# Which Calorie Count Is Correct?



## G2EWS (9 Sep 2012)

OK, so I have just ridden 10.83 Miles and I have these figures for calorie count:

Garmin - 684
Fitbit - 332

The Garmin I am assuming does the calculation based on the height climbed as well so I would like to think it is more accurate. The fitbit just calculates distance and time. Both based on age and weight.

So which is the more accurate do you think?

Regards

Chris


----------



## vickster (9 Sep 2012)

My rule of thumb is 35-40 cals per mile, so the second one - unless you are very heavy and were riding up hills on a full sus MTB


----------



## Norm (9 Sep 2012)

Neither, they and all 'calories used' displays are based on estimates, at best, without measurements of weight, friction, resistance, they cannot show an accurate figure.


----------



## david k (9 Sep 2012)

some of my results vary wildly. for my size i think 50 calories per mile on an average ride is a conservative estimate, this is often thereabouts with my figures.
having said that, what i seem to notice now is that my long enjoyable slow rides burn a much much lower amount than short faster rides per mile. We are probably realise this would be the case but the extremes are more than i imagined.Butlong slwoer rides burn more fat, so i suppose its what your after also, since using HRM it seems to make the gap bigger, am i right to presume the garmin makes adjustments based on HR?

for me its only a guide that gives more interest to the ride, i know at the end if im tired or not!


----------



## david k (9 Sep 2012)

G2EWS said:


> OK, so I have just ridden 10.83 Miles and I have these figures for calorie count:
> 
> Garmin - 684
> Fitbit - 332
> ...


 
both could be spot on


----------



## G2EWS (9 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> Neither, they and all 'calories used' displays are based on estimates, at best, without measurements of weight, friction, resistance, they cannot show an accurate figure.


 
Hi Norm,

Naturally they cannot be correct, but one is going to be more accurate than the other for sure!!

Regards

Chris


----------



## Norm (9 Sep 2012)

Hmm... yes, obviously one will be closer to the actual calories used figure, unless the actual figure was 508 calories. 

However, knowing which one is more accurate is also not possible, without knowing the algorithms and estimates used by each device, and the actual weight, heart rate, resistance, ambient temperatures... etc.


----------



## david k (9 Sep 2012)

i think all most of us are after is a guide to help calorie counting and maybe just adding a bit more incentive to our rides. I dontthink its that important to the majority of us to be spot on.

For examplemy scales are half a stone out, but i use the same ones each time, for gauging weight gain/loss they do the job


----------



## ClichéGuevara (9 Sep 2012)

I looked up on google to see how food manufacturers determine the calorie figure they print on the packet and for many it seemed to be a best guess taken from charts.

I hope by the fact I simply googled, you can see I'm clueless and making no claim to knowledge, so if my logic's flawed, don't laugh at me or abuse me, I'm more interested in the right answer than being right.


Those that 'measure' it can use different techniques that produce different techniques and it's debatable how much the potential heat content relates to the way that the digestive system handles the food. Sweet corn for example, isn't totally digested, but presumably all the corn is used for calorific content.

Point being, the "wrong" measure of calories burned, could balance if the information for calories consumed is wrong by the same factor.


----------



## amaferanga (9 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> Hmm... yes, obviously one will be closer to the actual calories used figure, unless the actual figure was 508 calories.
> 
> However, knowing which one is more accurate is also not possible, without knowing the algorithms and estimates used by each device, and the actual weight, heart rate, resistance, ambient temperatures... etc.


 
From riding with a power meter which is the most accurate calorie estimator available for everyday riding, I'd say its quite easy to know which one is more accurate (assuming that the OP isn't a 20 stoner).

The lower figure will be closer to reality for a regular rolling route. The Garmin figure is IMO a massive overestimate (which is consistent with what I generally see - don't for a minute think that just because it's Garmin they must have a better calorie estimating algorithm).

For most cyclists, burning anything >800kCal in an hour is fairly unlikely. Most calorie estimators are hopelessly optimistic and unfortunately many people just accept the absurdly high figures cos it makes them feel good and means they think can eat that chocolate without feeling guilty.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (9 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> Neither, they and all 'calories used' displays are based on estimates, at best, without measurements of weight, friction, resistance, they cannot show an accurate figure.


Or power


----------



## G2EWS (9 Sep 2012)

Thanks for all the advice and thoughts. 

Amerferanga, I think your assessment is probably as near as we are likely to get which is the Vickster is saying. So in this case I will stick with the fitbit.

I would like to think that when I am using my Polar watch and chest strap when working out in my gym that it is a bit nearer.

