Calorie counts Garmin and Strava
#51
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,535
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3889 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Or are you saying that Strava does use the PM for calories calculations if there's no HRM, but with an HRM it defaults to deriving calories from HR?
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
I made a mistake in my post 43 up there. I said that TP had calculated the calories for those two 154 miles rides. However Strava shows those same numbers, i.e. they were calculated in my Garmin 800 and therefore the PM made zero difference to their calculation - way, way off. I use an HRM whether a PM is present or not, so that's probably what the Garmin used for the calc. So if one doesn't use a PM or HRM, where would Strava get calorie numbers? It's a little bizarre that Strava does a nice kJ calculation from the terrain, no PM, but then doesn't use that figure for calories.
Or are you saying that Strava does use the PM for calories calculations if there's no HRM, but with an HRM it defaults to deriving calories from HR?
Or are you saying that Strava does use the PM for calories calculations if there's no HRM, but with an HRM it defaults to deriving calories from HR?
Maybe.
#53
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,535
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3889 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
I think that Strava is going to prioritize device/app data. In lieu of that, power data x efficiency. If power data isn't available, duration x HR and other bio factors (age, gender, weight, etc, I would think). If there's no other data available, they probably estimate power (speed, terrain, weight, bike type, etc) and then estimate calories based upon that estimate.
Maybe.
Maybe.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
Interesting that calculations based on HR or power come out that different and that using a PM did not produce a better calorie estimate. I always wear a HR transmitter, so I don't have any no-HRM data. My inputs are accurate, though my Gear weight was a little low for that ride, carrying 3 liters + .~1.5 lbs. of carbs.
If you're talking about the rides that I'd posted, there was no PM present, I was just changing parameters of the bike with Strava.
#55
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,535
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3889 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
I'm not sure what you're referring to. In which instance did using a PM result in a poor caloric estimate? In your two 154 mile rides? If so, what makes you believe that the estimate is poor? What was your total kj via the PM? My ~100 mile rides are typically in the region of 4k cal, so those estimates for 150 miles, even at a slower pace, don't seem far-fetched at all.
If you're talking about the rides that I'd posted, there was no PM present, I was just changing parameters of the bike with Strava.
If you're talking about the rides that I'd posted, there was no PM present, I was just changing parameters of the bike with Strava.
It's a trifle amazing to me that Strava would use a device's calorie estimate in place of hard data from a PM. It shouldn't be that hard to get that right.
And yes, "at a slower pace." Those two rides were at a 14.9 average, down from 16 in my early 60's. It does have over 9000' of climbing. It was interesting to me that Strava's estimate of my climbing power worked perfectly with the PM on the long climbs.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
Last edited by Carbonfiberboy; 02-09-22 at 07:42 PM.
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2333 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times
in
1,314 Posts
Using heart rate is bogus.
Output varies tremendously. Some have a stroke volume of 70 ml per beat and others have 140 or even 200 ml. Moreover, stroke volume of top athletes increases nonlinearly with increasing heart rate.
Any calorie estimate w/o a measure of power is a crapshoot.
Output varies tremendously. Some have a stroke volume of 70 ml per beat and others have 140 or even 200 ml. Moreover, stroke volume of top athletes increases nonlinearly with increasing heart rate.
Any calorie estimate w/o a measure of power is a crapshoot.
#57
Senior Member
I just bought a Garmin Edge Explore, which I will use this coming weekend. The weather is sunny Saturday, and I will post how many calories I burned, with distance.
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
I didn't say that the PM gave a bad calorie estimate, rather that its presence made no difference to the calorie number one way or the other, while you said upthread that it should have. The info you request in in my post 43 which you probably didn't notice. I believe that the calorie estimate is poor because it conflicts with both the PM data and Strava's own estimated kJ figure without the PM.
It's a trifle amazing to me that Strava would use a device's calorie estimate in place of hard data from a PM. It shouldn't be that hard to get that right.
And yes, "at a slower pace." Those two rides were at a 14.9 average, down from 16 in my early 60's. It does have over 9000' of climbing. It was interesting to me that Strava's estimate of my climbing power worked perfectly with the PM on the long climbs.
It's a trifle amazing to me that Strava would use a device's calorie estimate in place of hard data from a PM. It shouldn't be that hard to get that right.
And yes, "at a slower pace." Those two rides were at a 14.9 average, down from 16 in my early 60's. It does have over 9000' of climbing. It was interesting to me that Strava's estimate of my climbing power worked perfectly with the PM on the long climbs.
A quick search yields an old DC Rainmaker post about the various methods that Garmins of that vintage will calculate calories. Seems like a bit of a mess and I can't say that I've ever seen a disparity like that between kj and cal when using a power meter. DCR mentions something about different settings yielding different results, but I don't see mention of whether or not the method used is selectable by the user... but it might be worth poking around the menu.
