Calorie counters. How accurate or otherwise are they?

[Cyclopathic]

After 5 miles and a very low average speed of about 10mph the claories burnt page on my wee computer was saying 320. This seems an awful lot for such a short and leisurely sojourn. I realize that they represent only a best educated guess but this figure seems a bit far fetched to me.
Does anybody know enough about this to say how realistic 320 cals on a very gentle 5 miles is.

 

[quikanth]

i use this site to guage a 'rough' amount of calories burnt each trip

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/lookup

 

[amaferanga]

Its way over.

 

[barongreenback]

Its way over.

Not necessarily, if the OP is very overweight.

 

[Melonfish]

I'd say over, i do 5 miles each way for work and my aldi comp says 250 each way for me, that's oddly rather accurate for my weight so i don't tend to argue with it that much i've compared it against a good few sites.

pete

 

[amaferanga]

Not necessarily, if the OP is very overweight.

Its way over. Doesn't matter how much he weighs - he said it was at a leisurely pace and by the sounds of it it was on fairly flat roads so weight is not a major factor. 10mph doesn't equate to many Watts.

 

[Buddfox]

Was it a Garmin? Their calorie counter is notoriously generous - received wisdom is to divide the number by half. I understand it's because of restrictive patents on the use of accurate calorie counting systems

 

[sabian92]

I use a general rule of 40 kcal per mile - less if downhill and slightly more if uphill. Not sure how accurate that is but I read it on here.

 

[amaferanga]

Was it a Garmin? Their calorie counter is notoriously generous - received wisdom is to divide the number by half. I understand it's because of restrictive patents on the use of accurate calorie counting systems

Not quite. Not all Garmin devices use the same algorithms. My 310xt is usually under by around 30-50% (compared with the kJ figure from my power meter).

 

[Cyclopathic]

i use this site to guage a 'rough' amount of calories burnt each trip

http://www.myfitness...exercise/lookup

I entered the details of the same ride and the calories burnt came back at over 700. All the wishful thinking in the world can't make that number true. At the moment I'm 19 stones 7 pounds and falling but even so. With these sorts of figures pro cyclists would have to eat their own body weight every day.

 

[Melonfish]

I entered the details of the same ride and the calories burnt came back at over 700. All the wishful thinking in the world can't make that number true. At the moment I'm 19 stones 7 pounds and falling but even so. With these sorts of figures pro cyclists would have to eat their own body weight every day.

well remember the larger you are the more calories you burn, so technically a whippet of a man would burn less on the same route as myself would (104kg) this makes sense because i'm lugging my fat arse around and he isn't.
pete

 

[amaferanga]

well remember the larger you are the more calories you burn, so technically a whippet of a man would burn less on the same route as myself would (104kg) this makes sense because i'm lugging my fat arse around and he isn't.
pete

No. The calories burned from cycling are related to your power output. Just because you weigh more doesn't mean you put out more Watts. Of course if 2 cyclists ride up a hill at the same speed and one weighs more then he will burn more calories.

 

[apollo179]

well remember the larger you are the more calories you burn, so technically a whippet of a man would burn less on the same route as myself would (104kg) this makes sense because i'm lugging my fat arse around and he isn't.
pete

Yes - as weight of object increases , energy required to move it increases. Makes sense.

 

[Tyres23]

And the larger we are cos I'm no spring onion!!! The harder our heart rate has to work burning more calories