calorie count differences

[brett sleger]

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]

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

 

[vickster]

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]

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]

The reason will be that both are total guesses.

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

 

[uclown2002]

Have you considered a heart rate monitor?

 

[marzjennings]

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]

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

 

[VamP]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Says it all really

 

[Moda]

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]

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.