endomondo calorie calculator

smush
smush Posts: 89
edited August 2011 in Training, fitness and health
just got back from a long cycle , around the 85 mile mark , it says on my endomondo that i downloaded ,and it says ive burnt nearly 5000 calories ,
That sounds alot to me is it right ?

Comments

  • RedRyd3R
    RedRyd3R Posts: 41
    its proberly about half that!
    ive found if you half you weight in endomondo cycling sport mode it is abit more accurate. i have other calorie sensors that are more accurate. i maybe wrong ive been on gynm equipment doing similar distances and not even using a 1-3rd of what endo says. just think of it as a rough guess :-)
    rock sport disk 2010
    trek 1.5 compact 2011
  • doyler78
    doyler78 Posts: 1,951
    I've just checked what my Powertap results with Endomondo and and on a 70 mile ride Powertap said 2600 and Edomondo 2400 and likewise on a shorter ride of just over 1 hour 900 on powertap versus 800 on Endomondo so I'd say it's damn good for a calculator. Having said that 5000 is too much for 85 miles. Interesting how it is pretty accurate for me yet rubbish for you.
  • RedRyd3R
    RedRyd3R Posts: 41
    doyler78 wrote:
    I've just checked what my Powertap results with Endomondo and and on a 70 mile ride Powertap said 2600 and Edomondo 2400 and likewise on a shorter ride of just over 1 hour 900 on powertap versus 800 on Endomondo so I'd say it's damn good for a calculator. Having said that 5000 is too much for 85 miles. Interesting how it is pretty accurate for me yet rubbish for you.

    i think maybe climbing is calculated aswell maybe he has a hilly route.
    rock sport disk 2010
    trek 1.5 compact 2011
  • doyler78
    doyler78 Posts: 1,951
    RedRyd3R wrote:
    doyler78 wrote:
    I've just checked what my Powertap results with Endomondo and and on a 70 mile ride Powertap said 2600 and Edomondo 2400 and likewise on a shorter ride of just over 1 hour 900 on powertap versus 800 on Endomondo so I'd say it's damn good for a calculator. Having said that 5000 is too much for 85 miles. Interesting how it is pretty accurate for me yet rubbish for you.

    i think maybe climbing is calculated aswell maybe he has a hilly route.

    My route was far from flat:

    http://www.endomondo.com/workouts/g_7cQ5v7RdA

    It could be something like that though.
  • Redhog14
    Redhog14 Posts: 1,377
    My Endomondo seems to correspond with my Garmin - give or take 10%.

    Check that you have the right weight measurement in lbs or kilos but 5000 calories sounds like Iron Man territory to me...

    http://www.endomondo.com/workouts/nGwj_7cHC0k
    @surroundedbh
  • amaferanga
    amaferanga Posts: 6,789
    Redhog14 wrote:
    My Endomondo seems to correspond with my Garmin - give or take 10%

    What difference does that make? They're both wrong.
    More problems but still living....
  • doyler78
    doyler78 Posts: 1,951
    amaferanga wrote:
    Redhog14 wrote:
    My Endomondo seems to correspond with my Garmin - give or take 10%

    What difference does that make? They're both wrong.

    You can't say that for certain. My results suggest it is pretty good for me and I have a very good basis for comparison with my powertap results.

    Have you tried it yourself?
  • Redhog14
    Redhog14 Posts: 1,377
    amaferanga wrote:
    Redhog14 wrote:
    My Endomondo seems to correspond with my Garmin - give or take 10%

    What difference does that make? They're both wrong.

    Cause the garmin takes into account my heart rate and has a variety of parameters set in it incl Max HR, weight and historical data. - I also went through the whole labrat testing at Stirling Uni earlier this year and the data again was all within a 10% +/- tolerance.
    @surroundedbh
  • amaferanga
    amaferanga Posts: 6,789
    doyler78 wrote:
    amaferanga wrote:
    Redhog14 wrote:
    My Endomondo seems to correspond with my Garmin - give or take 10%

    What difference does that make? They're both wrong.

    You can't say that for certain. My results suggest it is pretty good for me and I have a very good basis for comparison with my powertap results.

    Have you tried it yourself?

    At least you have something to compare it to.

    There's no consistency with my garmins (Edge 500 and FR 310xt). They don't even give the same figure and when compared to my PowerTap occasionally they'll be close, but more often than not they're miles off. So just because they are similar for one person for one type of ride, doesn't mean they'll necessarily be anywhere near for another person.
    More problems but still living....
  • amaferanga
    amaferanga Posts: 6,789
    Redhog14 wrote:
    amaferanga wrote:
    Redhog14 wrote:
    My Endomondo seems to correspond with my Garmin - give or take 10%

    What difference does that make? They're both wrong.

    Cause the garmin takes into account my heart rate and has a variety of parameters set in it incl Max HR, weight and historical data. - I also went through the whole labrat testing at Stirling Uni earlier this year and the data again was all within a 10% +/- tolerance.

    Garmins are at best a guess (that may or may not be close for you on a given ride), at worst misleading.
    More problems but still living....
  • doyler78
    doyler78 Posts: 1,951
    I think Polar has demonstrated that if you know accurately a person age, height, weight, activity level and most importantly V02 max then you can determine reasonably accurately their calorie use through HR data however the problem is that not many can tick all the boxes. Mine is miles off and that's because I have no idea what my VO2 max is, well apart from that it's sh1t.
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    Why would you base a ride on calories in the first place? There are too many variables to make a like for like comparision.

    Pain is the best indication of a good ride/workout,perhaps the odd look in a mirror.
  • doyler78
    doyler78 Posts: 1,951
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    Why would you base a ride on calories in the first place? There are too many variables to make a like for like comparision.

    Pain is the best indication of a good ride/workout,perhaps the odd look in a mirror.

    Could you not say that about almost any parameter.

    Of course no one thing taken in isolation will be of any use. If I compare a 3 hour ride on two different dates and one used 1500 cals and the other 2500 cals then I can instantly tell that I worked much harder on the second ride. Whether I can tell anything else beyond that depends how good my notes are or what parameters I have recorded. Of course you need to be able to rely on the data.
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    doyler78 wrote:
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    Why would you base a ride on calories in the first place? There are too many variables to make a like for like comparision.

    Pain is the best indication of a good ride/workout,perhaps the odd look in a mirror.

    Could you not say that about almost any parameter.

    Of course no one thing taken in isolation will be of any use. If I compare a 3 hour ride on two different dates and one used 1500 cals and the other 2500 cals then I can instantly tell that I worked much harder on the second ride. Whether I can tell anything else beyond that depends how good my notes are or what parameters I have recorded. Of course you need to be able to rely on the data.
    Thats the problem you pretty much can although HRM,cadence and such would have a greater deal of accuracy than caloric burn. No app,GPS,or cycle computer is capable of accurately calculating how much muscle mass a rider/runner (same principal) has to fuel so the caloric burn can't ever be accurately counted. It may be possible/viable to average out 5x over a route or something but it would never be truly 100% accurate.

    40miles in the living room on the trainer equalled 2600 calories for me,It could honestly be less than 1500,it could be under-reading too but that's no excuse to have an extra Hob-nob

Categories