Regards

Chris


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (9 Sep 2012)

This is a good discussion covering the topic:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/ge...on/garmin-edge-500-calories-count-275430.html

I have a Garmin 500 with HR monitor and cadence sensor. It is supposed to be more accurate with the HR monitor as it uses a different algorithm.
It seems pretty accurate but to me it's just another stat. I am not trying to put on or lose weight. I think it is said that an average power of 250w over 1 hour would burn approx 900 calories. That is not just a morning stroll though. There is some effort involved. An example as follows from a 2 lap 10 mile route. This is one lap. 

Time: 25.05
Distance: 10 mile
Av Speed: 23.9
Av heart rate: 154
Max heart rate: 165
Av Cadence: 90
Max cadence: 110
All of this, with my stats input correctly, tells me i have burned 362 calories. Seems much closer to the correct figure. Though the Garmin has no indication at all as to what the wind is doing so that's another variable. 

Make sure ALL of your data has been inputed correctly and get your heart rate zones as close as you can and it will be a workable figure. Firstbeat algorithm, which is apparently one of the most accurate calculation methods in the Garmin range, reckon the figures with Ant+ HR monitors allow for up to 10% inaccuracy. That's not too bad but the device MUST be set up correctly. 

This web page also shows the workings behind the Garmin and is a good read:

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html


----------



## MattHB (9 Sep 2012)

Ive tried many sites and apps for calculating calorie cost... the one that seems to reflect my weight losses best for any given period is Strava. It pitches well below Garmin and cyclemeter who seem to overly inflate figures (to make you feel better? who knows). You can upload your garmin rides to strava, it would be interesting to see the comparison.

count calories in, record mileage and time, weigh in weekly. If you can keep your intake counting accurate (I use mynetdiary) then its pretty easy to get an idea as to which calorie calculators are working for you by looking at the corresponding weight loss.

To loose 1lb of fat you need 3500 calories burned, so a deficit of 500 a day is enough to loose 1lb a week.

Ive lost 3 stone by doing this in a year, so it seems to work.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (9 Sep 2012)

MattHB said:


> Ive tried many sites and apps for calculating calorie cost... the one that seems to reflect my weight losses best for any given period is Strava. It pitches well below Garmin and cyclemeter who seem to overly inflate figures (to make you feel better? who knows). You can upload your garmin rides to strava, it would be interesting to see the comparison.
> 
> count calories in, record mileage and time, weigh in weekly. If you can keep your intake counting accurate (I use mynetdiary) then its pretty easy to get an idea as to which calorie calculators are working for you by looking at the corresponding weight loss.
> 
> ...


Well done on 3 stone lost!! 

I use both Strava and Garmin connect and find the results pretty darn close. A side by side example over a 65 mile route is as follows:

Garmin connect calorie count: 2410
Strava calorie count: 2365

By my reckoning that's somewhere in the region of 2.0% inaccuracy. Again not too shabby.


----------



## david k (9 Sep 2012)

just done a 23 miles ride and it gave me around 750 calories, it would have been nearly double that before i wore a HBM, in fact i may not wear it from now on as i clearly burn more calories when i dont


----------



## Albert (10 Sep 2012)

My Garmin 705 gives some strange figures.
When I'm on my turbo trainer averaging 95rpm, 120bpm and doing 25mph I use between 1400 and I600 calories an hour.
On the road, averaging the same heart rate, but riding at 75rpm, averaging 15mph and climbing between 1000 and 1500 ft it says that I am using between 600 and 800 calories an hour. I reckon the second estimate is likely to be reasonably accurate and therefore always divide my Turbo number by 2.


----------



## Rob3rt (10 Sep 2012)

That's because in that hour it thinks you have gone 10 miles further than when on the road. The resistance on your turbo is set too low.


----------



## Punt1971 (10 Sep 2012)

I have several tools that give me a calorie count (garmin, strava, runkeeper, endomondo). While I appreciate that none of them are accurate I use Strava, due to it giving me the lowest count, to compare rides and not as an excuse for me to eat more (otherwise I'd use garmin! Which gives by far the highest figure). Any calories burned while riding is a bonus to my reduced calorie diet and do not figure into any equations.

Nice loss MattHB! I hope I can follow your example


----------



## Nigelnaturist (13 Sep 2012)

I just look in the mirror compared with 3 months ago.
I have used these sites that calculate calories
My Bryton 35 (first ride with it Tues though no hrm yet, limited funds) said I did an easy 20m and used 744 calories for 1hr 30min riding, so about 500 an hr or 37.2 per mile, first time i worked that out tonight, from when i compared it using web based calculators it would give 50-60 per mile.

