Bicycling - Road and Mountain

Join

Most Accurate Calorie Burn Calculator of Cycling

Options
cyclist_44060
cyclist_44060 Posts: 86 Member
in Social Groups
I have looked at various different websites to try to find the one that would most accurately calculate calories burnt from a ride. I would be interested in what others use that many be more accurate. I have used calores burn from my cyclocomputer, Mapmyride and MFP, all of which are largely different.

Thanks

Replies

  • Cyclink
    Cyclink Posts: 517 Member
    Options
    A powermeter is the most accurate, but it's a bit on the pricey side and you usually learn that you're burning about 60% of what most heart monitors tell you.
  • Dahamac
    Dahamac Posts: 213 Member
    Options
    I had heard that the Garmin 500 counted calories as low but after a year of plateau'ing and then gaining I am starting to believe it is more accurate than MFP, or Ride With GPS. However, I am going to try this formula.


    C = [(( 0.6309 x Avg HR + 0.2017 x Age + 0.09036 x Weight - 55.0969) x Time (min))/4.184] x % of max HR

    I added the % of max HR (divided avg HR by your max HR) because I don't know my VO2MAX and supposedly without the VO2MAX number the formula calculates high.

    So far, this calorie number is about 60-75% lower than RWGPS, so that is inline with Cyclink's powermeter statement. I'd love to be able to afford a powermeter.
  • Evachiquita
    Evachiquita Posts: 223 Member
    Options
    I have wondered for a few months whether my Garmin Forerunner HRM (non-gps) is really that accurate. I think that for mid-level intensity workouts it's probably fairly accurate and it is in line with what MFP gives me. However, I still had my doubts so I did some reading up on it and I came to the conclusion that it is overestimating about 30% (whether it's actually true, I dunno, but it's what I'm going with). So now I am correcting my HRM generated calorie burn by subtracting 30%. This would also be more or less inline with Cyclink's powermeter statement.
  • matsprt1984
    matsprt1984 Posts: 181 Member
    Options
    I currently have a SRM. I had a Power Tap and tomorrow the shop will order a QuarQ Elsa. Long story - don't ask. For accuracy all have their pluses and minuses. I think the software is as important as the measuring hardware.

    I guess it really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Simply counting calories, you can use a Garmin 500, get a really valid max HR and work backward from there setting zones. I'm a cynic by nature and don't think most on this site can/will do what
    is necessary to get a solid max HR. It is not fun. A VO2 max test is great but as you change so does VO2 max. So unless you can get it checked on a regular basis that number will soon become useless.

    If you follow those zones religiously you should know in about a month if you are correct. That said there are way too many variables to know if your cycling calories are correct. You either lose weight (if that is your goal) or you don't. If not change something.
  • cyclist_44060
    cyclist_44060 Posts: 86 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the formula, though it may not be perfect, I am sure it will be alot closer than what I have been using.
  • Dahamac
    Dahamac Posts: 213 Member
    Options
    Last time I tried hitting MAX HR I tweaked my achilles (just a coincidence but nonetheless it left an impression). I managed to get to 174 on this ride; http://ridewithgps.com/trips/1020112. The formula says my MAX HR should be 178 and I'm fine with that apart from being somewhere safe to test my MAX HR. At 174, I was hurting rather badly.

    An easier check is my resting HR and at 45bpm, I'm not too concerned with trying to raise my Max. I have in my mind a rough estimate plugging these numbers into the HR Zones that my LT is 150. Sure enough if I push above 150 for very long my legs let me know for the next few days but then again that is how to get faster eh?

    Of course now I need to be losing weight again, so I need to get real conservative on calories burned. Lower body weight + AVG HR = faster speed (in similar atmospheric conditions). I am ready to flatten the hills out a little better and the best way will be to lose the weight.
  • Ianultrarunner
    Ianultrarunner Posts: 184 Member
    Options
    Is the weight calculated using lbs or kgs?
    If I use lbs I get an outrageous (impossible) calorie burn calculation.
    Thanks.
  • Dahamac
    Dahamac Posts: 213 Member
    Options
    It is in lbs. Are you male or female... the reason I ask is that the formula is radically different for a female. So if a female uses the male formula then you will get really high calories.

    Trying to find the original source for the formula...

    This works

    Formula
    The Journal of Sports Sciences provides a calorie expenditure formula for each gender. Men use the following formula: Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.2017) -- (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) -- 55.0969] x Time / 4.184. Women use the following formula: Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.074) -- (Weight x 0.05741) + (Heart Rate x 0.4472) -- 20.4022] x Time / 4.184.


    Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/221621-formula-for-calories-burned-during-exercise/#ixzz2QYu1uT6Y
  • Twomirrors
    Twomirrors Posts: 47 Member
    Options
    I'm so glad someone posted this topic. I'm using a Garmin 500, and I swear it's giving me LOW counts for calories burned. The other day I rode 66 miles at 13.9mph, and it only gave me 1500 calories. Today I did 1:40, including a 30 minute TT (156bpm average, 209 watts), and it gave me 537. I'll try running my numbers through the girl formula...

    And for those of you who are considering a power meter, it's a great thing for training. You'll really see how your perceived exertion doesn't match your power output, and you'll be forced to work harder. A friend of mine is letting me use his, and now I'm looking for some SRM compact cranks so I can run a power meter with my Dura-ace wheels. =)
  • composite
    composite Posts: 138 Member
    Options
    Good article here about how Garmin devices calculate calories.
    http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html

    The Garmin calculation is certainly loads lower than Ride with GPS. The longer the ride the greater the numbers differ.
  • BigG59
    BigG59 Posts: 396 Member
    Options
    Good article here about how Garmin devices calculate calories.
    http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html

    The Garmin calculation is certainly loads lower than Ride with GPS. The longer the ride the greater the numbers differ.
    Interesting read. I have only been using my 800 for a few weeks. It definitely gives the lowest value comparing 800 Vs Strava Vs MFP. In fact if I upload my ride from the 800 to Strava, Strava shows I burned more calories than the data on the 800.

    As I have been using these figures to aid in my goal to lose body fat, I now understand why I wasn't losing it as quickly as I was expecting to.
  • composite
    composite Posts: 138 Member
    Options
    I only go on what my Edge 800 says as the web sites (strava, MYR, RwithGPS) recalculate based on heart rate/speed/distance. RwithGPS then uses this number this calculate power so it means that is way out as well.

    Garmin Connect uses the actual data from the Edge 800 for cals not a recalculation.

Categories