DreamRider85

My issue is not that MPR overestimates calories. My issue is that it’s wacky. It will say I burned 800 calories. And then I’ll go up a steep hill and after 40 minutes my calories go down to like 600 from 800. I thought that maybe it was trying to readjust for its overestimation to even it out. But anytime I go to certain spots, the calories start changing and getting wacky.

I don’t know why this happens. I’d like an app that just gives me an estimate, not one that jumps around unnaturally.

Troul 

WAHOO estimates without "prerecalculating" its second guesstimate output number. Most *public cal counters will err with a higher number causing false hopes. It's a liability thing. Guess it's safer to be obese with teh diabeeeetuss than not, since you can always sell test equipment.

DreamRider85

Does Wahoo require a heart rate monitor?

Troul 

99% sure all modern wahoo devices do.

wolfchild

Calorie counting is irrelevant and unimportant... Just enjoy your ride and don't worry how many calories you burn.

Garfield Cat

Depends on your rides. Take this article about what it takes to maintain nutrition for the Tour de France.

Of course, not everyone is a pro rider, but there are many riders who pretend to be pro riders. It's time for actors to "get out of character" and face the reality of their situation -- same with riders.

“Three weeks, 21 stages, 3,351km, 176 cyclists and a combined burn of 25 million calories — so what exactly goes into fueling the riders of the Tour de France? | Words by Laura Tilt”

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/r...-france-182775

Melvang

The only way to accurate way to measure calorie usage is to calculate it based on power meter readings. Anything else is an estimated guess at best.

terrymorse 

None of these GPS phone apps have much data to perform a Calorie burn estimate. No heart rate, no power, just a moving blip on a map.

I use a Garmin 830 with the Garmin Connect app and a heart rate monitor, and the calorie readings seem quite reasonable.

From Garmin Connect site:

Sounds sufficiently vague.

The most accurate way to measure calorie burn is with a power meter.

Here's the Garmin Connect readout from a recent ride I did with a power meter:

Moving time: 1:27
Avg temperature: 73.4 ºF
Avg speed: 16.6 mph
Avg heart rate: 135 bpm
Avg power: 170 W
Work: 791 kJ
Calories burned: 791 C

That's a burn rate of 546 Calories per hour. Seems quite reasonable.

Compare that to a similar ride without a power meter:

Moving time: 1:08
Avg temperature: 78.8 ºF
Avg speed: 17.0 mph
Avg heart rate: 135 bpm
Calories burned: 681 C

That's a burn rate of 601 Calories per hour. Maybe a bit high, but not crazy different than the power meter results.

Pinelander

Interesting article. All that bulk has to go somewhere. It made me wonder about the toileting accommodations and how they handle that.

GhostRider62

Without a power meter, they are all guesses and bad ones at that.

I typically average 25 cals/mile

guachi

I've never found a calorie estimator that wasn't ludicrous. Even using a HR monitor is likely to be wrong but it's likely to be consistently wrong in the same direction. I have a a power meter and calorie estimates from my HR strap are about 25% too high.

veganbikes

When you get the diabetus make sure to buy all your diabetus testing supplies from Liberty Medical. You can bet your bottom dollar Wilfred Brimley didn't need no calorie counter and he was 85!

growlerdinky

windy that day

ksryder

Disclaimer I am not a scientist but I've read stuff on the internet so basically the same.

Estimates without power data are just based on formulas based on age/weight/gender/time and for whatever reason are always high. (Btw Wahoo will work without a HRM it just spits an estimate at you though.)

Power meter numbers are also based on an estimate but it's much more accurate and the difference between power input at the power meter and actual calories burned is such a small number that it's effectively insignificant and the only way to truly measure calories burned is in a lab with a whole bunch of crap hooked up to you.