I dont eat any different to how I used, maybe a little more, but not very much, I dont weigh myself dont have scales I have an idea what weight I was about 95Kg (though I might have been a tad higher).I dont know what I weigh at the mo and really dont care, but I am fitter have more stamina and run up stairs, my legs are much stronger a weakness I had in my right leg isn't so bad.

I have some shorts that in May I couldn't fasten, now they fit, 34" .and I am 6ft


----------



## Stonerosegardens (17 Aug 2014)

I have a question about the calorie calculators, but from a little different skew.
I am dragging a trailer with 2.5 gallon water jugs inside for training. 2.5 gallons of water weighs approximately 20 lbs. The trailer weighs about 23 lbs.
Can I add the weight of the water and the trailer to my weight and then calculate the calories burned?


----------



## ColinJ (18 Aug 2014)

Why make the rides less pleasurable by riding slower and lugging extra weight behind you, when you could just ride faster without the extra load?

Many of us are trying to do the opposite - minimising weight on us and the bikes.

The added weight isn't going to make a huge difference to how much energy you use unless you are riding up lots of hills.


----------



## Garethgas (18 Aug 2014)

I used to ride with a heart monitor that also measures calories, a polar ft4.
It shows that I burn about 300 to 350 calories an hour. I don't know how accurate it is but when I had it, I had to put my data in ie. height, weight, age resting heart rate etc.
So I'm assuming that it's accurate enough for most people. 
I also happen have one built in to a cheap Aldi computer (Crivit) and it's amazingly close every time!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 Aug 2014)

Garethgas said:


> I used to ride with a heart monitor that also measures calories, a polar ft4.
> It shows that I burn about 300 to 350 calories an hour. I don't know how accurate it is but when I had it, I had to put my data in ie. height, weight, age resting heart rate etc.
> So I'm assuming that it's accurate enough for most people.
> I also happen have one built in to a cheap Aldi computer (Crivit) and it's amazingly close every time!


Calories burned via HRM calculations are arbitary numbers at best.




Stonerosegardens said:


> I have a question about the calorie calculators, but from a little different skew.
> I am dragging a trailer with 2.5 gallon water jugs inside for training. 2.5 gallons of water weighs approximately 20 lbs. The trailer weighs about 23 lbs.
> Can I add the weight of the water and the trailer to my weight and then calculate the calories burned?


No


----------



## Garethgas (18 Aug 2014)

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


> Calories burned via HRM calculations are arbitary numbers at best.
> 
> 
> 
> No



They are not arbitrary at all.
They are a reasonably accurate estimate based on your heart rate and the personal data you enter.
Different manufacturers may use different algorithms for this but they're certainly good enough to give a reasonable estimate for most people's needs.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 Aug 2014)

LOL


----------



## uclown2002 (18 Aug 2014)

Garethgas said:


> They are not arbitrary at all.
> They are a reasonably accurate estimate based on your heart rate and the personal data you enter.
> Different manufacturers may use different algorithms for this but they're certainly good enough to give a reasonable estimate for most people's needs.


I have no confidence in their estimates, much like the online calculators that spit out different results.
I have 2 garmin devices that track heart rate; the Edge 800 and the FR70, both loaded with the same personal data,i.e age, height, weight, fitness activity class etc.
However, calories burned during a bike ride are miles apart, often the 800 is *40% lower* with its estimate.


----------



## Garethgas (18 Aug 2014)

uclown2002 said:


> I have no confidence in their estimates, much like the online calculators that spit out different results.
> I have 2 garmin devices that track heart rate; the Edge 800 and the FR70, both loaded with the same personal data,i.e age, height, weight, fitness activity class etc.
> However, calories burned during a bike ride are miles apart, often the 800 is *40% lower* with its estimate.



I only have experience of the Polar.
As I said earlier, everyone knows it's an estimate but it's based on your details and is perfectly adequate for Mr. Average as a guide.
To be really accurate, you'd need lab conditions I suppose.
I also don't think there's any need for such accuracy for normal exercise, a guide is just a guide.
I must admit though, 40% is way out!
According to some lab tests, the Polar is 2% accurate for men but I'm sceptical about that level of accuracy to be honest.
I don't refer to it much these days but it was a handy reference particularly as I had no idea if I was burning 50, 500 or 5000 calories before.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (18 Aug 2014)

I've been using this web site to calculate calorie expenditure. At the end of this page, there's a link to another calculation which takes vertical gain into account. It's not perfect, obviously, but one of the best I've seen myself.
http://www.cptips.com/formula.htm
I made an Excel spreadsheet with these formulae for convenience.

As for the Garmin, I found that the Edge 705 consistently overestimates calorie expenditure, and so does the Edge 800. But these are just my opinions.


