to a lab to test their VO2 max, they won't be entering a correct value, that is assuming the device allows you to do so, the fact is you don't enter VO2 max at all in these devices, so what can you expect from them?

Also, power at VO2 max will vary.


----------



## ushills (15 Aug 2013)

CROUTER, S. E., C. ALBRIGHT, and D. R. BASSETT, JR. Accuracy of Polar S410 Heart Rate Monitor to Estimate Energy Cost of Exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 1433-1439, 2004.

What they did:
First they wanted to see how accurate Polar's predicted max VO2 and max heartrate predictions are. When you're setting up your Polar HRM it will give you suggested VO2max and HRmax numbers that are based on typical values for men and women, based on your age, height, and weight. The study measured the participants max VO2 and max heartrate by putting the guinea pigs onto treadmills and drawing blood to measure lactic acid concentrations. 

Once they had measured the "true" VO2 and max HR, they set each guinea pig up with two HRMs. One HRM was configured with Polar's predicted HRM/VO2max, and the other HRM was configured with the actual HRM/VO2max that they had determined in the first part. They had the guinea pigs do different activities (treadmill, stationary bike, rowing machine) at different intensity levels, and evaluated all of the data. 

What they found:
For men, the predicted VO2max was pretty close to the actual measured values. The predicted calories burned during exercise was also fairly accurate. If a man uses the Polar predicted VO2max to figure calories burned it will be about 4% off. If a man sets up the Polar with an actual measured VO2max value, it will be about 2% off. 

For women, the Polar HRM predicted VO2max are not as accurate. VO2max was overestimated by 10.9mL/kg x min on average. If a woman uses the Polar predicted VO2max to estimate calories burned, it will be off by 33%. If a woman sets up the Polar with an actual measured VO2max value, it will be about 12% too high. 

Borrowed from another forum.


----------



## uclown2002 (15 Aug 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> When you are comparing between these units, are you setting the forerunner on cycling mode? I ask because if not, comparing a running unit to a cycling unit is a mugs game!
> 
> If the manufacturer has any sense, they will realise that the calorific burn rates vary with sport for obvious reasons. Taking into account that HR is not a particularly good metric for calculating calorie burn in the 1st place, if you then neglect to even fit your algorithm to the sport the device is to be used for, then you may as well just make a number up!
> 
> ...


 
Yes good point! I'll check but not sure I've chosen bike mode as I do other stuff. I think perhaps I've used a 'general' option.


----------



## Rob3rt (15 Aug 2013)

ushills said:


> CROUTER, S. E., C. ALBRIGHT, and D. R. BASSETT, JR. Accuracy of Polar S410 Heart Rate Monitor to Estimate Energy Cost of Exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 1433-1439, 2004.
> 
> What they did:
> First they wanted to see how accurate Polar's predicted max VO2 and max heartrate predictions are. When you're setting up your Polar HRM it will give you suggested VO2max and HRmax numbers that are based on typical values for men and women, based on your age, height, and weight. The study measured the participants max VO2 and max heartrate by putting the guinea pigs onto treadmills and drawing blood to measure lactic acid concentrations.
> ...


 

How did they measure calories burnt? To me it sounds like they are comparing the output of a HR monitor, with and without accurate inputs. What is the benchmark?

Just had a browse of the full paper, can not see any benchmark being used (I will re-read it in full when I get chance). My 1st impression is that the study is like measuring an unknown voltage with 2 different multimeters and then declaring one of them more accurate than the other.


----------



## ushills (15 Aug 2013)

Full papers here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15292754/

I think going back to the op, hrm monitors should give a better guess than an algorithm in an app, however all are still approximations unless you are prepared to carry around lab equipment to carry out indirect calorimetry.

Indirect calorimetry was the comparison method used to benchmark the hrm's.

http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/caloricexp.html


----------



## brett sleger (18 Aug 2013)

Wow what a lot of replies and great info I do have a hr monitor but its the watch type where I need one hand on the face of the watch it was a cheap aldi unit. I am obese for my height according to bmi weighing 14 stone at 5ft7. Id like to get one thats compatible with either strava or endomondo!


----------



## ushills (19 Aug 2013)

brett sleger said:


> Wow what a lot of replies and great info I do have a hr monitor but its the watch type where I need one hand on the face of the watch it was a cheap aldi unit. I am obese for my height according to bmi weighing 14 stone at 5ft7. Id like to get one thats compatible with either strava or endomondo!



If you have a suitable phone you can use a Bluetooth hr belt that you can use with either Endomondo or Strava. Polar and Wahoo are the ones that spring to mind.


----------



## brett sleger (19 Aug 2013)

Excellent I shall get snooping later on as I think itl help a lot with my training zones as well!


----------

