5 different calorie readings when I exercise

Options
gregsonevans
gregsonevans Posts: 232 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I have been cycling about 50 miles a day and today I decided to set up and wear as many things as possible to monitor my ride.
1. Endomondo app on mobile phone tracked the ride at 52 miles and gave me 4211 calories
2. Sports tracker app on mobile phone tracked the ride at 52 miles and gave me 4163 calories
3.Myfitnesspal worked out my ride as about 3500 calories
4.Oregon heart rate monitor gave me 2938 calories
5.My new Garmin 705 gps with heart rate monitor tracked my ride as 52 miles and gave me 3894 calories

What number should I use as a guide? I thought these things were supposed to help you but I just feel more confused than ever and want to throw them all in the bin.
«1

Replies

  • MinnieInMaine
    MinnieInMaine Posts: 6,400 Member
    Options
    How do those HRMS track your heart rate? Do you have a chest strap so you get a constant reading or do you have to touch them now and then to get a reading? And do they take your personal stats (height, weight, age, gender) into account?

    The more information they use, the more accurate they'll be.
  • discoqueen73
    discoqueen73 Posts: 24
    Options
    Hi Greg

    I would do the most logically thing which is add all the five calorific values together and divide by 5. That will give you the average of them all and is probably the closest match.

    I make this average number to be 3741 calories which is the number I would go with.

    However, I would stick to the HRM Oregan thing you have as that number was the closest to the one above so probably the most accurate :)

    Hope this has helped!
  • Determinednoob
    Determinednoob Posts: 2,001 Member
    Options
    Do same exercise every week. Eat same calories every day. Adjust calories based on results. Problem solved.
  • lauracljc
    lauracljc Posts: 20
    Options
    Calorie burn is different depending on how much a person weighs. A 200 pound person burns calories at a faster rate than a 120 pound person.
  • BerryH
    BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
    Options
    Take 5. Even the best HRM is only 75% accurate as it's based on standard algorithms based on an average person of your height, weight and gender. GPS adds in distance and elevation as a better measure of how far you go and, importantly, at what elevation.

    I find MFP's calorie estimations to be as good as any other so long as you're honest about the effort you're putting in and leave a margin of error.
  • BerryH
    BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
    Options
    Also I'd have loved to have seen you cycling down the street bristling with gizmos :laugh:
  • LowcarbNY
    LowcarbNY Posts: 546 Member
    Options
    "A man with two watches never knows what time it is"

    All of these are GUESSES. What type of precision were you expecting?

    Unless you are in a medical laboratory exhaling all of your CO2 into a machine to calculate your metabolism very accurately you surely can not expect to get better than +/- 10% out of any HRM device.

    The MFP value. Who knows where that cam from or what it represents.
  • gregsonevans
    gregsonevans Posts: 232 Member
    Options
    I have entered all my details on them, weight, height etc and I was wearing 2 chest straps for the heart monitors
  • gregsonevans
    gregsonevans Posts: 232 Member
    Options
    Also I'd have loved to have seen you cycling down the street bristling with gizmos :laugh:

    I could only just about turn my handlebars with all the weight on them :laugh:
  • blackcoffeeandcherrypie
    blackcoffeeandcherrypie Posts: 486 Member
    Options
    From personal experience, I'd say the Garmin is likely to be pretty accurate. Your other heart rate monitor is very different to the rest and make be malfunctioning, could it need a new battery, tighter chest strap or being interfered with by the other hrm?
  • SJCon
    SJCon Posts: 224
    Options
    Based on the average I would just start using the Garmin if going with one. People get hung up on the numbers A LOT and it is all estimates even calories in which is why it is sort of funny to see so much obsessing over if you eat your exercise calories back etc. That being said I tend that way myself LOL I love my Polar with its fitness test and own cal if for no other reason then it reduces my own obsessing.:blushing:
  • MinnieInMaine
    MinnieInMaine Posts: 6,400 Member
    Options
    Hm... I'm also wondering if there might've been interference with the two chest straps. I'm sure they do different coding but that seems iffy to me. If you go the same route, how about trying it again and use the Garmin one day then the Oregon the next and get a real test of how different they might be. Also, as someone else stated, make sure they're functioning well with proper fit, wetted straps (if it applys) and that they're clean.

    If not, I'd say take the average or even lowball a little and go with 3500.
  • gregsonevans
    gregsonevans Posts: 232 Member
    Options
    Both of the hrm's were showing pretty much the exact same bpm and the average was the same after the ride so I would have thought that they were working properly, the average was much the same as it normally was when I only had the Oregon on
  • gregsonevans
    gregsonevans Posts: 232 Member
    Options
    I wonder how much money is spent every year on rubbish that is just pure guesswork? I think the best advice is to not trust any of them and keep your money as my wallet is losing weight faster than me !!!
  • kyle4jem
    kyle4jem Posts: 1,400 Member
    Options
    I wonder how much money is spent every year on rubbish that is just pure guesswork? I think the best advice is to not trust any of them and keep your money as my wallet is losing weight faster than me !!!
    I certainly think there's a lot of truth in that! :laugh:

    I have a Polar FT4 which I use when I'm out on the bike. I've used it for walking too, but I doubt it's that accurate but at least it gives me an average heart rate reading. I also track my ride with RunKeeper phone app but the weird thing is the phone app tells me I've burnt X Calories and then when I go online to Runkeeper.com to update my logs, it gives me a different value, so I stick to my FT4's readings.

    And for swimming I've an ingenious spreadsheet that seems to give me a satisfactory reading.
  • gregsonevans
    gregsonevans Posts: 232 Member
    Options
    When I use my Oregon hrt I have to bust a gut on my bike to get about 600 calories per hour and when I am out walking with my 4 year old niece it gives me over 300 for walking at a snails pace !!!
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    I wonder how much money is spent every year on rubbish that is just pure guesswork? I think the best advice is to not trust any of them and keep your money as my wallet is losing weight faster than me !!!

    WINNER!!!!
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    From personal experience, I'd say the Garmin is likely to be pretty accurate. Your other heart rate monitor is very different to the rest and make be malfunctioning, could it need a new battery, tighter chest strap or being interfered with by the other hrm?

    How could you possibly know that the Garmin is likely to be pretty accurate? Based on what?

    (Sorry, not meaning to pick on your personally, but I am easily astounded when people believe any one device is more likely to be accurate than another. Outside of a laboratory setting, I believe it is impossible to determine accuracy of a device that estimates based on so many factors that vary between people.)
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    From personal experience, I'd say the Garmin is likely to be pretty accurate. Your other heart rate monitor is very different to the rest and make be malfunctioning, could it need a new battery, tighter chest strap or being interfered with by the other hrm?

    How could you possibly know that the Garmin is likely to be pretty accurate? Based on what?

    (Sorry, not meaning to pick on your personally, but I am easily astounded when people believe any one device is more likely to be accurate than another. Outside of a laboratory setting, I believe it is impossible to determine accuracy of a device that estimates based on so many factors that vary between people.)

    That's the part that slays me. When people say that X has been more accurate for them than Y. Based on what empirical evidence???? I have a feeling that if I replaced the electronics in a HRM with a Magic 8 Ball people would still believe whatever number came up and say it was more accurate than MFP.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    Endomondo gives me about double what my HRM does and I don't completely trust my HRM but I go with about 70% of that number.

Categories