Regardless, I can't fault Strava with prioritizing data that it's given. I guess it'd be nice if they would provide a "correction" option, like they do with Distance and Elevation, but I still think that your gripe should be with Garmin.
#59
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,535
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3889 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Oh, okay, now I see what you're saying. You think that, since calorie estimate was the same on TP and Strava, the calorie data originated with your Garmin 800 and was simply passed on to both TP and Strava.
A quick search yields an old DC Rainmaker post about the various methods that Garmins of that vintage will calculate calories. Seems like a bit of a mess and I can't say that I've ever seen a disparity like that between kj and cal when using a power meter. DCR mentions something about different settings yielding different results, but I don't see mention of whether or not the method used is selectable by the user... but it might be worth poking around the menu.
Regardless, I can't fault Strava with prioritizing data that it's given. I guess it'd be nice if they would provide a "correction" option, like they do with Distance and Elevation, but I still think that your gripe should be with Garmin.
A quick search yields an old DC Rainmaker post about the various methods that Garmins of that vintage will calculate calories. Seems like a bit of a mess and I can't say that I've ever seen a disparity like that between kj and cal when using a power meter. DCR mentions something about different settings yielding different results, but I don't see mention of whether or not the method used is selectable by the user... but it might be worth poking around the menu.
Regardless, I can't fault Strava with prioritizing data that it's given. I guess it'd be nice if they would provide a "correction" option, like they do with Distance and Elevation, but I still think that your gripe should be with Garmin.
In any case, MinMan's restart question was "why I'm getting such wildly different numbers on Strava for energy (kJ) and calories here?" I'm pointing out a different source of this type of discrepancy which involves Garmin, along with showing how bad Garmin's calories estimate can be, like a little over half the of the true expenditure. Seems like this PM forward programming should apply to any device, rather than accepting the device's calorie estimate.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
#61
Newbie racer
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,406
Bikes: Propel, red is faster
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1575 Post(s)
Liked 1,569 Times
in
974 Posts
For the 1000th time.........HR calories and kj's over count usually because you get credit during recovery when you're not producing any output. Anytime you coast down, aren't pedalling, and the thing is recording.......that's not work you need to get credit for. This is amplified even more for the folks who die on the cross of not using autopause. That in combo with using HR will get you a lot of "fake" work you didn't do.
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716
Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
110 Posts
For the 1000th time.........HR calories and kj's over count usually because you get credit during recovery when you're not producing any output. Anytime you coast down, aren't pedalling, and the thing is recording.......that's not work you need to get credit for. This is amplified even more for the folks who die on the cross of not using autopause. That in combo with using HR will get you a lot of "fake" work you didn't do.
Thanks.
dave
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
For the 1000th time.........HR calories and kj's over count usually because you get credit during recovery when you're not producing any output. Anytime you coast down, aren't pedalling, and the thing is recording.......that's not work you need to get credit for. This is amplified even more for the folks who die on the cross of not using autopause. That in combo with using HR will get you a lot of "fake" work you didn't do.
#64
Newbie racer
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,406
Bikes: Propel, red is faster
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1575 Post(s)
Liked 1,569 Times
in
974 Posts
Although I would hope the software smart enough to see zero speed and not give credit for the HR while stopped.
So, while stopped your HR might go from sweetspot down to z2 and sit in lower z2 for a couple minutes before you pull off again. There should be no credit for that.
That's what I was trying to say.
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716
Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
110 Posts
burnthesheep Got it - makes sense now. dave
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
I typed that on my phone. It copied KJ twice when it shouldn't have. I'm referring to how if someone doesn't use autopause, your HR is recording. However sitting idle no work is being done. So HR calories would accumulate, but not kj's.
Although I would hope the software smart enough to see zero speed and not give credit for the HR while stopped.
So, while stopped your HR might go from sweetspot down to z2 and sit in lower z2 for a couple minutes before you pull off again. There should be no credit for that.
That's what I was trying to say.
Although I would hope the software smart enough to see zero speed and not give credit for the HR while stopped.
So, while stopped your HR might go from sweetspot down to z2 and sit in lower z2 for a couple minutes before you pull off again. There should be no credit for that.
That's what I was trying to say.
The reason HR is so bad for calories is that there relationship between HR and energy use is weak and tenuous. If the problem was timing, programmers would have solved it, the problem is HR just doesn't have enough information about calories in it.
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 326 Times
in
204 Posts
In the absence of power, Wahoo uses HR to calculate calories. Previously, they used HR no matter what, but changed that (I submitted a ticket, but likely so did a bunch of other people). Their HR based value was always greatly overestimated. Strava takes the value from Wahoo (or any other computer that calculates it) rather than calculating calories itself.
Similarly, in my experience anyway, Strava significantly underestimates power in many cases.
