Calorie Count Algorithm

[Edge705]

Hi all trying to make sense of the new Garmin 800 I have
Take a look at this http://connect.garmin.com/activity/108924320

Then this http://connect.garmin.com/activity/114394980

This is my commute home from work I do this approx 4 times a week pay particular attention to the calories burnt on each ride

The first link is using the garmin edge 705

The second link is using the the edge 800 which I just upgraded to

Heck of a difference the user profiles in the garmin are exactly the same ie 47 year old occasional cyclist which one do you rekon would be the most acurate ? I would say 176-180 is at the top of my HR bracket ie: im blowing out of my backside 160-166 is normal for my commute rides anything in the 150's is more than comfortable for me.

Im just trying to work out what would be more applicable I believe its not either and more like around 800 I was told the garmins have the best HR algorithm in fact Polar I believe have been trying to emulate Garmin's algorithm for years

 

[VamP]

The second is a lot closer to reality.

I do similar distance regularly, same sort of speed, same sort of elevation and assume that i burn cca 500 calories per hour, so about 450 calories on that. There is no way you wil be burning 800, never mind the edge 705 number.

Hi all trying to make sense of the new Garmin 800 I have
Take a look at this http://connect.garmi...ivity/108924320

Then this http://connect.garmi...ivity/114394980

This is my commute home from work I do this approx 4 times a week pay particular attention to the calories burnt on each ride

The first link is using the garmin edge 705

The second link is using the the edge 800 which I just upgraded to

Heck of a difference the user profiles in the garmin are exactly the same ie 47 year old occasional cyclist which one do you rekon would be the most acurate ? I would say 176-180 is at the top of my HR bracket ie: im blowing out of my backside 160-166 is normal for my commute rides anything in the 150's is more than comfortable for me.

Im just trying to work out what would be more applicable I believe its not either and more like around 800 I was told the garmins have the best HR algorithm in fact Polar I believe have been trying to emulate Garmin's algorithm for years

 

[Edge705]

The second is a lot closer to reality.

I do similar distance regularly, same sort of speed, same sort of elevation and assume that i burn cca 500 calories per hour, so about 450 calories on that. There is no way you wil be burning 800, never mind the edge 705 number.

I agree and thanks for that its now put my mind at ease now

Cheers

 

[HLaB]

That 705 reading looks way too much, looking at my records with an older 305 garmin suggests I burn 750-850 calories, I could be wrong but I think time is the major dominating factor I take a few minutes longer than you , my routes are hillier and garmins are notorious for over prediction; if I look at a 47-48min ride its around 650 for me.

 

[jowwy]

I've since switched to a heart rate monitor to try and gauge better my calories burnt - cause some sections of my commute are very hilly and i work a lot harder physically, calories burnt shouldnt be calculated on miles v's time

IMO

 

[jowwy]

Hi all trying to make sense of the new Garmin 800 I have
Take a look at this http://connect.garmi...ivity/108924320

Then this http://connect.garmi...ivity/114394980

This is my commute home from work I do this approx 4 times a week pay particular attention to the calories burnt on each ride

The first link is using the garmin edge 705

The second link is using the the edge 800 which I just upgraded to

Heck of a difference the user profiles in the garmin are exactly the same ie 47 year old occasional cyclist which one do you rekon would be the most acurate ? I would say 176-180 is at the top of my HR bracket ie: im blowing out of my backside 160-166 is normal for my commute rides anything in the 150's is more than comfortable for me.

Im just trying to work out what would be more applicable I believe its not either and more like around 800 I was told the garmins have the best HR algorithm in fact Polar I believe have been trying to emulate Garmin's algorithm for years

On looking at both of your links the second link as you only climbing 377ft - compared to nearly 500ft on the first one, makes a hell of a difference on calories burnt. again its only my opinion.

 

[Edge705]

On looking at both of your links the second link as you only climbing 377ft - compared to nearly 500ft on the first one, makes a hell of a difference on calories burnt. again its only my opinion.

yes strange but its the same route always I dont deviate

take a look at this one http://connect.garmin.com/activity/108924358 again similar climbing but high calorie count which i know know is more improbable than probable

Incidentaly I always wear a heart rate monitor but Im gonna stick with a 600 count for a 48 minute ride just like everyone else seems to be pointing to -

I should point out half the time Ive got a 14LB laptop in my back sack would that make a difference?

 

[jowwy]

For me i would go with what the heart rate monitor says - at least that is telling how hard ur heart is working during the ride and not just a tme v's distance calculation

everybodys body works differently and 600 calories an hour is just an average value, thats worked out by using a standard calculation. I just rode home from work its 12.6miles with a 1000ft of climbing, did it in 63 minutes and my heart rate monitor said i burnt 1100 calories, i'm just under 15st and 5ft 9 and not very fit at all but getting there, so my heart and lungs are working overtime to get me through the commute. The harder you work, the more calories u burn. if you just slow trudge it then calories burnt will be lower.

again its just my opinion, but since starting cycling 6months ago, i have listened to my heart rate monitor and lost just over 4 stone in weight, go figure.