----------



## ColinJ (18 Aug 2014)

You should not really need to know how exactly how many calories you are using. That is an indirect way of working out whether you should be gaining weight, losing weight, or staying the same weight. Why not just weigh yourself?

If you want to be lighter, just exercise more and/or eat and drink less and use scales and a tape measure round the waist to measure progress accurately. It is easy to see if it is working.


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Aug 2014)

Stonerosegardens said:


> I have a question about the calorie calculators, but from a little different skew.
> I am dragging a trailer with 2.5 gallon water jugs inside for training. 2.5 gallons of water weighs approximately 20 lbs. The trailer weighs about 23 lbs.
> Can I add the weight of the water and the trailer to my weight and then calculate the calories burned?



WTF are you doing that for....


----------



## DooDah (18 Aug 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> WTF are you doing that for....


Maybe he is off to give water to some horses????? A bit bloody weird though, reminds me a bit of the Rocky films.


----------



## Leodis (18 Aug 2014)

with a HRM on Garmin it works out at 500 cals per hour depending on HR. I find Strava pretty good on it and it auto loads direct to MyFitnessPal


----------



## uclown2002 (18 Aug 2014)

If you're tracking calories in vs out, then 30-40 kcals per mile is as good as any other approximation.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (18 Aug 2014)

Using an Edge 500 up until last Nov I had my Cal/Mile down to around the 40 mark (635 or so an hr) when I started using the Bryton R20 in Dec it went to 52cal/hr it went up a little from Jan to Mar, the edge 705 gives different results again, the units are a little basic to give anything like accurate results.


----------



## brand (18 Aug 2014)

Simplistic I know but does it matter? The aim (I assume) is to increase your calorie consumption. So as long as the device you use is accurate in its inaccuracy then it doesn't matter! If it says you have used 600 calories and is 20% out, it won't matter if it is always 20% out. An increase to 800 calorie consumption is an increase. As all these devices appear to be wrong or at best untrust worthy then stick with one... the one that gives you the lower score! That way you don't think you can get away with eating a gateaux for breakfast!!


----------



## brand (18 Aug 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> WTF are you doing that for....


Bit harsh, I often pull trailers with firewood or apples in. He could be making savings on his water bill. He could live in a relative flat area and therefore be trying to mimick cycling up hills. Combining cycling and weight training.


----------



## michaelcycle (19 Aug 2014)

brand said:


> Bit harsh, I often pull trailers with firewood or apples in. He could be making savings on his water bill. He could live in a relative flat area and therefore be trying to mimick cycling up hills. Combining cycling and weight training.



It is a "strongman" exercise - the sled drag.

It has multiple applications including saving on your water bill...


----------



## brand (19 Aug 2014)

Arhh so cycling not included. As it is a sled then I would add it. Do you live near the Lincolnshire Wolds? I need some wood picking up and later on some apples! I am happy to do you a favour let you do it.


----------



## Stonerosegardens (22 Aug 2014)

ColinJ said:


> Why make the rides less pleasurable by riding slower and lugging extra weight behind you, when you could just ride faster without the extra load?
> 
> Many of us are trying to do the opposite - minimising weight on us and the bikes.
> 
> The added weight isn't going to make a huge difference to how much energy you use unless you are riding up lots of hills.


Hi Colin,
That's exactly what I'm doing (climbing lots of hills). And I'm only pulling the trailer for the added exercise. i don't have a lot of spare time until later in the fall. When I do get a chance to ride with my family, the rides seem a lot easier, sans trailer.


----------



## ColinJ (23 Aug 2014)

Stonerosegardens said:


> Hi Colin,
> That's exactly what I'm doing (climbing lots of hills). And I'm only pulling the trailer for the added exercise. i don't have a lot of spare time until later in the fall. When I do get a chance to ride with my family, the rides seem a lot easier, sans trailer.


Well, it is your choice ...

I suppose I used to be doing something similar, except that my added load was round my waist - over 60 pounds of it! Riding without that definitely feels a lot easier ...


----------



## ClichéGuevara (23 Aug 2014)

I've never got my head round the calorie thing.

Even if I knew 100% accurately what I'd burned on the ride, I still would't know what I'd burned in other activities during the day. Do people eat to make up the deficit, and/or eat less to lose weight? If it's just weight, how does muscle mass get factored in?

When replacing the calories used, how accurate is the information on calorie content? As I understand it, the figures on packets are a best guess based on the individual ingredients, with no real consideration of the synergistic effects of them all together. 

Even the ones where it's measured in a lab, only really gives the total calorific content, which may well not be available in a usable form.


----------

