Garmin or Endomondo?

[Darren862]

I went out yesterday and used my Garmin forerunner 305 with HR monitor. I also tried Endomondo. Endomondo didn't have a HR monitor. They both gave roughly the same information except for calories burnt. Endomondo gave a figure of just over 400 while the Garmin was a little over 1000. Both were set for cycling. Which is the more accurate? I'm assuming its the Garmin because of the HR information it receives.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk

 

[HLaB]

I've no idea which is more accurate but if you are trying to lose weight I'd go with the lower figure. Also check what information you've got in each regarding weight (personal & equipment) this makes a big difference.

 

[Darren862]

Both are set up with the same information regarding weight etc.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk

 

[jowwy]

How far did you go?? What was your average speed???

 

[Darren862]

I did 12.5miles. Averaged 13mph. Pretty overweight and unfit. I'm trying to change all that.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk

 

[jowwy]

Im 15stone and work on the 50calorie per mile calculation off the livestrong website.

Youll get others that will tell you differently but it works for me and ive lost over 4stone using that calculation, thats with an average speed of 12 to 14mph.

 

[Darren862]

jowwy, congrats on losing the 4 stone!! I'm now 20 stone. I was 23stone just before Christmas so it's going in the right direction. Is the 50 cal per mile specific for your weight? I've tried to find it on Livestrong but failed. That would give me a 3rd figure of 625 calories I burnt. Surely, the amount of effort that was put into any ride would affect the cals burnt and with the HR monitor the Garmin would then be the more accurate? Or, am I missing something??

 

[Tomba]

Did you try and edit the ride info in Endomondo for Avg/Max HR? I think the calorie count changes once you put in the Avg.

 

[jowwy]

50 calories per mile is for a male of 195lbs in weight - i'm around the 200lbs mark so i use that as my base.

 

[Sittingduck]

I would be trusting the figure from the HRM enabled device, over the other one. 1000 sounds a little steep but I would have thought it's probably not a million miles off the pace, compared to the 400 quoted by Endo' (given your weight).

I used to receive estimated burns of around 900 for a 45 min commute, all be it ridden at a faster pace. I have lost a little weight lately so the burn estimates have gone down. I would take the estimated figures with a pinch of salt and just see how it works out over a few weeks. You will soon figure out what seems right. It's not an exact science and even the HRMs just take a guess, more advanced ones perhaps take slightly better guesses (those with Vo2 MAX settings, etc.) You need to work out your true Max HR also to get a more accurate estimate of stuff like this but I have never gotten round to it

 

[david k]

endo told me 888 calories for a 12.5mile ride in 1 hour, part trach and part road. im nearly 16 stone

50 per mile would give me 625 calories

 

[amaferanga]

HR-based calorie estimates are no better than the rough rule of thumb 50kCal/mile estimate. The calories you burn on a ride is determined largely by the power output. Two riders could have very different HR (as a percentage of their own maximum HR) for a ride, but have exactly the same power output. So they burn roughly the same number of calories (based on the energy expended as given by a power meter), but any HR-based calculator could give very different figures.

Now, 1000kCal/hour equates to about 270W average power for the hour. Unless you were riding up hill for the whole hour, no way would you only have averaged 13mph with a power output of 270W. FWIW on rolling roads in the UK (with the odd stop at junctions or traffic lights), only fairly handy amateur racers would be averaging 270W and they'd be averaging >20mph in doing so.

So my advice would be to ignore the Garmin and Endomondo and go with a (perhaps) conservative rule of thumb calculation such as 50kCal/mile.

 

[jowwy]

HR-based calorie estimates are no better than the rough rule of thumb 50kCal/mile estimate. The calories you burn on a ride is determined largely by the power output. Two riders could have very different HR (as a percentage of their own maximum HR) for a ride, but have exactly the same power output. So they burn roughly the same number of calories (based on the energy expended as given by a power meter), but any HR-based calculator could give very different figures.

Now, 1000kCal/hour equates to about 270W average power for the hour. Unless you were riding up hill for the whole hour, no way would you only have averaged 13mph with a power output of 270W. FWIW on rolling roads in the UK (with the odd stop at junctions or traffic lights), only fairly handy amateur racers would be averaging 270W and they'd be averaging >20mph in doing so.

So my advice would be to ignore the Garmin and Endomondo and go with a (perhaps) conservative rule of thumb calculation such as 50kCal/mile.

the reason i use this rule is cause my home bound commute is uphill for 13 of the 15 mile journey and i average 13mph

 

[Darren862]

HR-based calorie estimates are no better than the rough rule of thumb 50kCal/mile estimate. The calories you burn on a ride is determined largely by the power output.

I think it's pretty clear that I don't understand HR and calories etc but isn't it more to do with effort rather than power output? To get my HR to max I would put in as much effort as anybody else but my power output, I suspect, would be considerably less than most. Because of my size, would I not then burn more calories than someone half my weight?

 

[amaferanga]

I think it's pretty clear that I don't understand HR and calories etc but isn't it more to do with effort rather than power output? To get my HR to max I would put in as much effort as anybody else but my power output, I suspect, would be considerably less than most. Because of my size, would I not then burn more calories than someone half my weight?

The work you do largely determines the calories you burn. And as I'm sure you know Power = Energy/time. So measure the power you expend riding your bike and you have a direct measure of the work you're doing. Whether your heart needs to beat at 150bpm or 180bpm to do this is not relevant - the work you do is the same. Now if cyclist A is heavier than cyclist B (and ignoring the fact that the bigger cyclist will probably be less aerodynamic) then for a given ride cyclist A will need to average a higher power to travel at the same speed. He could be doing this with a HR that is higher or lower than that of cyclist B even if they actually have the same max HR. So a calorie estimate based on HR could be about right, or it could give cyclist A burning more calories than cyclist B or it could give cyclist A burning fewer calories than cyclist B. Using only max HR (and even adding weight and other parameters such as speed into the mix) the HR based calorie estimates are no better than an educated guess and for most people will be wrong. If you're lucky it'll only be a bit wrong in the right direction (i.e. a bit of an underestimate), but for many it'll be way, way off. Hence the large number of cyclists that are trying to lose weight using these HR based formulae who end up perplexed when despite thinking they're running a significant calorie deficit, don't lose any weight.