 

[amaferanga]

For me i would go with what the heart rate monitor says - at least that is telling how hard ur heart is working during the ride and not just a tme v's distance calculation

everybodys body works differently and 600 calories an hour is just an average value, thats worked out by using a standard calculation. I just rode home from work its 12.6miles with a 1000ft of climbing, did it in 63 minutes and my heart rate monitor said i burnt 1100 calories, i'm just under 15st and 5ft 9 and not very fit at all but getting there, so my heart and lungs are working overtime to get me through the commute. The harder you work, the more calories u burn. if you just slow trudge it then calories burnt will be lower.

again its just my opinion, but since starting cycling 6months ago, i have listened to my heart rate monitor and lost just over 4 stone in weight, go figure.

You can't work out calories from HR. You can make an educated guess, but its no better than that. No way do you burn 1100 kcal in a little over and hour riding at 12.6mph!

I've got what is probably the most reliable calorie counter on my bike - a power meter. The calories you burn is determined mostly by the Watts you generate. Two riders could have very different HR for the same Watts, hence why calorie estimates on HR monitors or Garmins use various algorithms to try to make a best guess. But the simple fact is you can't guess the power output for a given ride and therefore you can't really make a good guess for calories burnt. My Garmins always significantly underestimate calories burnt, I guess because I'm a slow beater (i.e. I can generate Watts at lower HR than most). For some folk Garmins massively overestimate. Unfortunately without an independent means of calculating calories you'll never know for sure which group you fall into.

HR doesn't actually tell you how hard you're working (how many Watts you're putting out). It just tells you how fast your heart is beating.

But I will repeat - no way do you burn 1100 calories in just over an hour riding at 12.6mph.

 

[VamP]

You can't work out calories from HR. You can make an educated guess, but its no better than that. No way do you burn 1100 kcal in a little over and hour riding at 12.6mph!

I've got what is probably the most reliable calorie counter on my bike - a power meter. The calories you burn is determined mostly by the Watts you generate. Two riders could have very different HR for the same Watts, hence why calorie estimates on HR monitors or Garmins use various algorithms to try to make a best guess. But the simple fact is you can't guess the power output for a given ride and therefore you can't really make a good guess for calories burnt. My Garmins always significantly underestimate calories burnt, I guess because I'm a slow beater (i.e. I can generate Watts at lower HR than most). For some folk Garmins massively overestimate. Unfortunately without an independent means of calculating calories you'll never know for sure which group you fall into.

HR doesn't actually tell you how hard you're working (how many Watts you're putting out). It just tells you how fast your heart is beating.

But I will repeat - no way do you burn 1100 calories in just over an hour riding at 12.6mph.

+1

HR monitor's are virtually useless as predictors of calorific consumption. You're better off working from average speed, and making a hill adjustment.

As amaferanga says, there is no way you can burn even half of 1100 calories in an hour at 12 miles an hour.

 

[jowwy]

Like i said its just my own personal opinion - but i'm losing the weight and adjusting my calorie after rides to take into account what my heart rate monitor tells me i have burnt - and the scales don't lie............

i'm not here to get into arguments over who's right or wrong - i'm just givimg my opinion

http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk

How many calories will cycling burn?
Depending on your weight and exertion level cycling will burn off between 75-670 extra calories* in a half-hour cycle session.


30min Cycling will burn:

• Recreational, 5mph: 75-155kcal
• Moderate, 10mph: 190-415kcal
• Vigorous, 15mph: 300-670kcal

If you are keen to use cycling to burn calories and so lose weight, think about it like this…
A half hour daily cycle trip could burn 11 pounds of extra fat in a year. Because the activity is frequent, the weight is likely to stay off – combine it with a change to a healthier calorie-counted diet and weight loss will be even more effective.

*Extra calories are those you burn on top of the calories you use for basic day-to-day living. Inputting your exercise into your exercise diary will calculate the number of calories you will burn, based on your weight.

 

[VamP]

30min Cycling will burn:

• Recreational, 5mph: 75-155kcal
• Moderate, 10mph: 190-415kcal
• Vigorous, 15mph: 300-670kcal

You gotta love the range on offer. I could just about agree with the low numbers. I guess they're covering their asses for people riding grossly inefficient BSOs witht the high numbers.

670 calories in 30 minutes! Tour de France riders don't burn that much.

Glad cycling is working for you and you're losing the weight though, that's what counts at the end of the day. But if you're adjusting by 1100 calories per hour of cycling, then you're burning the difference somewhere else. Which is fine.

 

[jowwy]

Thats because tdf riders are fitter, stronger and lighter than the average overweight guy on a bike trying to lose weight.

The more unfit and overweight you are the harder your body works to do certain things. Hence the higher calorific burn.

 

[dongo]

The Garmin 705 is known for massively over estimating calorie burn.

There are people who recommend entering your weight as about 60% of actual in order to get a more realistic value.

The 800 is supposed to be better but none of these things can give you any more than a rough estimate.

 

[VamP]

Thats because tdf riders are fitter, stronger and lighter than the average overweight guy on a bike trying to lose weight.

The more unfit and overweight you are the harder your body works to do certain things. Hence the higher calorific burn.

While that is true, the effect is a lot less than you think. And cycling of all sports is towards the least affected end of the spectrum.

I am not sure why you're persevering with this, the information on calorific consumption is easily available out there, and the uselessness of HR monitors, and general tendency of calorie measuring calculators to massively overestimate is well known.