Similarly, in my experience anyway, Strava significantly underestimates power in many cases.
#68
Asleep at the bars
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA and Treasure Island, FL
Posts: 1,743
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked 203 Times
in
135 Posts
This is how Wahoo calculates calories from HR data
evaluating this equation once per second
But if not from HR/calorie, how does Strava calculate energy? Maybe Strava is using miles and time? Or some very different treatment of the HR data....
evaluating this equation once per second
But if not from HR/calorie, how does Strava calculate energy? Maybe Strava is using miles and time? Or some very different treatment of the HR data....
Which as we all know is complete garbage.
A lot of genetic variation, but HR also falls off faster when someone is fat than fit.
According to the formula above someone with the same weight, same HR, at a higher age will consume more calories. This is complete nonsense; two people performing the same work will consume exactly the same energy. Age, HR, and weight are all irrelevant.
Better would be to look at the weight, estimated bike rolling resistance, terrain, wind, speed, temperature and humidity, then estimate power and integrate the power estimate over the course slope.
__________________
"This 7:48 cycling session burned 5933 calories. Speed up recovery by replacing them with a healthy snack." - Whoop
"This 7:48 cycling session burned 5933 calories. Speed up recovery by replacing them with a healthy snack." - Whoop
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 5,752
Bikes: 2022 Salsa Beargrease Carbon Deore 11, 2020 Salsa Warbird GRX 600, 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX disc 9.0 Di2, 2020 Catrike Eola, 2016 Masi cxgr, 2011, Felt F3 Ltd, 2010 Trek 2.1, 2009 KHS Flite 220
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4392 Post(s)
Liked 3,016 Times
in
1,865 Posts
I have noticed that my Strava average power numbers are always lower than that given by my Wahoo, even when I'm using a PM. I've not dug in at all to figure out why. As the PM is giving power at each time step, I figure that Strava is counting increments of time (i.e., below 3 mph or something), that the Wahoo is not counting as "moving time". But I don't really know.
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
I have noticed that my Strava average power numbers are always lower than that given by my Wahoo, even when I'm using a PM. I've not dug in at all to figure out why. As the PM is giving power at each time step, I figure that Strava is counting increments of time (i.e., below 3 mph or something), that the Wahoo is not counting as "moving time". But I don't really know.
Likes For WhyFi:
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 326 Times
in
204 Posts
I have noticed that my Strava average power numbers are always lower than that given by my Wahoo, even when I'm using a PM. I've not dug in at all to figure out why. As the PM is giving power at each time step, I figure that Strava is counting increments of time (i.e., below 3 mph or something), that the Wahoo is not counting as "moving time". But I don't really know.
IIRC, I'd average about 170-180 watts on my commute when using a PM and Strava would estimate ~120-130 when I didn't (both done on a road bike). I don't think the relatively few stops (about 80% of my ride is on a bike path) I made would account for such a large difference.
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 5,752
Bikes: 2022 Salsa Beargrease Carbon Deore 11, 2020 Salsa Warbird GRX 600, 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX disc 9.0 Di2, 2020 Catrike Eola, 2016 Masi cxgr, 2011, Felt F3 Ltd, 2010 Trek 2.1, 2009 KHS Flite 220
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4392 Post(s)
Liked 3,016 Times
in
1,865 Posts
I think it's just lower. Strava pauses counting for things like time and average speed, so I don't see why estimated power would be different. Strava's estimates can't know about things like wind speed and direction (often my hardest rides would show the lowest estimated power because it was into the wind), how aero you are, rolling resistance of a given tire/surface combo etc. so they are bound to be inaccurate.
IIRC, I'd average about 170-180 watts on my commute when using a PM and Strava would estimate ~120-130 when I didn't (both done on a road bike). I don't think the relatively few stops (about 80% of my ride is on a bike path) I made would account for such a large difference.
IIRC, I'd average about 170-180 watts on my commute when using a PM and Strava would estimate ~120-130 when I didn't (both done on a road bike). I don't think the relatively few stops (about 80% of my ride is on a bike path) I made would account for such a large difference.
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 326 Times
in
204 Posts
With a PM, Wahoo now uses power instead of HR for calorie burn calculations.
With a PM, between Strava and Wahoo, I find they are quite close. Strava actually reads a bit higher for me. This is, as you and others have said, likely due to minor differences in when the unit is paused vs when Strava considers you paused. If it is way off, then yeah, one likely isn't pausing at all.
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
Just pop in to you Wahoo settings and check to see if it's including zeros (coasting) in the average power calculations - if you're seeing a significant difference, this is probably the culprit. Strava definitely includes zeros in to the average.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Inpd
Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg)
24
07-29-15 06:41 AM
Planemaker
Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg)
56
05-12-15 07:52 AM
dalava
Road Cycling
102
01-04-15 10:06 AM