When I started riding a smart trainer in the winter that had actual power numbers I got a good idea of what I'm burning in an hour -- about 600 calories per hour, but 700 for a really, really hard workout. What I've noticed when I compare that to the estimates when I ride without power data is that they're usually about 2x as high as my actual averages. If I'm counting calories I take that into consideration. (But I don't count calories any more because it's depressing.)

guachi

Yeah. That calorie estimate is way off. It implies a power output of 400+ watts for 2.5 hours. The estimated power is closer, though if it were me riding it would be slightly too low. Maybe 1600 calories?

bblair

Here is the formula that Wahoo uses: https://support.wahoofitness.com/hc/...o-Fitness-App-

So today, 75 miles, average heart rate 118. I weigh 145lbs and am 65 years old. All of that comes out to 31352 calories (actually Kcal for us nerds) which by my research comes out to about 20 beers. The new metric being BPR (Beers per Ride). I traded some of that for burgers and fries.

Iride01 

Don't use Calories to estimate Power. The numbers your device is trying to give you for Calories is just for dietary purposes and subject to large variables and frequently any one ride won't be correct. Especially if you compare it to the number another device came up with or the device of someone else.

If you are only using that number for dietary purposes, then just worry about the final number after the ride is over. Don't compare to anything else. Over the course of many rides it'll be way more accurate than the number of Calories you recorded as what you ate.

If you are wanting a number for Power, then get a power meter. Then you'll have something that can give you a more reasonably accurate number for Power and Calories burned.

growlerdinky

i know you can relate. You kept your head up after you forgot your tool bag. Then your chain fell off about 3 miles in! you got stuck and had to force it out, then bent a chain link so had a skip like every 15 seconds. You almost turned back but went for it hoping you wouldn't flat with no tools or spare. But you got a ride and in and got to test the new Xoss gps thingie!



that right there is what they call "TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT"



Or should I say "ZPIRIT" You know, in case "SPIRIT" is taken?


Keep the rubber side down, man.

Sy Reene

Yeah, with a powermeter, basically Strava seems to always show me almost the same number of calories as the Energy Output value (kilojoules)

pdlamb

There's a reason for that. 4.184 kJ/Cal (from memory) and 25% average human body efficiency. Do the math (4.184/4) and they're identical to within 5%, which is probably as accurate as the 25% number is.

Sy Reene

Makes sense that there's a correlation, but then it's a head scratcher why Strava supplies UCantTouch with numbers so disparate from one another. It's like it's using completely different methods of estimating total work and calories.

Flip Flop Rider

don't believe any device can show calories burned accurately. Too many variables involved

my Garmin always over estimates in my opinion

DangerousDanR

Did I miss the sarcasm? Many years ago I would ride from Newport Island up to Long Beach and back. Always more than 3.1 MPH.

Here are the numbers for last Tuesday's ride. That is windy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date | Time(cdt) | Wind(mph) | Vis.(mi.) | Weather
18 | 18:53 | S 21 G 40 | 10.00 | A Few Clouds and Breezy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rider weight is about 240 pounds. Ride distance was 22.7 miles, out and back. Maximum speed was 32 MPH, Average speed was 15 MPH (yeah, riding into 40 MPH gusts is hard). Heart rate range 120-144. Calories according to Wahoo: 1164. Correct or not I can't say, but the count is consistent and does seem to reflect effort.

blacknbluebikes 

Ride more, eat more. Ride less eat less. num num num. After that, the measurements are just quantitative guestimation. Value can come from two places: first, as a relative measure of weekly work when compared to dietary intake and weigh-ins. Over enough time, one can understand how much riding is needed to offset general dietary intake specific to your own metabolism. Second, as a data-point in understanding your body's response to bigger rides versus intake (ate 1200 kcal yesterday, rode 80 miles today, now can't get off floor). Totally agree with posters above that power-meter input greatly improves the quality of these apps estimation (if app supports it, of course). But, even without that incremental precision, long data sets can give intuitive perspective. Most important, I think, is that most people need to generate a 500 kcal/day deficit to lose 1lb/week. I used to play with all those numbers, it can be interesting. Now I just look at whether my jeans are too tight or two loose - gives me the same message.