Calorie Discrapancy

Options
oeagleo
oeagleo Posts: 70 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hello (again).
I am doing much better on the bicycle, able to go farther with less stops, and am quite proud of my progress. Now, after blowing my own horn, I do have a question as to which is "right"

I purchased a Garmin Edge 705 Bike "Computer/GPS", and used it today for the first time. I LOVE it! Let's me see everything the bike (and, obviously) I do, including the ascent/descent, Heart Rate, calories burned, everything. Great piece of equipment, and I would highly recommend it to everyone interested in biking, and keeping track of their progress.

However, I "was" using the Polar FT60, along with the GPS-1 unit, for the last few weeks, and using that calorie burn amount from that combination. There's a MAJOR discrepancy. The Polar unit says I burned 331 calories over the course of a 2.6 mile ride, while the Garmin, says I burned only 136. The amount of calories burned is really in my mind, just an approximation, and not something to live, or die by, my Heart Rate, time, speed, etc are a more important measure of my progress, but I'm wondering, do the two units differ in the way they calculate the calories burned? They both show the heart rate in the same ranges, so I'm not doubting the accuracy, just wondering which amount I actually did burn. I'm going to use the Garmin number, as it's less, and if it's low, so much the better for me, right?
Thanks

Replies

  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    I'd be inclined to believe the lower number to be more accurate, based on feedback I've gotten from a number fo serious cyclists using power meters on their bikes that (and these would vary with the fitness of the rider and intensity) that 35 to 45 cal per mile are reasonable estimates. (Just for fun I put 15 min of cycling @ 12 to 14 mph in one of the calorie estimation sites and got 198 cal for a 200lb male between 3 & 3.75 miles)

Categories